Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

Bible Babble Buffet Seven

 

Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"



An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.


"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."


Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.


There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568 -"After these threescore & two weekes shall Messiah be slaine, & not for him selfe" , the NKJV 1982, the French Martin  of 1744  - “le CHRIST sera retranché, mais non pas pour soi”, the Romanian  Fidela of 2010 "dar nu pentru el însuşi", the Reina Valera 1865 Angel de Mora, the 1909 Reina Valera and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible - “Daniel 9:26 Y después de las sesenta y dos semanas el Mesías será muerto, y no por sí.” but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation -"Και μετα τας εξηκοντα δυο εβδομαδας θελει εκκοπη ο Χριστος, πλην ουχι δι' εαυτον·",  the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Green's 1998 Modern KJV 2000, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "And after threescore and two heptads, yikaret (will be cut off) Moshiach [Yeshayah 53:8], but not for himself.",  and the KJV 21st Century Version 1994. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.


Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".


The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The Spanish NIV, La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 says: "después de las sesenta y dos semanas, se le quitará la vida al príncipe elegido. Éste se quedará sin ciudad y sin santuario, porque un futuro gobernante los destruirá." which means "After 62 weeks the life of the elect prince will be taken away. THIS ONE WILL REMAIN WITHOUT A CITY AND WITHOUT A SANCTUARY..."! But the Portuguese NIV reads differently than both the English and Spanish versions.  The NIV Portuguese edition, Nova Versão Internacional 2000 has: "Depois das sessenta e duas semanas, o Ungido será morto, e já não haverá lugar para ele." which comes out to mean - "After the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one is dead, AND THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR HIM."


Dr. Daniel Wallace and company, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."


This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible commentators, teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.


Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."


John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."


John Gill offers two different interpretations but he gives this one first: "when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."


David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."


C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!


Matthew Poole was well aware of all the different theories and ideas about how to translate this passage and he comments on it in his Commentary on the whole Bible saying: -  Daniel 9:26 “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself” - But not for himself - which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people, and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures: There was none to succour him ; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be.  But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.” 


Bible Babel in Action


Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".


Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."


Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."


The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."


The Lesser Old Testament 1853 - "And after the sixty and two weeks will an anointed one be cut off WITHOUT A SUCCESSOR TO FOLLOW HIM."


Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."


Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."


The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."


The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)


1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)


The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."


The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."


The Common English Bible 2011 - "after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be eliminated. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT HIM." (Then it footnotes that "Hebrew is uncertain")


The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.


The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."


Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)


The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY"


And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)


May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.  


See more on Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but not for himself" here - 


http://brandplucked.webs.com/dan926messiahcutoff.htm


HOSEA


 

Here are just a few examples of the confusion found in the modern bibles from the book of Hosea. 

 

Hosea the prophet was told by God to go and marry a woman who was an adulteress according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel. Israel's history of unfaithfullness is portrayed, and God rebukes Israel for her sins, and pledges to heal their backslidings and bring her again into the covenant of grace.

 

Hosea 2:1 "PLEAD with your mother, PLEAD"

 

The King James Bible, Geneva, Darby, the 1936 Jewish translation, the Revised Version, Young's, RSV, NRSV, and ESV all have "plead with your mother, plead.  To plead with somebody to entreat them earnestly.

 

 The NKJV says: "Bring charges against your mother, bring charges"; the  NIV - "Rebuke your mother, rebuke her"; the  NASB- "Contend with your mother, contend".

 

Those who desire the reconciliation of another would plead with them, not rebuke, contend or bring charges against them. The new versions make it sound as though they are headed for the divorce court rather than reconciliation.

 

Hosea 3:1 "Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her FRIEND, yet an adulteress..." Friend is found in the NKJV footnote as being the literal word, yet the NKJV has A LOVER, the NIV has "loved by ANOTHER" while the NASB has "loved by her HUSBAND".  Yet the word is "friend" and is so rendered by the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby and Douay.

 

4:18 KJB "Their drink is SOUR", and so also read the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, and others but the NKJV has "their drink is REBELLION"; the  NIV- "their drinks are GONE" and NASB "their liquor GONE".

 

So is their drink sour, rebellion or gone?  Hey, all bibles are the same; Don't worry about it, right? 

 

Hosea 6:6 KJB "For I desired MERCY and not sacrifice."

 

NASB (Holman) - "I delight in LOYALTY, rather than sacrifice." 

 

The RSV, NRSV and ESV all say: "For I desire STEADFAST LOVE and not sacrifice"

 

This verse is quoted in Matthew 12:7 in the same way by all versions, - "But if ye had know what this meaneth, I WILL HAVE MERCY, AND NOT SACRIFICE, ye would not have condemned the guiltless."

 

and it is rightly the same here in Hosea 6:6 in the King James Bible and many others:  "For I desired MERCY and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." 

 

Hosea 6:6 reads MERCY in Wycliffe 1395, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587- "For I desired mercie, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more then burnt offrings.", the RV 1881, Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950, the NKJV 1982, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, Complete Jewish bible 1998, Hebrew Names Version, Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publication Society translation "I desired MERCY",  the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Voice of 2012 - "For I want not animal sacrifices, but MERCY." and the NIV 1984 and 2011 editions, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The New European Version 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), World English Bible 2112 - "I desired MERCY and not sacrifice" and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014.

 

Among foreign language translations that correctly read "I desired MERCY and not sacrifice" in Hosea 6:6 are the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1995, the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - "Porque MISERICORDIA quiero, y no sacrificio."  HOWEVER, even though the NIV English version has "I desired MERCY" in Hosea 6:6, the Spanish NIV does not.

 

Instead, the 1999 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "lo que pido de ustedes es AMOR y no sacrificios, conocimiento de Dios y no holocaustos." = "What I ask of you is LOVE and not sacrifices".  But the NIV Portuguese edition correctly has "mercy" in Hosea 6:6 - "Pois desejo MISERICORDIA, e não sacrifícios"

 

Also reading "I desired MERCY" in Hosea 6:6 are the Portuguese Almeida, the Italian Diodati 1991 - "Poiché io desidero la MISERICORDIA e non i sacrifici" and the French Martin 1744 and Nouvelle Edition de Genève 1979 - "Car je prends plaisir à LA MISERICORDE, et non point aux sacrifices"

 

 

The ASV of 1901 says: "For I desire GOODNESS, and not sacrifice" in Hosea 6:6 but then quotes it as "I desire MERCY" in Matthew 12:7

 

The NASB and the Holman Standard say: "I delight in LOYALTY, rather than sacrifice." in Hosea 6:6. But in Matthew 12:7 has "I desired COMPASSION, and not sacrifice."

 

Loyalty is not at all the same thing as mercy, even though the NASB and the Holman both "quote" the same verse in Matthew 12:7 using the word "mercy" or "compassion" (NASB)

 

Though the NASB has "compassion" here in Matthew 12:7 yet a simple look at the NASB complete concordance shows that this Greek word eleos # 1656 occurs some 27 times in the NASB and 2 times they have translated it as "compassion" and 25 times as "MERCY"!  

 

The NASB complete concordance shows that they have translated this same Hebrew word in Hosea 6:6 as "lovingkindness" some 183 times, and as such varied things as "devout, devotion, faithfulness, kindness (32 times), loyalty (6 times), righteousness, unchanging love, loyal deeds, MERCIFUL (See 1 Kings 20:31 "merciful kings"; Proverbs 11:17 "the MERCIFUL man does himself good.", MERCIES - Isaiah 55:3 "the faithful MERCIES of David", and MERCY - 2 Samuel 15:20 "MERCY and truth be with you."  

 

The NASB seems to be arbitrarily changing words just so they can get a copyright and make money. Not enough changes = No copyright and no Money to be made Selling your Product.

 

The RSV, NRSV and ESV all say: "For I desire STEADFAST LOVE and not sacrifice" in Hosea 6:6, but then all three of them quote the verse as "I desired MERCY and not sacrifice" in Matthew 12:7.

 

This is much like the modern Catholic versions. The St. Joseph NAB 1970 - "For it is LOVE that I desire, not sacrifice" and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible - "For FAITHFUL LOVE is what pleases me, not sacrifice."

 

However the older Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950 and even the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to "I desired MERCY and not sacrifice" in Hosea 6:6.

 

Dan Wallace and company's NET version, as well as Green's Literal 2005 are different still, with: "For I delight in FAITHFULNESS, not simply in sacrifice."  Yet both have Jesus quoting Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7 as  "I want (desire - Green) MERCY and not sacrifice."

 

Let's see... "mercy, goodness, love, loyalty, steadfast love, faithfulness"...? 

 

Sorry, folks, but all these different words are not interchangeable. They are not synonyms and they do not have the same meanings.

 

Yet when all these conflicting versions have the Lord Jesus "quoting" Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7, it has the same meaning as it stands in the King James Bible (and many others) in Hosea 6:6 - "But if ye had known what this meaneth, (the verse He then quotes from the Old Testament) I will have MERCY and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless."

 

What is happening here is the confounding and confusing of words so as to blur the lines of precise thinking and to create a general, all inclusive vocabulary so that "the Bible" can mean almost anything you want it to. Is God really this confused?

 

Plus, they gotta get that all important copyright, so they can hope to make the Big Bucks.  

 

Notes from the Internet on the use of the word "mercy"

 

Larry B. writes: "I was taken back by the consistent replacement of "mercy" with "steadfast love" in the ESV and others. The implication is quite in step with our culture, which claims that we are not sinners and thus don't need mercy but rather deserve love (perhaps even owed love)"


Excellent point, Larry. The NIV does that same thing a lot. Mercy implies by its very meaning that we do NOT deserve the blessings of God because we are sinners. "steadfast love" omits that element.


They will then try to defend their translations by saying "Well, the Hebrew word CAN mean "loving kindness". That is true. But the word has multiple meanings depending on context.  It can also mean "wicked thing" (Lev. 20:17 - It is a WICKED THING ) or goodness, or good deeds, or even "reproach" (Proverbs 14:34 - sin is a REPROACH to any people".


Since not one of them has what he honestly believes is a complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language, and they do not believe that God has worked in history to guide a group of men to put together His complete and perfect words into a single Book with all the correct meanings, they then become their own "final authority" and it's right back to "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."  Judges 21:25.


In fact, a lot of theologically important words in the Holy Bible are being toned down or even lost entirely. As examples, here is a partial list of the frequency of certain words comparing the King James Bible Old Testament, with the NKJV, the NASB,  ESV and the NIV Old Testament.


TRUTH KJB - 118 times; NKJV - about same; NASB - 92; ESV - 44;  NIV - 41


GRACE KJB -38 times; NKJV - 20; NASB - 9; ESV - 7; NIV - 8


MERCY, MERCIFUL KJB - 288 times; NKJV -same; NASB - 51; ESV - 132;  NIV - 85


SOUL KJB - 478 times; NKJV - same; NASB - 255; NIV - 110


LUCIFER KJB - 1 time; NKJV - 1 time; NASB - 0; ESV - 0;  NIV - 0


JEHOVAH KJB - 7 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; ESV - 0;  NIV - 0


HELL KJB - 31 times; NKJV - 19; NASB - 0; ESV - 0;  NIV - 0


Examples of other words in the whole Bible, both testaments.


DOCTRINE KJB - 56 times; NKJV - 42; NASB - 14; ESV - 13;  NIV - 7


FORNICATION KJB - 44 times; NKJV - 21; NASB - 8; ESV - 0; NIV - 0


DAMNATION, DAMNED KJB - 9 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; ESV - 0; NIV - 0


HELL (whole Bible) KJB - 53 times; NKJV - 32; NASB -13; ESV - 14; NIV - 13

 

Hosea 6:9 KJB "they murder in the way BY CONSENT".  Here the NKJV agrees with the KJB, and so do the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish Reina Valera, but the NIV & NASB say: "they murder on the road TO SHECHEM".

 

Hosea 10:1 KJB "Israel is an EMPTY vine."  An empty vine is also the reading of Young's, the Geneva Bible, and the Diodati.  However the NKJV says "Israel EMPTIES his vine; the NIV says "Israel is a SPREADING VINE", while the NASB has "Israel is a LUXURIANT vine."

 

Hosea 10:7 KJB "As for Samaria, her king is cut off as the FOAM upon the water."  

 

FOAM is also the reading of the RV 1885, ASV 1901, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva 1587, Lesser Bible 1853, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), Douay 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011. 

 

The NKJV  reads: "As for Samaria, her king is cut off like a TWIG on the water." 

 

The NASB has: "Samaria will cut off her king like a STICK on the surface of the water"

 

while the NIV has something a little different still with "Samaria and its king will float away like a twig on the surface of the waters."

 

Who here does the cutting off? God? Samaria? or do they just float away? Is it foam, a stick or a twig?

 

 

Hosea 11:2 KJB - "As THEY called them, so they went from THEM: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images."

 

ESV - "The more THEY WERE CALLED, the more they went away: they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols."  

 

NIV 1984 edition - "The more "I" called Israel, the further they went from ME."  

 

The words "I" and "ME" come from the so called Greek Septuagint and there is no word for "Israel" in the Hebrew text or in the LXX either. They just made it up.

 

NIV 2011 edition - "The more THEY WERE CALLED, the more they went away from ME."  

 

Then it footnotes that ME comes from the Septuagint but the Hebrew reads THEM. Actually this is a false note as well. The so called Greek Septuagint actually says - "As I called them, so they departed FROM MY PRESENCE." So, they even paraphrased the Septuagint.

 

Dan Wallace and company's NET version 2006 - "But the more I summoned3 them, the farther they departed from me.4 "

 

And then he clearly footnotes that the Hebrew reads "THEY CALLED" and "FROM THEM"!!! 

 

Here the words "THEY/THEM" refer to the prophets God sent to call Israel back to Himself (See verse 7) - "And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him."

 

The Hebrew texts  read  "THEY/THEM" as well as the Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587, RV 1885, ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, NASB 1995, NKJV, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, Hebrew Names Version, The Word of Yah 1993, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 and the  World English Bible 2012.

 

The ESV changes the active voice - "They called them" to a passive voice - "they were called" and omits the word THEM.

 

However the NIV, RSV, NRSV read: "But the more "I" called Israel, the further they went from ME." (NIV)  Then these versions footnote that "I" and "ME" come from "SOME Septuagint manuscripts, but the Hebrew reads "they" and "them". 

 

Another one that rejects the Hebrew reading and follows the Septuagint paraphrase is the International Standard Version of 2014. It reads: “The more I called out to them,  the farther they fled from ME.”  Then it footnotes - “So LXX. Masoretic Text reads They called to them, so they went away from them.”

 

The Holman Standard confuses things even further by saying: "The more THEY called them, the more they departed from ME."

 

Then it footnotes that "ME" comes from the LXX but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads "THEM".

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 as well as the Douay 1950 read "As they called them, they went away from before their face: they offered victims to Baalim, and sacrificed to idols."  

 

But now the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem reject the Hebrew text and follow a paraphrase of the so called Greek Septuagint - just like Dan Wallace's NET and the NIV, RSV.  

 

These modern Catholic versions read: "The more "I" called them, the farther they went from ME, sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols."  

 

John Gill - “As they called them, so they went from them,.... That is, the prophets of the Lord, the true prophets, called Israel to the worship and service of God; but they turned a deaf ear to them, and their backs upon them; and the more they called to them, the further they went from them, and from the way of their duty.”

 

Matthew Poole - “As they - Moses and Aaron, and other prophets, and holy, zealous judges and priests, as Samuel, 

Called -  advised, persuaded, entreated, and urged by exhortations.

Them -  the whole house of Israel, and among these the ten tribes, or Ephraim.

So they -  Israelites, called and entreated, especially they of that age when the division was made, and ever since.

Went from -  frowardly and most disingenuously apostatized more and more

From them -  from the prophets’ counsel and commands, delivered as they came from God.

 

Matthew Henry - “as they called them so they went from them they rebelled in those particular instances wherein they were admonished the more pressing and importunate the prophets were with them, to persuade them to that which was good, the more refractory they were, and the more resolute in their evil ways, disobeying for disobedience-sake. This foolishness is bound in the hearts of children, who, as soon as they are taught to go, will go from those that call them.”

 

Get yourself the true words of God in the King James Bible. Friends don't let friends use bogus bible versions.

 

Hosea 11:7 - KJB "And my people are bent to backsliding from me; though they (the prophets) called them to the most High, NONE AT ALL WOULD EXALT HIM." (the people would not exalt God).

 

In this verse the Geneva Bible - "And my people are bent to rebellion against me: though they called them to the most hie, yet none at all would exalt him.", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby, the Amplified bible, The New European Version 2010, and the NASB are in agreement with the KJB.

 

The verse simply means as John Gill, John Wesley, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown and many other Bible commentators have said: "bent to backsliding--Not only do they backslide, and that too from ME, their "chief good," but they are bent upon it. Though they (the prophets) called them (the Israelites) to the Most High (from their idols), "none would exalt (that is, extol or honor) Him." To exalt God, they must cease to be "bent on backsliding." (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown).

 

Foreign language Bible that agree with the King James Bible are the Reina Valera 1909, the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - " Entre tanto, mi pueblo está inclinado a rebelarse contra mí; aunque ellos invocan al Altísimo, ninguno absolutamente quiere enaltecerle.",  the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - " Et mon peuple pend attaché à sa rébellion contre moi; et on le rappelle au Souverain, mais pas un d'eux ne l'exalte.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "Porque o meu povo é inclinado a desviar-se de mim; bem que clamam ao Altíssimo, nenhum deles o exalta.", the Italian New Diodati 1991 - "Il mio popolo tende ad allontanarsi da me; malgrado invocano l'Altissimo, nessuno di essi lo esalta."

 

and the Modern Greek - "Και ο λαος μου ειναι προσκεκολλημενος εις την αποστασιαν την κατ' εμου· αν και εκαλεσθησαν προς τον Υψιστον, ουδεις ομως υψωσεν αυτον." = "my people are joined to apostasy from me; even though they called them to the Most High, none at all exalted Him."

 

The so called Greek Septuagint is not anything like the Modern Greek and the King James Bible. It actually says: "AND HIS PEOPLE SHALL FONDLY CLEAVE TO THEIR HABITATION; BUT GOD SHALL BE ANGRY WITH HIS PRECIOUS THINGS, AND SHALL NOT AT ALL EXALT HIM." (Yeah, that's pretty close, huh?!)

 

But the NIV and ESV have: "My people are determined to turn from me. EVEN IF THEY CALL TO THE MOST HIGH, HE WILL BY NO MEANS EXALT THEM."

 

This is a totally different meaning. In fact, it is the opposite of what we find in the King James Bible. These versions would have us believe that even if the people called out to God, He would not hear nor help them. Read it again.

 

Just to make things more interesting, the RSV says: "My people ARE BENT ON TURNING AWAY FROM ME, SO THEY ARE APPOINTED TO THE YOKE, AND NONE SHALL REMOVE IT."

 

The Catholic Douay-Rheims is sort of like the RSV...but not, with: "And my people SHALL LONG FOR MY RETURN, BUT A YOKE SHALL BE PUT UPON THEM TOGETHER, WHICH SHALL NOT BE TAKEN OFF." 

 

Then the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 says: "His people are IN SUSPENSE ABOUT RETURNING TO HIM, AND GOD, THOUGH IN UNISON THEY CRY OUT TO HIM, SHALL NOT RAISE THEM UP."

 

Dan Wallace and company's NET version is really different with: "My people are obsessed with turning away from me; THEY CALL TO BAAL, BUT HE WILL NEVER EXALT THEM!"

 

Boy, am I glad that is all cleared up for us.  Remember what James White says: we get a clearer picture of what God really said by comparing all the different versions. Don't you agree?

 

Hosea 11:12 - "...but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints."

 

KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God

NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God

NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God


11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS."

 

Those bible versions that agree with the KJB in that Judah YET RULETH WITH GOD are the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011 - " but Judah still walks with God and is faithful to the Holy One.", Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 - "And Judah again is ruling with God, And with the Holy Ones is faithful!", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "but Iudah yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the Saints.", the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "but Iuda yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the saintes.", Green's interlinear, Hebrew Publishing Company Translation 1936 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.  

 

Also agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "but Yehudah yet ruleth with Elohim (אלהים), and is faithful with the Kadoshim.", Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "but Judah still walks with God and is faithful with the saints.", The New European Version 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 - "but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.", Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 and the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "Yahudah still rules with El, and is faithful with the holy ones."

 

 

But the NKJV puts a new twist here with its "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful."

 

The NKJV says it is God who is faithful, instead of Judah "ruling with God" and it changes "with the saints" to "with the Holy One". The meaning is not the same.

 

While the NASB & NIV completely spin it around to mean the opposite with "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One."

 

So which one is God's true word?

 

The Catholic Connection

 

 

The Catholic Versions are their usual confused mess.  The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 as well as the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version are all basically like the KJB and read: "Ephraim has besieged me with denials, and the house of Israel with deceit. But Judah went down as a witness before God and the holy ones of faith." 

 

But the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reads like the NIV, NASB and has "Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, the house of Israel, with deceit; Judah is STILL REBELLIOUS AGAINST GOD, AGAINST the Holy One, who is faithful." 

 

But then the 1985 New Jerusalem went back to "But Judah IS STILL ON GOD'S SIDE, HE IS FAITHFUL to the Holy One."

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the KJB reading are the Portuguese Almeida - "mas Judá ainda domina com Deus, e com o Santo está fiel.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - "Pero Judá aún gobierna con Dios, y es fiel con los santos.", the French Martin 1744 - "Juda dominait encore avec le Dieu Fort, et qu'il était fidèle avec les Saints."

 

and the Modern Greek translation - "αλλ' ο Ιουδας ετι εχει εξουσιαν μετα του Θεου και ειναι πιστος μετα των αγιων." = "But Judah still has power with God and IS FAITHFUL with the saints."

 

 

This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One."


The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure.

 

If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God?

 

Adam Clarke comments: "Judah yet ruleth with God - There is an allusion here to Genesis 32:24, where Jacob, having "wrestled with the Angel," had his name changed to Israel, one that rules with God. That glory the Israelites had lost by their idolatry; but Judah still retained the true worship, and alone deserved the name of Israel." 

 

John Gill comments: "but Judah yet ruleth with God - a theocracy was as yet acknowledged and supported among them; God ruled in the midst of them, and; they ruled with him; their kings ruled in the fear of God, and according to his laws, statutes, and appointment, and not their own; particularly in the days of Hezekiah, which may be here respected, the people retained and practised the true worship and service of God."

 

John Wesley tersely comments: "Judah adheres to God's holy prophets, priests, and other saints of God."

 

John Calvin likewise translated the passage as it stands in the King James Bible -"Judah autem adhuc dominatur (vel, principatum tenet) cum Deo, et cum sanctis fidelis est." and then comments: "But of Judah the Prophet speaks much otherwise, that he still ruled with God, because the posterity of David, though we know that they laboured under many vices, had not yet changed the worship prescribed by the law, except that Ahab had erected an altar like one at Damascus, as the sacred history relates, (2 Kings 16:11,12;) but yet pure religion always prevailed at Jerusalem. But the Prophet speaks comparatively, as it will be presently seen: for he does not wholly excuse the Jews, but says that in comparison with Israel they yet ruled with God; for the kingdom and the priesthood, as we have said, were joined together in Judah, and both had been divinely instituted." 



Hosea 12:7 KJB "He is a MERCHANT"; surprisingly the NASB & NIV, along with the RV, ASV,The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the RSV, NRSV, ESV agree with the KJB, while the NKJV simply says: " A CUNNING CANAANITE!".

 

Hosea 13:3 KJB "and as the smoke out of the CHIMNEY."  The RV, ASV, NASB, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, and NKJV have "chimney" while the NIV has WINDOW. Now, my wife will tell you that I am not much of a handyman, but even I know that a window is not the same thing as a chimney.

 

Hosea 13:9 KJB - "O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF; BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP."

 

ESV - "HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, AGAINST YOUR HELPER." 

 

RSV (NRSV) - "I WILL DESTROY YOU, O ISRAEL; WHO CAN HELP YOU?"

 

NIV - "You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against me, against your helper."  

 

Holman Standard 2009 - "I will destroy you, Israel; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."



 

Agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible in Hosea 13:9 "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;  BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP." are Wycliffe 1395 - "Israel, thi perdicioun is of thee; THINE HELP IS ONLY OF ME.", Coverdale 1535 - "O Israel, thou doest but destroyeth thyself, IN ME ONLY IS THY HELPE.", The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, The Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587, Douay-Rheims 1610, Webster's Bible 1833, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "BUT YOUR HELP IS IN ME.", Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013 - "O Israel, you have destroyed yourself, but in me is your help.", Conservative Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "BUT YOUR HELP IS IN ME.",  Modern English Version 2014, and the International Standard Version 2014 - “You have destroyed yourself, Israel, although I remain your help."

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the KJB are the French Martin 1744 - “On t'a perdu, ô Israël! mais en moi réside ton secours.”, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the Reina Valera 1995 - “Te perdiste, oh Israel, mas en mí está tu ayuda.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 - “O Israele, tu sei stato perduto; ma il tuo aiuto è in me.”, Luther’s German Bible 1445 - “Israel, du bringest dich in Unglück; denn dein Heil stehet allein bei mir.” 

 

And the Modern Greek Bible - “Απωλεσθης, Ισραηλ· πλην εν εμοι ειναι η βοηθεια σου.” = "but your help is in me."

 

 

However the NRSV (and RSV too) reads: "I WILL DESTROY YOU, O ISRAEL; WHO CAN HELP YOU?". 

 

It then footnotes that their reading comes from the Greek and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads the way the King James Bible has it. Their footnote says: "Gk Syr: Heb [for in me is your help]   

 

This is a very misleading, inaccurate and deceptive footnote.  I have a hard copy of Bentons Greek Septuagint and it simply reads: "O Israel, WHO WILL AID THEE IN THY DESTRUCTION?"  That's it. That is all there is to the verse in the LXX.  It doesn't say anything about "thou hast destroyed thyself" or even "I will destroy you".

 

As for the Syriac, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta says: "O Israel, YOU HAVE CORRUPTED YOURSELF; who can help you?"  The first part reads like the King James Bible and certainly doesn't match the RSV. Only the last part is changed and neither part matches the reading found in the NIV or the ESV. 

 

Dan Wallace and company’s NET version 2006 says: “I will destroy you, O Israel! Who is there to help you?”  And then he footnotes that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads: “But in me is your help.” 

 

Likewise the Message is just the opposite of the KJB in that it says: "I'm going to destroy you, Israel. Who is going to stop me?"

 

The Common English Bible (another Critical text version) 2011 has: “I will destroy you, Israel;  for you didn’t realize that I could help you.”

 

The Holman Standard is similar to the RSV with an obvious self contradiction saying: "I WILL DESTROY YOU, ISRAEL; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."

 

The NIV and NASB are pretty similar to each other but very different from the NKJV, the ESV and the RSV. 

 

The NIV reads: "You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against me, against your helper." while the NASB has: "It is your destruction, O Israel, That you are against Me, against your help."

 

The ESV, a revision of the RSV, NRSV, reads differently than both its predessors and the Holman, and the NKJV and the NIV/NASB with: "HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, AGAINST YOUR HELPER."  

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The Catholic versions are in total disarray.  The older Douai-Rheims 1610 and the Douay Version 1950 had the same meaning as that found in the King James Bible. They say: "DESTRUCTION IS THINE OWN, O Israel; THY HELP IS ONLY IN ME."  

 

But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible came out with " I MEAN TO DESTROY YOU, Israel. WHO CAN COME TO YOUR HELP?"

 

Then in 1970 they came out with the St. Joseph New American Bible and it says: "YOUR DESTRUCTION, O Israel! WHO IS THERE TO HELP YOU?"  

 

But now in 1985 the New Jerusalem bible has come out and it reads like the King James Bible, with: "Israel, YOU HAVE DESTROYED YOURSELF THOUGH IN ME LIES YOUR HELP."

 

John Gill - “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself…their destruction was not owing to God, but to themselves; he was not chargeable with it, but they only; the fault and blame was theirs; their own sins brought it on them.  BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP - not in themselves, not in any creature, but in the Lord alone”

 

Matthew Henry - “Israel had destroyed himself by his rebellion; but he could not save himself, his help was from the Lord only."

 

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

 

 

Hosea 13:10 KJB - God says to Israel "I WILL BE YOUR KING; where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities?" 

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "WHERE IS NOW YOUR KING, to save you in all your cities?"

 

"I WILL BE YOUR KING" - So read the King James Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Julia Smith Translation 1855 - "Now I will be thy king", The Word of Yah 1993 - "I WILL BE THY KING", the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, The Apostolic Bible 2006, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear 2011 - "I WILL BE YOUR KING. Where is any other that may save you in all your cities?", Conservative Bible 2011, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “I will be your King; Where is any other, That he may save you in all your cities?”


 

 

Foreign language bibles that read "I WILL BE THY KING" too are the Romanian Fidela Bible of 2009 - "Eu voi fi imparatul tau" = "I will be your King".

 

 

Other Versions, Different Meanings -

 

JPS 1917 - “Ho, now, thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities!  

 

Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - "I will be, where is your king? Now let him save you in all your cities, and your judges, concerning whom you said, "Give me a king and princes."

 

Previous English Bibles did not get this right either. The Bishops' Bible and Geneva Bible said: "I am: where is thy King, that shoulde help thee in al thy cities? and thy iudges, of whom thou saidest, Giue me a King, and princes?"

 

The King James Bible was the first English Bible to correctly translated the Hebrew text. It is the final product in the process of the purification of God's words, "purified seven times" - Psalm 12:6-7

 

David Guzik's commentary - "I will be your King . . . I gave you a king in My anger, and took him away in My wrath: God wanted to be recognized as the King of Israel, no matter which man sat on the royal throne. When they rejected the LORD as King, He gave them the kind of kings their hearts wanted and deserved, and then even took those kings as further judgment.

 


 

Jameson Fausset  and Brown Critical Commentary - “I will be thy king; where — rather, as the Margin and the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, “Where now is thy king?” [Maurer]. ENGLISH VERSION (KJB) IS, HOWEVER, FAVORED BOTH BY THE HEBREW, BY THE ANTITHESIS BETWEEN ISRAEL’S SELF-CHOSEN AND PERISHING KINGS, AND GOD, ISRAEL’S ABIDING KING. (Compare Hosea 3:4-5).

 

 

John Trapp, English Puritan commentator, often quoted by Charles Spurgeon  - “Ver. 10. I will be thy king -  Thine eternal King, so Pagnine. As I have been thy prophet, Hosea 13:4-5, so I WILL BE THY KING; I will also be thy priest and thy Redeemer, Hosea 13:14, that so thou mayest hear my voice, submit to my sceptre, and apply my death for thy deliverance from death’s dominion. Or, I WILL BE THY KING, and not be borne down by thy boisterousness, who calleth for another king, and repinest against my righteous regiment. Thou wouldst cast off mine authority, but I will maintain it. The Lord is king, be the people never so unquiet, Psalms 99:1, he will reign over rebels in spite of their hearts; and those that will not be his subjects, his willing people, shall be his slaves, his footstool, Psalms 110:1; Psalms 110:3.” 

 

Charles Spurgeon - “Hosea 13:9-10. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me thine help. I WILL BE THY KING: If thou hast shifted me from the throne, and set up a usurper, I will come and be thy King even now.”

 

Barnes Notes on the Bible - "I will be thy King - (literally, "I would be" thy King) Where is any other that, etc"

 

John Gill mentions both readings, saying: "I will be thy King, where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities?.... Governor, Protector, and Defender; and so confirming what is before said, that their help was in him: or, as the Targum, Abarbinel, and others (n), "where is thy king now, that he may serve thee in all thy cities?"

 

Matthew Poole’s Commentary - “I will be thy King; I would have been thy King to govern and save thee, but thou refusedst me in both; yet I will he thy King to punish thee. I will not lose my right and honour by thy rebellious carriages against me, I will be a King and subdue such.”

 

John Wesley - “Thy king - I would have been thy king to govern and save thee, but thou refusedst me in both: yet I will be thy king to punish thee. “

 

Geneva Bible Study Notes - "{g} I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities?"

 

But a multitude of versions like  the NIV and NASB ask "WHERE IS your king?"  So also do Darby, Youngs, RV, ASV.

 

The NRSV reads: "WHERE NOW IS YOUR KING, that he may save you?" and then the RSV footnotes that their reading comes from the Greek, Syriac and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew reads "I will be...": "Gk Syr Vg: Heb [I will be].  

 

Dan Wallace's NET version is interesting in that he also says: "Where then is your king?" but then he footnotes - "Few English versions follow the MT (Masoretic Text) : “I will be thy/your king” (KJV, NKJV)."

 

The Holman Standard 2009 reads like most modern versions - “Where now is your king,[a] that he may save you in all your cities…?” 

 

But then it footnotes that the reading of “WHERE IS NOW YOUR KING?” comes from  the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. But that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads “I WILL BE YOUR KING.”  - LXX, Syr, Vg; MT reads I will be your king

 

The King James Bible is right, as always. Even when many others disagree with it.  It is God's INERRANT words of truth and grace.

 

 

 

Hosea 13:14 KJB -  "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

ESV - "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."

 

One of the most beautiful and comforting promises in the book of the prophet Hosea has been completely turned on its head and made out to be utter non-sense in many versions.  In the King James Bible we read: "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

 

The meaning of this promise is abundantly clear in the King James Bible. God has promised to redeem His people from death and destroy the power of the grave and He will not change His mind about doing this for us.  The word "repentance" here simply means  a change of mind and is used in this way many times in Scripture when referring to God.  Psalm 110:4 "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."  "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."  Romans 11:29.

 

One would think the meaning of this precious promise is obvious. 

 

John Gill comments: "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes; that is, the Lord will never repent of his decree of redemption from hell, death, and the grave; nor of the work of it by Christ; nor of the entire destruction of these things; which being once done, will never be repented of nor recalled, but remain so for ever."

 

Adam Clarke's Commentary says: "Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. On these points I will not change my purpose; this is the signification of repentance when attributed to God."

 

The Coffman Commentary on the Bible says: "Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes…The clear meaning of that is that God will not repent of his glorious promise. The immutable and eternal God will do what he promised!"

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Commentary simply says: "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes--that is, I will not change My purpose of fulfilling My promise by delivering Israel." 

 

John Wesley comments: "Repentance shall be hid - I will never, as a man that repents, change my word and purpose, saith the Lord. What a glorious promise is this, which is interposed in the midst of all these judgments!" 

 

Matthew Henry comments: "This promise he has made, and it shall be made good to all that are his; for repentance shall be hidden from his eyes; he will never recall this sentence passed on death and the grave, for he is not a man that he should repent. Thanks be to God therefore who gives us the victory."

 

Matthew Poole comments:"Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes - this grace toward the godly, toward believers in Israel and in the church, throughout all ages, is unchangeable; I will never, as man that repenteth, change my mind and purpose, saith the Lord."

 

 

Not only does the King James Bible read this way but so do the following Bible translations: the Geneva Bible 1587 -"I wil redeem them from the power of the graue: I will deliuer them from death: O death, I wil be thy death: O graue, I will be thy destruction: repentance is hid from mine eyes.", the Revised Version 1881, Noyes Translation 1869, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society)- "Ho, thy plagues, O death! Ho, thy destruction, O nether-world! Repentance be hid from Mine eyes!", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's literal translation 2005, The Scriptures 1998 by the Institute for Scripture Research, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 - "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy plagues! O grave, I will be thy destruction! REPENTANCE SHALLL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

Also reading like the King James Bible in Hosea 13:14 as a blessed promise of God's grace to redeem us from death and that God will not change His mind concerning this, are The Word of Yah 1993 - "REPENTANCE shall be hid from my eyes.", Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Jubilee Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "O grave, I will be your destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from my sight.", Conservative Bible 2011  "REPENTANCE shall be hid from my eyes", and the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "REPENTANCE shall be hid from my eyes."

 

Even a modern paraphrase like God's Word Translation 1995 agrees with the sense found in the KJB. It reads:  - "I want to free them from the power of the grave. I want to reclaim them from death. Death, I want to be a plague to you. Grave, I want to destroy you. I won't even think of changing my plans."

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865, the Reina Valera of 1909 and the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "De la mano del sepulcro los redimiré, los libraré de la muerte. Oh muerte, yo seré tu muerte; y seré tu destrucción, oh sepulcro; el arrepentimiento será escondido de mis ojos." = "repentance will be hidden from my eyes", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Je les rachèterais de la puissance du Sépulcre; je les garantirais de la mort. O mort! je serais ta peste. O Sépulcre! je serais ta destruction. Le repentir se cache à mes yeux!", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "Eu os remirei da violência do inferno e os resgatarei da morte; onde estão, ó morte, as tuas pragas? Onde está, ó inferno, a tua perdição? O arrependimento será escondido de meus olhos." = "repentance shall be hidden from my eyes",

 

Other foreign language Bibles that agree with the reading found in the KJB are the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991,  and Italian Riveduta 1927, 1994, 2006 - "Io li riscatterei dal potere del soggiorno de’ morti, li redimerei dalla morte; sarei la tua peste, o morte, sarei la tua distruzione, o soggiorno de’ morti; ma il lor pentimento è nascosto agli occhi miei!" = "the repentance is hidden to the eyes mine!"

 

And the Modern Greek Bible - "Εκ χειρος αδου θελω ελευθερωσει αυτους, εκ θανατου θελω σωσει αυτους. Που ειναι, θανατε, ο ολεθρος σου; που, αδη, η φθορα σου; η μεταμελεια θελει κρυπτεσθαι απο των οφθαλμων μου." = "Repentance will be hid from my eyes".

 

In other words, God has promised to redeem His people from the power of the grave and and He will not change His mind nor alter His purpose.  Let's look at the verse once again as it stands in the King James Bible and so many others, and then compare it to many other versions around today to see the differences. 

 

Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be thy plagues; O Grave, I will be thy destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes." 

 

 

The NKJV keeps the verse as 4 statements but changes the meaning. It says:  "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction!  PITY is hidden from My eyes."

 

 

The NIV and the Holman Standard change this verse by making it 2 statements and 2 questions and alter the meaning with: "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction? I WILL HAVE NO COMPASSION." (NIV)

 

While versions like the RSV, ESV and NASB have turned all 4 statements into 4 questions and again completely change the meaning of the verse.  The ESV along with the RSV change the 4 statements into 4 questions and alter the entire meaning of the verse, making it some sort of a threat instead of a comforting promise. 

 

The ESV says: "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES."

 

"COMPASSION IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES" is also the reading found in the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and in the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985.

 

 

The International Standard Version 2014 makes NO sense at all. It goes well till we get to the last line, and then turns everything upside down.  It reads: ““From the power of Sheol I will rescue them, from death I will redeem them. Death, where are your plagues?  Sheol, where is your destruction? MY EYES WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO YOUR PLEAS FOR COMPASSION.”

 

The Voice 2012 (another goofy Critical text version) says: “Hey, Death! Where is your big win?  Hey, Grave! What happened to your sting?  I’LL LOOK THE OTHER WAY AND NOT SHOW THEM ANY PITY.”


(Have these bible correctors lost their collective minds?)

 

NET version - Perhaps worse of them all is Dan Wallace and company's NET version which has changed all 4 statements into exclamations, added words not found in any Hebrew text and turned the meaning completely upside down, making it a threat of doom rather than a promise of deliverance. 

 

The NET version actually says: "WILL I DELIVER THEM FROM THE POWER OF SHEOL? NO, I WILL NOT!  WILL I REDEEM THEM FROM DEATH? NO, I WILL NOT! O DEATH, BRING ON YOUR PLAGUES! O SHEOL, BRING ON YOUR DESTRUCTION! MY EYES WILL NOT SHOW ANY COMPASSION!"

 

Coffman's Commentary -

 

What I found to be of great interest is Burton Coffman's Commentary on the Old and New Testament regarding Hosea 13:14. He comments. Keep in mind that he is NOT a KJB only believer.  

 

He writes:  "MANY HAVE TRIED TO PERVERT THIS PRECIOUS PROMISE INTO A THREAT OF DESTRUCTION by the rendition of it as an interrogative instead of a declaration; but we are compelled to reject this. The apostle Paul viewed the passage as a promise and quoted it in 1 Cor. 15:55; and thus inspiration from God provides the true meaning of it. What upsets the commentators is the totally unexpected appearance of a blessed promise like this in the midst of the most severe denunciations to be found in the whole Bible; but the setting is this: God had promised that through Israel "all the families of the earth" should be blessed, and Hosea had been charged with the task of revealing God's purpose of rejection and destruction of the very Israel through whom the blessing of all men was promised to be conveyed! Did that mean that the hope of human salvation was lost? Indeed no! The ultimate victory of God, upon behalf of men, over the consequences of sin would yet be achieved. "I will ransom them!" thundered from the throne of God as the answer for any doubt. God was not being defeated in the apostasy of Israel; it was Israel that was being defeated. God would yet achieve his purpose through the righteous remnant which would remain, and particularly through the True Israel, even Jesus Christ our Lord! How appropriately, therefore, do the words of this sublime promise shine like a blazing lamp in the midnight darkness of Israel's wretched apostasy.


It is a fact that, "MODERN SCHOLARSHIP IS VIRTUALLY UNANIMOUS IN TAKING THIS VERSE AS A THREAT. God is summoning up the plagues of death to punish his recalcitrant people." Despite this, we are certain that the scholars are wrong here because they are blind to the crying need for just such a promise in this exact place. They are looking only at Israel; but God's purpose in Israel has always been a redemption planned for all men, and not for Jews only. MOST OF THE SO CALLED "MODERN TRANSLATIONS" FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE SCHOLARS IN PERVERTING THIS BLESSED PROMISE; and in this particular, they become not "translations" in any sense but commentary, and woefully ignorant and inaccurate commentary at that! The apostle Paul could not have used this passage as he did, unless it is a glorious promise. Many of the scholars, even some of them who accept the passage as a threat, have pointed out that there is no genuine authority whatever for their changing the meaning of this verse." (end of comments - Coffman's Commentary)

 

The Catholic versions are very much like today's NKJV, NIV, NASB.  The 1610 Douay-Rheims reads: "I will deliver them out of the hand of death. I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite: COMFORT IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES."

 

While the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read basically the same with "Shall I save them from the clutches of Sheol? Shall I buy them back from Death? Where are your plagues, Death? Where are your scourges, Sheol? COMPASSION WILL BE BANISHED FROM MY SIGHT!"

 

It should be blatantly obvious that not all Bible versions teach the same things. Many of them teach the exact opposite from what is found in others.  Is God this confused? Of course not.

 

Who is the father of lies and confusion?  Who corrupts and steals the words of God from the hearts of men? He's been at it since the garden of Eden. It's Satan, the devil and Lucifer who asks the very first question recorded in the Holy Bible way back in Genesis 3 - "Yeah, hath God said...?" 

 

Get yourself a copy of the true words of God as found in the greatest Bible ever printed. The all time best seller in all of history and the only Bible believed by multiplied thousands to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of the living God - The Authorized King James Holy Bible.

 


 These are just a few of the similar examples that are found throughout the entire Old Testament. All bibles are not the same. God is not a liar nor is He the author of confusion. All of these versions cannot be the inspired, true, preserved words of the living God.

 

 False witnesses sometimes tell the truth, but they end up contradicting the truth in other areas and they do not agree with each other. I firmly believe the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NET and NASB are false witnesses and false bibles. May God reveal to us the truth of His infallible words and where they are found today - in the  Authorized King James Bible.