Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

Bible Babble Buffet Nine



The Bible Babble Buffet in the New Testament


I would like to start off this section with a short post from another dear brother in Christ who is a King James Bible believer and has his own webpage defending The Book.  His site is called KJV Today.  He posts: 

"Most modern translations are based on an edition of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text, which omits words and phrases found in the Greek text of the KJV.  Proponents of these modern critical texts often claim that the KJV contains "110%" of the word of God and that the modern texts are actually closer to the originals.  Yet modern textual criticism cannot determine correct readings with any certainty.  A textual critic might omit or abandon Textus Receptus readings based on the evidence and theory of his time, but a textual critic at a later time might go back to Textus Receptus readings based on new evidence or theory. This is exactly what has happened."

 



Malachi 2:16 KJB - “For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that HE HATETH PUTTING AWAY; FOR ONE COVERETH VIOLENCE WITH HIS GARMENT,  saith the Lord of hosts: THEREFORE TAKE HEED TO YOUR SPIRIT, THAT YE DEAL NOT TREACHEROUSLY.”



However the NIV 1979 and 1984 editions did not read this way. They USED to say: "I HATE DIVORCE" says the LORD God of Israel, "and I HATE A MAN’S COVERING HIMSELF WITH VIOLENCE AS WELL AS HIS GARMENT," says the LORD Almighty."


But now the NIV 2011 edition says: “THE MAN WHO HATES AND DIVORCES HIS WIFE,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “DOES VIOLENCE TO THE ONE HE SHOULD PROTECT,” says the LORD Almighty.”


The ESV is similar to the NIV 2011 edition in the first part of the verse but not the second part, saying: 


“FOR THE MAN WHO DOES NOT LOVE HIS WIFE BUT DIVORCES HER, says the Lord, the God of Israel, COVERS HIS GARMENT WITH VIOLENCE, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”  


Likewise the Holman Standard 2009 is similar in the first part but not the second, with: “IF HE HATES AND DIVORCES HIS WIFE,” says the Lord God of Israel, “he covers his garment with injustice,” says the Lord of Hosts. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously. 


The Geneva Bible 1599 as well as the Bishops’ bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, Great bible 1540 and Matthew’s Bible 1549 were all very different from the KJB saying: “ IF THOU HATEST HER, PUT HER AWAY, saith the Lord God of Israel, yet he covereth the injury under his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore keep yourselves in your spirit, and transgress not.” 


The King James Bible was the first English translation to get it right. 


Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syraic Peshitta is totally different from them all, saying: “For the LORD, the God of Israel, says THAT NO ONE SHOULD CONCEAL THE INIQUITY OF HIS ROBE, therefore take heed to your spirit, and do not deal treacherously.”  Huh?



The Catholic Versions -


The Douay-Rheims says: “ WHEN THOU SHALT HATE HER PUT HER AWAY, saith the Lord the God of Israel: but iniquity shall cover his garment, saith the Lord of hosts, keep your spirit, and despise not.”


But the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 has: “FOR I HATE DIVORCE, says the LORD, the God of Israel, And covering one’s garment with injustice, says the LORD of hosts: You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith.”



Similar to the King James Bible -


Similar to the KJB are the NASB 1995 - “FOR I HATE DIVORCE,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with ]wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”



Also reading in a similar way to the KJB are The Lesser O.T. 1835, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Young’s 1898, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the RSV 1971, NRSV 1989 “For I hate divorce”, the NKJV 1982, God’s Word Translation 1995, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998,  Green’s Literal 2005, the NET bible 2006 - “I hate divorce” says the LORD, The Mebust Bible 2007, the Holman Standard 2009, the ISV 2014 - “he hates divorce”, The Natural Israelite Bible, Names of God Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011,  the Lexham English Bible 2012 - “For I HATE DIVORCE”,  The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012,  Tree of Life Version 2015. 



Bibles = KJB


Agreeing word for word or almost with the King James Bible are The Bill Bible 1671, the Webster Bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, Darby 1890, The Revised Version 1885 - “For I HATE PUTTING AWAY, saith the LORD, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith the LORD of hosts; therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 - “For I hate putting away, saith the LORD, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith the LORD of hosts; therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the  World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Hebrew Roots Bible 2015.



Mark 1:1:


 

The KJB says, "the Son of God;"

The TNIV of 2005 omitted the phrase.

The NIV 2011 put the phrase back into the text.


Mark 10:7: 


The KJB says, “cleave to his wife.” 

The NASB of 1977 and 1995 omitted the phrase. 

The ESV of 2001 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:6: 


The KJB says, “He is not here, but is risen:” 

The RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text at the end of the previous verse. 



Luke 24:12: 


The KJB says, “Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.” 

The RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:36: 


The KJB says, “And saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” 

The NASB of 1977 and RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NASB of 1995 and the NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:40: 


The KJB says, “And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” 

The RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:51: 


The KJB says, “and carried up into heaven.” 

The NASB of 1977 omitted the phrase. 

The NASB of 1995 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:52: 


The KJB says, “worshipped him.” 

The NASB of 1977 and the RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NASB of 1995 and the NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text. 



John 13:32:


      . The KJB says "If God be glorified in him"


      . The RV 1881, ASV 1901 omitted these words.


      . The NASB, ESV, NIV put them back in.


 


Romans 15:19: 


The KJB says, “spirit of God.” 

The NIV of 1984 omitted "of God". 

The NIV of 2010 put the phrase back into the text.



1 Corinthians 10:9: 


 

The KJV says not to tempt, “Christ.” 

The RSV of 1971 says not to tempt "the Lord". 

The NRSV of 1989 goes back to "Christ".



Colossians 3:6:


The KJV says, “on the children of disobedience.”

The NASB of 1977 omitted the phrase.

The NASB of 1995 put the phrase back into the text.


 

1 Peter 5:2 

The KJB says, “taking the oversight thereof.” 

The RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase.

The NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text

 

 

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume29/GOT029003.html

 

 

 

 

Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. writes in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, 2014 - 


"Bruce Metzger said, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence". A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED CHANGES" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition (the same committee of five editors prepared both).


K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, eds., The Greek New Testament, third edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. viii. Although this edition is dated 1975, Metzger's Commentary upon it appeared in 1971. The second edition is dated 1968. IT THUS APPEARS THAT IN THE SPACE OF THREE YEARS ('68-'71), WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION OF NEW EVIDENCE, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MIND IN OVER 500 PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE GUESSING."


http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/Pickering/Miscellaneous/Pickering%20-%20Identity%20of%20the%20NT%204th%20edit..pdf

 

The changes between the 25th and 27th editions of the Nestle-Aland NTG are also interesting -- 763 changes, of which 408 occur in the Gospels.

 

 

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 names Asaph and two names Amos, but neither one of them is listed anywhere in the Bible as being in the lineage of the man 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.

 

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 1:25 “her FIRSTBORN son” - Is your bible one of the new Vatican Versions?


In Matthew 1:25 we read of the birth of the Saviour Jesus who would save His people from their sins.  Here it is recorded that Joseph, the husband of the virgin Mary “knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.” 


Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born - “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:18)


However after the birth of Jesus, Mary also had other children; at least 7 other children.  We see this as recorded in Matthew 13:55-56 when those astonished at His teaching in the synagogue ask: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?  And his sisters, are they not ALL (not ‘both’) with us?  Whence then hath this man all these things?”



However the Catholic church teaches that the virgin Mary was perpetually a virgin. The Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, which also omits the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, has a footnote in reference to the brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus. They tell us: “The question about the brothers of Jesus and his sisters cannot easily be decided on linguistic grounds. Greek-speaking Semites used the terms adelphos and adelphe, not only in the ordinary sense of blood brother or sister, but also for nephew, niece, half-brother, half-sister, and cousin. The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”  page 48 St. Joseph NAB.



The textual support for the reading in Matthew 1:25 of “knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son” (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον) is massive and widespread.  It is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts and many uncial copies (capital letters) including C, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma and Omega.



 It is also the reading found in numerous early church Lectionaries, the Old Latin copies of aur, d, f, ff1, g2, q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Armenian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also so quoted by many early church witnesses including the Diatessaron, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Proclus, Jerome and Augustine.



However the reading of “THE FIRSTBORN” is omitted in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and a few others.  The modern versions that omit the word “FIRSTBORN” and merely say something like: “But but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” are the NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Holman and the Common English Bible - all the new Vatican Versions. 


 


The Catholic Connection


 


The Catholic bibles are interesting in that they continue to change their underlying texts from one edition to the next.  The previous Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay version of 1950 both included the phrase, saying: “And he knew her not till she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.”



However the Douay-Rheims gives this lengthy footnote to try to explain away the clear meaning of the verse.  They tell us: “[25] Till she brought forth her firstborn son: From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future...St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.”



 


Well, to get rid of this “problem” and the convoluted, Jesuit reasoning used to try to dismiss what the text clearly says, the more modern Catholic versions like the Jerusalem bible of 1968, the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 simply omit the word “firstborn” altogether as also do the other Vatican Versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Holman, etc. 


They now read: “he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son.” (New Jerusalem bible 1985)



But wait a minute; there’s more. The 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has now put the word back into their text! It now reads: “And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, THE FIRSTBORN. And he called his name JESUS.” And so does The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible of 2012.


 


Bibles that agree with the King James Bible reading of “her FIRSTBORN son” are the following: the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. - “et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.”, the Anglo-Saxon gospels  by Aelfric Manuscript 140 dated to about 1000 A.D. - "hyre frum-cennedan sunu", Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "And he did not know her until she gave birth to her first-born son; and she called his name Jesus.", Wycliffe 1395 - "til she hadde borun her firste bigete sone", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "til she had broght forth her first borne sonne, & he called his name Iesus.", the Beza N.T. 1599,  Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's translation 1833, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1997, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012, Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Modern English Version 2014.


 


Foreign Language Bibles



Among foreign language bibles that read like the King James Bible with "her FIRSTBORN son" are the following: the Chinese Union Traditional bible, the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Second 2007 - "ce qu'elle eût enfanté son FILS PREMIER-NE", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "ERSTGEBORENEN Sohn", the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuovo Diodati of 1991 - "il suo figliuol PRIMOGENITO" the the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960, 1995 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - "hasta que parió á su hijo PRIMOGENITO", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 2009 and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada  deu à luz seu filho, O PRIMOGENITO", the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - "Ale nie obcował z nią, dopóki nie urodziła swego pierworodnego syna, któremu nadał imię Jezus.", the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Russian Synodal Version, the Czech BKR Bible - "Ale nepoznal jí, až i porodila Syna svého prvorozeného, a nazvala jméno jeho Ježíš.", the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible - ولم يعرفها حتى ولدت ابنها البكر. ودعا اسمه يسوع


the Modern Greek N.T.  as well as the Greek texts used by the Orthodox Churches all over the world today - "εγεννησε τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον". 


And the Modern Hebrew Bible - ולא ידעה עד כי ילדה בן את בכורה ויקרא את שמו ישוע׃


 


 


Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU, DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU, and pray for them which DESPITEFULLY USE YOU, and persecute you." 


All the words in capital letters are found in the Majority of remaining Greek manuscripts including D, E, K, L, M, S, U, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma and Omega. They are also found in the Old Latin copies of c, d, f, h and m.  They are included in the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, and in the Gothic, Ethiopic and Armenian ancient versions. 


All these words are omitted in basically two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


English Bibles prior to the Westcott-Hort creation of a new text contained all these words.  These include  the Anglo-Saxon Gospels of 990 A.D., Wycliffe's Bible of 1395 - "But Y seie to you, loue ye youre enemyes, do ye wel to hem that hatiden you, and preye ye for hem that pursuen, and sclaundren you", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "But I say vnto you, Loue your enemies: blesse them that curse you: doe good to them that hate you, and pray for them which hurt you, and persecute you", The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley's translation 1755, Worseley Version 1770, The Etheridge translation of the Syriac 1849, Murdock's translation of the Syriac 1852 and Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Emphatic Diaglott 1865, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, Darby 1890, Young's 1898,  the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, God's First Truth 1999, Tomson N.T. 2002, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Pickering N.T. 2005, A Conservative Version 2005, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the English Jubilee Bible 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, the Knox Bible of 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The World English Bible 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014.


 


Foreign Language Bibles


 


Among foreign language translations that include all these words in the text are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 1909-1995 and the 2010 R.V. Gómez Bible - "Mas yo os digo: Amad a vuestros enemigos, bendecid a los que os maldicen, haced bien a los que os aborrecen, y orad por los que os calumnian y os persiguen the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Mais moi je vous dis : aimez vos ennemis, et bénissez ceux qui vous maudissent, faites du bien à ceux qui vous haïssent, et priez pour ceux qui vous courent sus, et vous persécutent.", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Ma io vi dico: Amate i vostri nemici, benedite coloro che vi maledicono, fate bene a coloro che vi odiano, e pregate per coloro che vi fanno torto, e vi perseguitano", Luther's German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués 1671 and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Eu, porém, vos digo: Amai a vossos inimigos, bendizei os que vos maldizem, fazei bem aos que vos odeiam, e orai pelos que vos maltratam e vos perseguem", the Basque N.T.,  the Czech BKR Bible,  the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible - واما انا فاقول لكم احبوا اعداءكم. باركوا لاعنيكم. احسنوا الى مبغضيكم. وصلّوا لاجل الذين يسيئون اليكم ويطردونكم.,  and the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013


 


The Modern Greek Bible - Εγω ομως σας λεγω, Αγαπατε τους εχθρους σας, ευλογειτε εκεινους, οιτινες σας καταρωνται, ευεργετειτε εκεινους, οιτινες σας μισουσι, και προσευχεσθε υπερ εκεινων, οιτινες σας βλαπτουσι και σας κατατρεχουσι"


And the Modern Hebrew Bible - אבל אני אמר לכם אהבו את איביכם ברכו את מקקליכם היטיבו לשנאיכם והתפללו בעד מכאיביכם ורדפיכם׃




English Bible versions generally did not begin to omit these 15 words from Matthew 5:44 until the Westcott-Hort Revised Version came out in 1885.


Since then others that also omit all these words are the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, NET, Holman Standard and the Jehovah Witness NWT.


The ESV is typical of these Critical text modern Vatican Versions.  It reads: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."


 


The Catholic Connection


 


Of interest are the Catholic versions.  Both the 1610 Douay Rheims and the 1950 contained many of the words that are now omitted by the more modern Catholic versions.  They both read: "But I say to you, Love your enemies: DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU: and pray for them that persecute AND CALUMNIATE YOU."


The only part of the Scripture they omitted are the words "BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU"; they included the other words of the text. 


But now the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read just like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. The New Jerusalem bible says: "But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." 


So too reads the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.


But hold on.


The Catholic church is not done yet.  Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out they have gone back to the previous Douay reading. It once again adds most of the words back to the text saying: "But I say to you: Love your enemies. DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE YOU. And pray for those who persecute AND SLANDER you."


 


Matthew 6:13 KJB - And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.



And lead us not into TEMPTATION.


Is this a bad translation? Should, as some self appointed, “know it all”, Bible correctors tells us, this word have been translated as “Lead us not into TRIAL”?

 

A fellow Bible believer wrote me, saying: “I read one who thinks that the word tempt found in the Lord's Prayer is bad. He thought the word would be better translated as trial like in Revelation 3:10 as many other translations of Revelation 3:10.  He also said that this will also arrange the problem of James 1:13 if you translate the word in Matthew 6:13 "more correct". Your view on this?”


Bible correctors are a dime a dozen nowadays. Everybody thinks he’s an expert, and is therefore free to make up his own translation. 


First of all, this Every Man For Himself Bible Versionist is ignorant of his own English language. The English word “to tempt” and the noun “temptation” has more than one meaning.


Oxford English Dictionary tells us that “to tempt” can mean either 1. to entice or try to entice (someone) to do something unwise or wrong, as by promising pleasure or reward.


Or, 2. to provoke or put to the test.


Dictionary.Com also informs us that the word can mean either 


1. to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral., Or


2. to put someone to the test in a venturesome way; provoke


Both senses can apply to how God deals with His children. God brings both trials, and sometimes He leads us into temptation by allowing either Satan or our own sinful flesh to test us for the purpose of purifying and strengthening us.


“Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him (Hezekiah) to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, GOD LEFT HIM, TO TRY HIM, that he might know all that was in his heart.” 2 Chronicles 32:31  

 

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."  Matthew 4:1. Notice that it was the Spirit of God that led Him to a place where He would be tempted.

 

John Calvin - “That we may not be led into temptation, deliver us from evil The meaning is: “We are conscious Of our own weakness, and desire to enjoy the protection of God, that we may remain impregnable against all the assaults of Satan.” We showed from the former petition, that no man can be reckoned a Christian, who does not acknowledge himself to be a sinner; and in the same manner, we conclude from this petition, that we have no strength for living a holy life, except so far as we obtain it from God. Whoever implores the assistance of God to overcome temptations, acknowledges that, unless God deliver him, he will be constantly falling.”



John Wesley - “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil - Whenever we are tempted, O thou that helpest our infirmities, suffer us not to enter into temptation; to be overcome or suffer loss thereby; but make a way for us to escape, so that we may be more than conquerors, through thy love, over sin and all the consequences of it.”


John Gill - “And lead us not into temptation,.... Such a petition as this is often to be observed in the prayers of the Jews, "do not lead me" neither into sin, nor into transgression and iniquity, "nor into temptation", or "into the hands of temptation"; that is, into the power of it, so as to be overcome by it, and sink under it; in which sense the phrase is to be understood here. We are not here taught to pray against temptations at all, or in any sense, for they are sometimes needful and useful; but that they may not have the power over us, and destroy us.”  


Matthew Henry - “It is not as if God tempted any to sin; but, "Lord, do not let Satan loose upon us; chain up that roaring lion, for he is subtle and spiteful; Lord, do not leave us to ourselves (Ps. 19:13), for we are very weak; Lord, do not lay stumbling-blocks and snares before us, nor put us into circumstances that may be an occasion of falling." 


Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament - “God does test or sift us, though he does not tempt us to evil. No one understood temptation so well as Jesus for the devil tempted him by every avenue of approach to all kinds of sin, but without success. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus will say to Peter, James, and John: “Pray that ye enter not into temptation”  (Luke 22:40). That is the idea here. Here we have a “Permissive imperative” as grammarians term it. The idea is then: “Do not allow us to be led into temptation.”



Agreeing with the KJB’s “temptation” are the ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898,  J.B. Phillips 1962, RSV 1946-1971, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, New Century Version 2005,  Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006, NIV 2011, the ESV 2011, Holman Standard 2009, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, the Mounce Reverse-Interlinear N.T. 2011, The Voice 2012, Lexham English Bible 2012, New Living Translation 2013, International Standard Version 2014, Modern English Version 2014. 



Only one version I know of DOES change this to “TRIAL”, The liberal  NRSV of 1989 - “And do not bring us to the time of TRIAL”, but then it footnotes “or, temptation”. 


Notice that the RSV had “temptation”. Then the NRSV went with “trial” but then the ESV went back to “temptation”. These are all revisions of each other.

 

 

 

Matthew 6:1 KJB - "Take heed that ye do not your ALMS  (ελεημοσυνην)  before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven."

 

ESV - "Beware of practicing your RIGHTEOUSNESS (δικαιοσυνην) before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."

 

The reading of “ALMS” ελεημοσυνην is that found in the Majority of all remaining manuscripts as well as L, W, Z, theta, the Old Latin f, k, and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Coptic and Armenian ancient versions.

 

The read of “RIGHTEOUSNESS” is that of Vaticanus, D, and the Sinaiticus original and second correction. Sinaiticus first said “righteousness”, then a scribe changed it to read “gifts” and then a third changed it back to “righteousness” again.

 

 

"do not your ALMS before men"

 

The traditional Reformation text of the King James Bible’s “ALMS” is also that of Tyndale 1534 - “Take hede to youre ALMES. That ye geve it not in the syght of men”, Coverdale 1535 - “Take hede to youre ALMES”, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, The Morgan N.T. 1848, Etheridge translation of the Syriac 1849 - “See that in your ALMSGIVING you do it not before men”, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Dillard N.T. 1885,  Darby 1890, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “YOUR ALMS, not to do them in the presence of men”,  NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "ALMSGIVING", God's First Truth 1999 - "ALMS",  World English Bible 2000 - “don’t do your charitable giving before men”, The Tomson N.T. 2002, A Conservative Version 2005 “don’t do your charity before men”, Complete Apostles Bible 2005, The Pickering N. T. 2005 - "YOUR CHARITABLE GIVING", the Bond Slave Version 2009 - "do not your ALMS before men", The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - "ALMS", the Conservative Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011 -"ALMS", The Aramaic N.T. 2011,  The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “don’t practice your charity giving before men”, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.” , The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "your ALMSGIVING", The Hebrew Names Version 2014 - YOUR CHARITABLE GIVING", The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 - "YOUR CHARITY",  and The Modern English Version 2014 - "your CHARITABLE DEEDS".

 

Foreign Language Bibles - ALMS

  

the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - “Mirad que no hagáis vuestra limosna delante de los hombres”, the French Martin 1744 - “Prenez garde de ne faire point votre aumône devant les hommes” = “do not your ALMS before men”, the French Louis Segond 2007 - “Gardez-vous bien de faire des dons devant les hommes pour qu’ils vous regardent” = “to make donations”, the Italian Diodati 1991 - “Guardatevi dal fare la vostra elemosina davanti agli uomini” = "your ALMS before men", and Luther’s German bible 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “Habt acht auf eure Almosen, daß ihr die nicht gebet vor den Leuten” = “your ALMS” and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Corregida 1681 - “Guardai-vos de fazer a vossa esmola diante dos homens” = “do not your ALMS before men.”

 

 This is also the reading of the Modern Greek Bible - "Προσεχετε να μη καμνητε την ελεημοσυνην σας εμπροσθεν των ανθρωπων δια να βλεπησθε υπ' αυτων·"

 

Those versions that follow the reading of RIGHTEOUSNESS are the Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

 

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Douay Rheims 1582- “Take heed that you DO NOT YOUR JUSTICE BEFORE MEN, to be seen by them”. Then the Douay 1950 reads: “Take heed not to do YOUR GOOD before men”. The 1968 Jerusalem bible says: “Be careful not to parade YOUR GOOD DEEDS before men to attract their notice.”  The 1970 St. Joseph NAB has: “Be on guard against performing RELIGIOUS ACTS for people to see”. The 1985 New Jerusalem bible has: “Be careful not to parade YOUR UPRIGHTNESS in public to attract attention”.

 

This reading contradicts Matthew 5:16 where our Lord just got done saying “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

 

Christ tells us we are to do good works, and righteousness and good deeds before others that they may glorify our Father in heaven, but when it comes to giving alms or money to the poor, this is to be done in secret.

 

Some critical text versions translate this as “do not your GOOD DEEDS (or GOOD WORKS) before men.”  

 

Amplified bible 1987 - “Take care not to do your GOOD DEEDS publicly or before men”  

 

Common English Bible 2011 - ““Be careful that you DON’T PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION in front of people” 

 

Holman Standard 2009, NIV 2011 - ““Be careful NOT TO PRACTICE YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS in front of people, to be seen by them.”

 

Names of God Bible 2011 - “Be careful NOT TO DO YOUR GOOD WORKS IN PUBLIC in order to attract attention”

 

Young’s “literal” (Ha!) has made his own reading not found in any manuscript and says: “Take heed your KINDNESS not to do before men, to be seen by them”  

 

 

Matthew 6:22 - If thine eye be SINGLE

 

Matthew 6:22  KJB - “The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be SINGLE, thy whole body shall be full of light.”


NKJV (Holman) - “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is GOOD, your whole body will be full of light.”


NIV (NET, ESV) - “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are HEALTHY, your whole body will be full of light.”


NASB (MEV) - “The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is CLEAR, your whole body will be full of light.” 


Moffat Translation 1926 - “The eye is the lamp of the body: so, if your Eye is GENEROUS, the whole of your body will be illumined”


Lexham English Bible 2012 - "The eye is the lamp of the body. Therefore if your eye is SINCERE, your whole body will be full of light.”


The King James Bible, as always, is right and many modern versions are not.


The English word “single” is defined in Webster’s modern dictionary as meaning “only one, without another or others, not double, compound or multitude.”  



The Greek word used both here in Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34 where the Lord Jesus says: “when thine eye is SINGLE” is haplous and in Greek it looks like this - απλους 


The Greek Lexicons tell us that the word means “single”. 


Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Press 1968, page 190 defines the Greek word haplous as meaning 1. single. 2. simple


Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon 1889 page 57 defines it as “simple or single”.


Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon, University of Chicago Press 1957 page 85 defines it as: “single, simple, sincere.”


Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 1058 tells us that the Greek word means “simple, single - used in the moral sense. Singleness of purpose keeps us from the snare of having double treasure and consequently a divided heart.”

 

The noun form of this adjective is # 572 haplotees and is translated in Ephesians 6:5 "in SINGLENESS of your heart, as unto Christ." and in Colossians 3:22 as "obey in all things....in SINGLENESS of heart, fearing God." 


The word does NOT mean "good" as the NKJV has it. There is an entirely different word for "good" which is agathos.  The verse is not talking about having "good eyesight" as opposed to bad eyesight, but rather it refers to having a single focus on the things of God. 


"if therefore thine eye be SINGLE"


Not only does the King James Bible correctly translate this phrase as “if therefore thine eye be SINGLE”, meaning that we are focused on one particular goal, and NOT that we have “good eyesight”, but so also do the following Bible translations.


Tyndale 1524, 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, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford New Testament 1870, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised Version 1885, Darby Translation 1890, the ASV 1901, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Disciples’ Literal N.T. 2011 - “if your eye is SINGLE, your whole body will be full-of-light.”, and The Pioneer’s New Testament 2014.




Matthew 6:27 "Which of you by taking thought can add ONE CUBIT UNTO HIS STATURE?"


Here is an interesting case of modern version flights of fancy. All Greek texts read the same here and clearly use the word "cubit". A cubit is a unit of about 18 inches and is used to measure physical height, length or thickness. The Greek word for cubit is # 4083 peekus and it is only found 4 times in the entire New Testament and every time it refers to "a length of 18 inches". 


Matthew 6:21 and Luke 12:25 - "can add ONE CUBIT to his stature"; John 21:8 "And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred CUBITS) dragging the net with fishes." and Revelation 21:17 "And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four CUBITS, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel."


"ADD ONE CUBIT UNTO HIS STATURE"



Bible translations that correctly read "add one cubit unto his stature" are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston N.T 1745, the Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster Bible 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, the Smith Bible 1876 - "can add one cubit to his size", The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890,  Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Worrell N.T. 1904, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, the Holman Standard 2009, The English Majority Text Version 2009, The Faithful N.T. 2009, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The New European Version - "can add one CUBIT TO HIS STATURE?", The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Mounce Interlinear N. T. 2011, the Knox Bible 2012,  the Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014 - "ONE CUBIT TO HIS STATURE", The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.


 The Last Days Bible 1999 - "Which of you by worry and anxious care can add 18 inches to his height?"


Weymouth N.T. 1912 missed it by 6 inches - "can add a single FOOT TO HIS HEIGHT?"



Versions that paraphrase the Greek but end up with basically the same meaning as found in the KJB are the New Life Bible, New English Bible 1970, and the Message which reads: "Has anyone by fussing in front of the mirror ever gotten taller by so much as an inch?", while the Bible in Basic English has: "And which of you by taking thought is able to make himself a cubit taller?" Even Weymouth had "can add a single foot to his height?"

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Foreign Language Bibles that also say "add one CUBIT to his STATURE" are the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "ajouter une coudée à sa taille?", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the 1991 New Diodati - "aggiungere alla sua statura pure un cubito?" and the Riveduta 1927, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the Reina Valera 1960, 1995 and the Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "¿Y quién de vosotros podrá, por mucho que se afane, añadir a su estatura un codo?", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009  - "acrescentar um côvado à sua estatura?" , 


 

Now the NASBs present an interesting case. From 1963 to 1977 the NASB editions read: "add A CUBIT TO HIS LIFE SPAN".


Then after 32 years it may have dawned on the NASB translators that since a cubit is always used for a measurement of height or distance, and never as a length of time, that their reading didn't make much sense. So, in 1995 they have once again changed their "bible" to now read along with the NIV, RSV, NET, ISV and ESV: "add AN HOUR TO HIS LIFE SPAN".


Of course, there is no Greek text on this earth that reads "AN HOUR", and even the NASB online edition itself footnotes "F114 Lit. cubit (approx 18 in.)". We could well ask ourselves at this point how "an hour" somehow equals 18 inches but the NASB guys have never been sticklers for  consistency or accuracy.


Young’s 1898 also missed it, with: “And who of you, being anxious, is able to add to his AGE one cubit?” (Again, a cubit is not a measurement of time but of length or height.)


The critical text Common English Bible of 2012 paraphrases and misses the point with: "Who among you by worrying can add a SINGLE MOMENT TO YOUR LIFE?"  In this modern paraphrase the 18 inch cubit had dropped from the NASB, NIV, ESVs "hour" to a "single moment". They just keep getting better and better, don't they?  


YES, indeedy, we have made "wonderful advances in modern scholarship and now we are very close to what the originals actually said!" ;-)


 

The Catholic Connection


 

We see the same confusion in the Catholic versions.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read as does the KJB with "And which of you by taking thought, can add TO HIS STATURE ONE CUBIT?". 


Then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible both have the nonsensical reading of "add a SINGLE CUBIT TO YOUR SPAN OF LIFE?" (Keep in mind that a cubit is NOT a measure of time) and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible has "add A MOMENT TO HIS LIFE SPAN?"


But, not to fear. Now the latest Catholic version to come down the pike, called the Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009, has once again gone back to reading "and which of you, by thinking, is able to ADD ONE CUBIT TO HIS STATURE?" and so has The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible of 2012. 


Get yourself a copy of the King James Bible and stick to it. Don't settle for an inferior bible version that NOBODY seriously believes is the inerrant words of God. 


 

For proof of the fickle nature of the ever changing NASBs please see my article - 'The ever-changing "literal" NASB' here:  


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


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 Connection


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.


The ever changing ESVs are one of the new Vatican Versions. Get used to that, as well.



The Ever Changing ESVs  2001, 2007, 2011 and 2016 editions = just another Vatican Version


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



 


Matthew 10:4 Simon the CANAANITE or Simon the ZEALOT?


KJB (Beza, Geneva, NKJV) - “Simon the CANAANITE, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”


ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem) - “Simon the ZEALOT, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”


Other Critical Text Versions - Matthew 10:4


Revised Version, ASV 1901, Weymouth N.T. 1902, RSV 1971 - “Simon the CANANAEAN, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”


There is great confusion both among the underlying Greek texts and the translations of both Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18, where we read as well “and Simon THE CANAANITE.” - σιμων ο κανανιτης


In Luke 6:15 he is called Simon Zelotes and the Greek is σιμωνα τον καλουμενον ζηλωτην


That Simon the Canaanite was also called Simon Zelotes is usually thought to mean that at one time he was a member of the political movement that wanted to overthrow Roman rule, called the Zealots. 


Others think that it just means that he was very “zealous” in his faith.  


The Greek words are completely different. 


ο κανανιτης = the Canaanite


σιμωνα τον καλουμενον ζηλωτην = Simone called Zelotes


Matthew 10:4 - σιμων ο κανανιτης - Simon the Canaanite


In Matthew 10:4 Simon the CANAANITE - σιμων ο κανανιτης  is not only the reading found in the KJB, the Majority of all remaining Greek mss. but also in SINAITICUS. 


However the Vaticanus mss. reads Simon the CANANAEAN -  σιμων ο καναναιος - and many modern Vatican supervised Critical text versions have “interpreted” this to mean “Simon the ZEALOT” because one theory is that the word Cananaean is an Aramaic word (somehow tossed into the middle of a Greek text) that means “Zealot”.  


Another theory is that Simon was from Cana of Galilee, and that is why he was called “the Canaanite”, even though (if that were true) he would probably have been referred to as the Canite instead of the Canaanite.  


Matthew Henry mentions both of these theories, saying: “Simon is called the Canaanite, or rather the Canite, from Cana of Galilee, where probably he was born; or Simon the Zealot, which some make to be the signification of Kananiteµs.”  


John Gill mentions three different views and he disagrees with Matthew Henry.  The commentators can’t seem to agree among themselves.


Another explanation is that he really was a Canaanite (just as God’s Book says he was) whose family had been converted to the Jewish faith and he was brought up as a believer in the true God of Israel, who is Jehovah.


We have a similar example in the Old Testament with Uriah the Hittite who was one of David’s mighty men and the husband of Bathsheba. Yet the Hittites were one of the nations the children of Israel were told to destroy out of the land.  He was a Hittite but he was a believer in the one true God.


There is another example right here in Matthew of a person being referred to as “a woman of Canaan”.


In Matthew 15:22 we read: “And, behold, a woman of CANAAN came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.”


But, as is often the case, not even the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” agree with each other.  Nor do the Critical Text versions agree on how to translate the passage in Matthew 10:4, nor do the commentators agree among themselves on what the verse means.


In Mark 3:18 we have another example of textual confusion because the TR, the Majority of all manuscripts, including Alexandrinus, once again read “Simon the Canaanite”, but this time Sinaiticus changes gears and goes with the Vatican mss. 


Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, and the modern Catholic versions read:  “and Simon the Zealot”, Footnote - Greek kananaios, meaning zealots.


Back to Matthew 10:4 - “and Simon the Canaanite”


Wycliffe 1380 - Simon Canaanite


The Great bible 1540 - Simon of Canaan


Reading (correctly) that he is Simon the Canaanite are The Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “Shim'on  the  Kena'anite”, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, World English bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, A Conservative Version Interlinear 2005 “Simon the Canaanite”,  The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Aramaic New Testament 2011 - “Simon THE CANAANITE”,  The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Concordant Version 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Pioneer’s N.T. 2014 and The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 - “Simon the CANAANITE”.


Foreign Language Bibles = KJB


The French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998, Louis Segond 2007 - “Simon le Cananite”


Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1995 - “Simón, el cananita”


Italian Diodato 1649, la Nuova Diodati 1991 - “Simone il Cananeo”


The German Schlachter bible 2000 - “Simon der Kananiter” 


The Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - “Simon Kananites”


The Afrikaans bible 1953 - “Simon Kananítes”


The Czech BKR Bible - “Šimon Kananitský”


The Romanian Fidela Bible 2015 - “Simon Canaanitul”


The Modern Greek Bible - Σιμων ο Κανανιτης = Simon the Canaanite


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


Matthew 12:40 - a WHALE, a FISH, Sea Creature or a SEA MONSTER?


"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."


The Greek word correctly translated in the King James Bible as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary called Diury's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dicionary 1974. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It's just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up the Greek word ketos it simply says WHALE. If you look up whale, it says ketos.


Here is an easy to use online Greek-English dictionary.  Just type in the word "whale" on the English to Greek side, or kitos on the Greek to English side and see what you come up with - WHALE, not a fish.  http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon


The Greek Septuagint (LXX).  Even though I do not at all believe the so called Septuagint is inspired Scripture, yet we can learn some valuable information about the meaning of Greek words from these texts.  In Genesis 1:21 the King James Bible as well as many other translations in English and foreign languages tell us that "God created GREAT WHALES".  The Septuagint version uses this very word ketos here and the English translation of the LXX is "And God made GREAT WHALES".  That IS the meaning of the Greek word ketos.


In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The word is not "fish", which is an entirely different Greek word - ixthus.


Jonah 1:17 refers to a "great fish" which the LORD had prepared to swallow the errant prophet Jonah. The whale, though by today's man-made "scientific" classification is a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined in all dictionaries as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. This "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is of no relevance to the way God classifies His creatures. Most people even today, when they see a whale, say: "Wow, that's one big fish!" That is, until some pedantic type says: No, that's a mammal.


God's classification system differs from that of man's. In 1 Corinthians 15:39 we read: "All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." 


 

THE WHALE'S BELLY

 

Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi mss. circa 1000 A.D - "hwæles", Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza's N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Worsley version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Clarke N.T. 1795, Webster's Bible 1833, The New Covenant N.T. 1836,  the Pickering N.T 1840, the Hammond N.T. 1845, the Morgan N.T. 1848, Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford New Testament 1870 -"the belly of the WHALE", the Davidson N.T. 1876, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885 the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, Godbey's N.T. 1902, the Clarke N.T. 1913,  James Moffatt N.T. 1913, Goodspeed's N.T. 1923, Riverside N.T. 1923, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The Evidence Bible 2003, Apostolic Polyglot English Bible 2003, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the New American Bible of 1970, Williams N.T. 1972, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, the Updated Bible version 2004, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Faithful New Testament 2009 (William Zeltler), the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010.   

 

 

Other English Bible that correctly have "the WHALE'S belly" are The Word of Yah 1993, the New Heart English Bible 2000, the World English Bible 2000  - "in the belly of the WHALE.", The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Common English Bible 2011, the Far Above All Translation 2011 and the Hebrew Names Version 2014. 

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Among foreign language Bible that correctly have "whale" are Luther's German bible 1545, German Elberfelder 1871 - "Walfisches Bauch" (Whales belly), the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de  Valera 1602, the Reina Valera of  1858 and 1909 - "LA BALLENA", the 2005 Reina Valera Gomez "LA BALLENA", the Italian Diodati 1649  - "della BALENA", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681, the Portuguese A Bíblia Sagrada and Almeida Corregida 2009 - "como Jonas esteve três dias e três noites no ventre DA BALEIA", the French La Bible de Geneva 1669 and the French Martin 1744 -  "LA BALEINE", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "BALYENA" and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible -"BALENEI".

 

What big fish would have swallowed up Jonah alive except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER?

 

 

The NASB along with the Amplified bible 1987, the Complete Jewish bible 1998 and the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 all tell us that Jonah was swallowed by a SEA MONSTER!  The Knox bible of 2012 tells us it was a SEA BEAST, and the 2008 ISV says it was a SEA CREATURE! (That pretty well narrows it down, doesn't it?!)


Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than correctly translating what the Greek word really means, the NKJV, Holman Standard and ESV have "the great fish"; the NIV, NET have "the huge fish"


 

The ever revolving door of modern scholarship can't seem to get its act together. The RSV, NRSV, and ESV are all revisions of each other, yet the RSV says "a whale", the NRSV has "a sea monster" and the ESV reads "the great fish". 


The Catholic versions are in their usual disarray with the 1582 Douay-Rheims reading "Whale", while the 1950 Douay has "fish", then the 1968 Jerusalem bible went with "sea monster", then the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 went back to "whale", and the 1985 New Jerusalem has "sea monster" but the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has once again gone back to "whale".


The Greek word itself means "a whale"; it does not mean a fish nor much less a sea monster. The Lord Jesus Christ said Jonah was swallowed by a whale and the King James Bible is correct while the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB are in error. 

 

Science vs. religion clash: is a whale a fish?

 

In 1818, a whale oil dealer refused to pay a fish-product fine on whale oil, because a whale isn't a fish. The inspector insisted on the tax, and a spirited court and public battle played out. 

 

Ultimately a jury ruled that a "whale is a fish," until the New York legislature settled the matter by voting that whales are not fish. I knew we could count on NY. 

 

This fascinating tale comes from D. Graham Burnett in Trying Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature. 

 

The Princeton University website says this about the book: 

 

In Moby-Dick, Ishmael declares, "Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that a whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me." Few readers today know just how much argument Ishmael is waiving aside. In fact, Melville's antihero here takes sides in one of the great controversies of the early nineteenth century--one that ultimately had to be resolved in the courts of New York City. In Trying Leviathan, D. Graham Burnett recovers the strange story of Maurice v. Judd, an 1818 trial that pitted the new sciences of taxonomy against the then-popular--and biblically sanctioned--view that the whale was a fish. The immediate dispute was mundane: whether whale oil was fish oil and therefore subject to state inspection. But the trial fueled a sensational public debate in which nothing less than the order of nature--and how we know it--was at stake. Burnett vividly re-creates the trial, during which a parade of experts--pea-coated whalemen, pompous philosophers, Jacobin lawyers--took the witness stand, brandishing books, drawings, and anatomical reports, and telling tall tales from whaling voyages. Falling in the middle of the century between Linnaeus and Darwin, the trial dramatized a revolutionary period that saw radical transformations in the understanding of the natural world. Out went comfortable biblical categories, and in came new sorting methods based on the minutiae of interior anatomy--and louche details about the sexual behaviors of God's creatures.

 

 

Matthew 16:2-3 The Utter Hypocrisy of modern Textual Criticism

 

 

In Matthew 16:2-3 we read: "He answered and said unto them, WHEN IT IS EVENING, YE SAY, IT WILL BE FAIR WEATHER; FOR THE SKY IS RED.  AND IN THE MORNING, IT WILL BE FOUL WEATHER TO DAY; FOR THE SKY IS RED AND LOWRING.  O YE HYPOCRITES, YE CAN DISCERN THE FACE OF THE SKY; BUT CAN YE NOT DISCERN THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES?"

 

Matthew 16:2-3.  Here we see an example of how ridiculous it is to call modern textual criticism a "science" in any legitimate sense at all.  Modern textual criticism has more in common with Voodoo or the Ouija board than science.

 

It's the ol' "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble...For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."  (From Shakespeare's Macbeth) 


Before we get into the textual matters, I want to address the word "lowring".  This is not an archaic word.  Webster's 1999 dictionary defines it as meaning "frowning; dark and threatening, gloomy, or sullen."  Lowring is also the English word found here in the Geneva Bible,  Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Worsley Version 1770, the Alford N.T. 1870, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, the Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's Bible 1833, Darby 1890,  the Montgomery N.T. 1924,  the Douay Version 1950, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Knox Bible 2012 (lowering) and even in the 2003 Updated Bible Version.  Now, to address the textual issues.


All these words in capital letters from "When it is" to "of the times?" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C correction, the Syriac Peshitta and numerous Old Latin copies.  However BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit all 32 Greek words in these sentences.  


The total inconsistency of modern textual criticism is seen here in all its absurdity.  There are literally hundreds and hundreds of words and many whole verses omitted from most modern versions based primarily on the omissions found in Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, yet right here in Matthew 16:2-3, even though BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words, versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV, ESV, ISV, NET and the Holman Standard, continue to include these two verses in their versions.  

 

Westcott and Hort put both verses [in brackets] to indicate doubt as to whether or not these 2 verses are inspired Scripture, and the Nestle-Aland and UBS critical Greek texts STILL have them in brackets today.

 

Versions that OMIT BOTH verses - Matthew 16:2-3 - because of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus


Actually, there are some versions that are based on the Critical Text that do omit all these 32 words from their translations because these words are omitted by the Sinaitiic and Vaticanus manuscripts. At least they are being consistent and more honest about it. 

 

These include The Anderson New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the James Moffatt New Testament 1913, the Riverside N.T. 1923, Goodspeed's translation of 1942, The English Bible of 1970, the Williams N.T. 1972, the Revised English Bible 1989 and The Christogenea New Testament 2009 - another Critical Text version.  The Jehovah Witness NWT puts the verses [in brackets], indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

 

Even in these two verses another significant omission is seen. The words "O YE HYPOCRITES" are in the Majority of Greek copies as well as the Old Latin copies a, air, b, c, d, ed, f, ff1, ff2, g1, l, q, the Coptic Boharic and the Diatessaron 170-175 A.D.


The word "HYPOCRITES!" is in the text of the Reformation Bibles in numerous foreign language Bibles as well.   But  there are a few manuscripts that contain all the words both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus leave out, except they omit the word "HYPOCRITES". So what do these modern versions do?  They also omit the words "O ye hypocrites" too.  


In other words, even though ALL these 32 words are NOT FOUND in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, these modern versions INCLUDE all of them except "O YE HYPOCRITES" which is omitted only by a very few, and is found in the vast majority.  Now how "scientific" is that???!


The words "O ye HYPOCRITES" are found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1582, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Youngs 1898, NKJV 1982, World English Bible 2000, Modern English Version 2014,  Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta,  Luther's German Bible 1545 and Schlachter Bible 2000 "Ihr Heuchler!", the French Martin Bible 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Hypocrites" (it's the same in French as in English), the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and Riveduta 2006 "Ipocriti", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-1995 "Hipócritas", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada "Hipócritas", the Afrikaans bible 1953 "Geveinsdes", Hungarian Karoli Bible "Képmutatók", the Russian Synodal Version 1876 "Лицемеры!", the Romanian Cornilescu Bible - "Făţarnicilor",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Gij geveinsden!", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "O, kayong mga mapagpaimbabaw!", the Albanian Bible, the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible -وفي الصباح اليوم شتاء. لان السماء محمرة بعبوسة. يا مراؤون تعرفون ان تميّزوا وجه السماء واما علامات الازمنة فلا تستطيعون.  and the Modern Greek Bible "Υποκριται".


 

Matthew 16:2-3 are found in virtually every Bible translation ever made, in spite of the fact that BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit them. They are found in all Reformation Bibles in all languages including the Modern Greek Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible.


 

If ever the omission of a particular reading speaks volumes, this is it. The words "O ye hypocrites" are missing from these modern versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET AND from all the aforementioned Catholic versions.  Do you think there might be a chance these bible translators will hear "O ye hypocrites!" loud and clear from the mouth of the Lord God Almighty in a coming day? 


Matthew 17:4 "Let us make" versus "I will make"

 

Another bogus reading found in the modern Vatican Versions is found in Matthew 17:4 when the Lord Jesus is transfigured on the mount in the presence of Peter, James and John.  Here the Lord appears with Moses and Elijah and Peter says: "Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, LET US MAKE here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses and one for Elias." 

 

The Majority of all Greek texts, as well as C, D, the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta and the  inspired accounts of this same event found in Mark 9:5 and in Luke 9:33 all have Peter say "LET US MAKE here..." ποιήσωμεν.

 

However, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have Peter say "I WILL MAKE here..." ποιήσω, yet they still have Peter saying "LET US MAKE three tabernacles" in both Mark 9:5 and in Luke 9:33 - ποιήσωμεν.

 

Even the older Catholic versions like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay version read like the KJB and the Majority of all texts with "Let us make here...".  However the more recent Vatican versions like the 1970 St. Joseph NAB, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985, and the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard versions have now adopted this false reading of not only contradicts virtually all Reformation Bibles in all languages, but even the other synoptic gospel accounts as found in Mark 9 and Luke 9.

 

Matthew 17:20 - "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your UNBELIEF"


"unbelief" (απιστιαν)


versus

 

"little faith" (ολιγοπιστιαν)

 

 

KJB - “ And Jesus said unto them, Because of YOUR UNBELIEF: (απιστιαν) for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB) - “He said to them, “Because of YOUR LITTLE FAITH. (ολιγοπιστιαν) For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”


 

An error still retained in the NASB, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, NIV, Jehovah Witness NWT and the more modern Catholic Versions is the result of following Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the new Vatican supervised Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts. 


When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove."


In this instance they had NO FAITH AT ALL and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.


The reading of "UNbelief" or "NO faith" - Διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν ὑμῶν is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, X, Y as well as the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff1, 2, g1, 1,  the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Sinaitic and Slavonic ancient versions.


Matthew 17:20 - "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have FAITH AS A GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."


 

"Because of YOUR UNBELIEF"

 

Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible of "Because of YOUR UNBELIEF" are the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395 - "Jhesus seith to hem, For youre vnbileue.", Tyndale 1325 - "Iesus sayd vnto the: Because of youre vnbelefe", Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Improved N.T. 1809, The Revised Translation 1815, the Kneeland N.T. 1823, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Morgan N.T. 1848, the Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Noyes Translation 1869, the Smith Bible 1876, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 - "your want of faith", Godbey N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003 - "because of your UNBELIEF", Green's literal 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Faithful N.T. 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interliner 2010 (André de Mol), The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Aramaic N.T. 2011, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013 - "because of your UNBELIEF", The Far Above All Translation 2014, the Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.

 

Foreign Language Bibles 

 

Among foreign language Bibles that agree with the King James Bible's "Because of your UNBELIEF" are the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Et Jésus leur répondit : c'est à cause de votre incrédulité", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlachter Bible - "Um eures Unglaubens willen.", the Russian Victor Zhuromsky Bible - "по неверию вашему", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909 (but the 1960, 1995 have been "revised" to now read "por vuestra poca fe" = because of your little faith), the Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - " Y Jesús les dijo: Por vuestra incredulidad" = "Because of your unbelief", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 - "E Gesú disse loro: «Per la vostra incredulità", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Czech BKR Bible, Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, the Maori Bible, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap bible, The Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, and the Russian Synodal Version - "because of your UNBELIEF."


and the Modern Greek N.T. used in the Orthodox churches all over the world today - "Ο δε Ιησους ειπε προς αυτους· Δια την απιστιαν σας."


And the Modern Hebrew Bible -  ויאמר ישוע אליהם מפני אשר אינכם מאמינים כי אמן אמר אני לכם אם יש לכם אמונה כגרגר החרדל ואמרתם אל ההר הזה העתק מזה שמה ונעתק ממקומו ואין דבר אשר יבצר מכם׃ = you do not believe

 

Vatican Version Contradiction


However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "Because of your LITTLE FAITH" - Διὰ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν instead of “Because of your UNBELIEF" - Διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν ὑμῶν, and so the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph, New Jerusalem and NIV read: "He replied, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (NIV).


If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had NO faith, then Jesus's words make sense. 


As John Wesley stated in his commentary: "Because of your unbelief - Because in this particular they had not faith. If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed - That is, the least measure of it"

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The older Catholic versions like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay read like the KJB with "because of your UNBELIEF" (NO faith)


But the more modern Catholic Versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 now agree with the false reading found in the NIV, ESV, NASB, NET and Holman Vatican Versions.


This is because they are ALL based on the same Vatican "interconfessional" UBS (United Bible Society) New Testament texts.  Oh, but wait!  Now the latest Catholic Public Domain version has come out in 2009 and it has gone back to the reading found in the King James Bible again.  It reads: "Jesus said to them: “Because of your UNBELIEF."


For Proof that versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. ARE the new Vatican Versions, See  -


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

 

Matthew 18:15 - The Fickleness and Inconsistency of the so called "science" of modern textual criticism.


In Matthew 18:15 we read: "Moreover if thy brother sin AGAINST THEE (eis se), go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." 


 

NASB (NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, NIV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem) -  "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private"


The words "against thee" are missing from both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but they are found in the Majority of all Greek texts including D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, Omega and in the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff1,and the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Palestinian, Arminian and Ethiopic ancient versions. 


The Nestles Greek text used to omit these two words entirely (Nestle text 4th edition 1934, and 21st edition 1975) but later they added them again but put them in [brackets].


The reading of "if thy brother sin AGAINST YOU, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone" is found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Alford N.T. 1870, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901 - "sins AGAINST THEE", Worrell N.T. 1904, Weymouth's N.T. 1912, Godspeed's N.T. 1923, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, J.B. Phillips 1972, the NKJV 1982, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, The World English Bible 2000, The Message 2002, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Spoken English N.T. 2008, Holman Standard 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Easy English Bible 2010, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Common English Bible 2011, ESV 2011, The Aramaic N.T. 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, New Living Translation 2013, The Biblos Bible 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Hebrew Names Version 2014,  ISV 2014, The Translator's Bible 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Modern English Version 2014, The International Children's Bible 2015 and the Tree of Life Version 2015.


 

Among foreign language Bibles that read "if thy brother sin against thee" are Luther's German bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "Wenn aber dein Bruder AN DIR gesündigt hat", the Portuguese O Livro of 2000, the NIV Portuguese bible of 2000, and the Portuguese Biblia Sagrada - " se teu irmão pecar CONTRA TI",  the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Reina Valeras from 1909, 1960 and 1995 - "si tu hermano pecare CONTRA TI",  the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald of 1996 - "si ton frère a péché CONTRE TOI", the Italian Diodati of 1649, the Riveduta of 1994 and the Nuovo Diodati of 1991-"se il tuo fratello ha peccato CONTRO DI TE."


and the Modern Greek New Testament used all over the world by the Greek Orthodox churches.-"Εαν δε αμαρτηση εις σε ο αδελφος σου"


 

OMIT the words "AGAINST THEE"


The words "sin AGAINST YOU" are omitted by both the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus mss.  Versions that follow these corrupt texts and omit the words "AGAINST THEE" are Godbey N.T. 1902, The Moffatt N.T. 1913, Anderson's N.T. Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918, The Jehovah Witness New World Translation, the NASB 1995, God's Word Translation 1995, the Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 and New Jerusalem bible 1985, Daniel Wallace's NET version 2006, The Easy to Read Version 2006, the Mebust Bible 2007, the Christogenea N.T. 2009, Names of God Version 2011, Mounce Interlinear N.T. 2011, Pioneer's N.T. 2014 and the Amplified Bible 2015 (but the Amplified Bible 1987 edition INCLUDED the words!) 


 

The Catholic Connection


The older Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay 1950 read like the KJB - "if thy brother sins AGAINST THEE".


Then the Jerusalem bible came out in 1968 and they omitted these words.


But the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible put them back in.  


Then the 1985 New Jerusalem bible took them out again.


But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has come out and so has the 2012 Revised Douay Rheims bible and once again we read: "But if your brother has sinned AGAINST YOU, go and correct him, between you and him alone."


Obviously the omission of these two words changes the meaning and application of the passgage. The NASB reads: "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private."


On the other hand, versions like the NIV 1978 and 1984 editions, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the Holman Standard all reject in this place the two texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which are responsible for the omission of hundreds of other words in their New Testament versions, and here follow the Traditional textual reading of the King James Bible. They include the words "AGAINST YOU".


NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions - "If your brother sins AGAINST YOU, go and tell him HIS fault." 


But wait! Now the "new" New International Version of 2011 has come out and Guess What!  They have now decided to omit these words from their new text!


The 2011 NIV now reads: "If your brother OR SISTER sins, go and point out THEIR fault..."  


Not only have they omitted these two important words "AGAINST YOU", but they have now added the words "OR SISTER" and they changed the singular "HIS" to the plural "THEIR", none of which are not found in ANY text at all .


And they call this willy-nilly process the "science of textual criticism."

 

Notes from the Internet - 


At a Facebook club called The King James Bible Debate I had once posted the above article on Matthew 18:15 "sin against thee" and a young bible college student who herself is being taught that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible in any language, posted "You do know that Erasmus was a textual critic, right?"


To whom I responded -


"Miss..., What you totally fail to take into account with your Biblical agnosticm, constantly changing versions, fickleness and "No reading is sure" mentality is the sovereignty and Providence of God in History to give us His perfect words in a real Bible. 


The King James Bible is not like any other book. GOD Himself is the author of the Bible and He has promised to preserve His words and His hand is so markedly on this one Book - the King James Bible - like no other in history. It is as plain as the noon day sun to me since God opened my spiritual eyes to see it. Your present point of view leaves you with NO complete and infallible Bible at all. You fail to see God's hand in history to give us "the book of the LORD" in the end times universal language of English. And it's not American English; it's the king's English.

 

 

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (End of Facebook notes)


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

Will Kinney

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