Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

Bible Babble Buffet Ten

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth SHALL BE bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth SHALL BE loosed in heaven.



A certain Bible corrector names Justin Peters tells us that the KJB mistranslated this passage and that it should read, "shall have been" rather than, "shall be."


But is he right? Of course not.


There are no significant textual variants in Matthew 18:18.


The Greek text looks like this - αμην λεγω υμιν οσα εαν δησητε επι της γης εσται δεδεμενα εν τω ουρανω και οσα εαν λυσητε επι της γης εσται λελυμενα εν τω ουρανω


The parts our Bible corrector is so concerned about are εσται δεδεμενα = shall be bound and εσται λελυμενα = shall be loosed.


This is composed of two words - εσται - which is the future tense of the verb to be. So “shall be” is correct. Where our Bible corrector goes astray is in the second words. Both of the are called a perfect passive participle.


Perfect tense verbs describe something that was done in the past but its results or effects continue into the present. ALL Bible versions that I am aware of often translate perfect participles in this way.


I can give scores of examples but here are just a few.


Matthew 10:30 But the very hairs of your head ARE all NUMBERED. - ηριθμημεναι εισιν.


So also read the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and Dan Wallace’s NET version.


Matthew 10:26 - Fear them not therefore: for there IS nothing COVERED, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. = εστιν κεκαλυμμενον


So also read the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and NKJV.


Luke 24:38 And he said unto them, Why ARE YE TROUBLED? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? = τεταραγμενοι εστε


So also read the NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET and Holman Standard.


Acts 2:10 Others mocking said, These men ARE FULL of new wine. = μεμεστωμενοι εισιν


So also read the NKJV, NASB, NET, ESV and Holman Standard.


Again, so also read the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman and the NKJV.


This Bible critic simply does not know what he is talking about.


Reading like the King James Bible in Matthew 18:18 “shall be bound” and “shall be loosed” are the following Bible translations - Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Living Oracles 1835, Noyes N.T. 1869, Sawyer N.T. 1858, the English Revised Version 1881, Darby Translation1890, the ASV 1901, Weymouth N.T. 1902, Twentieth Century N.T. 1902, James Moffat N.T. 1926, Goodspeed N.T. 1927, Bible in Basic English 1961, the Revised Standard Version 1946-1971, J.B.Phillips N.T. 1972, the NKJV 1982, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, the Tomson N.T. 2002, A Conservative Version 2005, Jubilee Bible 2010, New Heart English Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010 - “shall be bound….shall be released”, Common English Bible 2011, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, Modern English Version 2014, New International Readers’s Version 2014, New Matthew Bible 2016 and the Evangelical Heritage Version 2019 - “will be bound in heaven”

The meaning of the verse.

John Gill Bible Commentary on the meaning of the phrase “to bind and to loose” - “And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. This also is not to be understood of binding, or loosing men's sins, by laying on, or taking off censures, and excommunications; but only of doctrines, or declarations of what is lawful and unlawful, free, or prohibited to be received, or practised; in which sense the words"bound and loosed", are used.

Christ gave a greater power of binding and loosing, to his disciples, than these men had, and which they used to better purpose. The sense of the words is this, that Peter, and so the rest of the apostles, should be empowered with authority from him, and so directed by his Holy Spirit, that whatever they bound, that is, declared to be forbidden, and unlawful, should be so: and that whatever they loosed, that is, declared to be lawful, and free of use, should be so; and accordingly they bound some things which before were loosed, and loosed some things which before were bound; for instance, they bound, that is, prohibited, or declared unlawful, the use of circumcision, which before, and until the death of Christ, was enjoined the natural seed of Abraham; but that, and all ceremonies, being abolished by the death of Christ, they declared it to be nothing, and of no avail, yea, hurtful and pernicious; that whoever was circumcised, Christ profited him nothing, and that he was a debtor to do the whole law: they affirmed, that the believing Gentiles were not to be troubled with it; that it was a yoke not fit to be put upon their necks, which they, and their fathers, were not able to bear, Galatians 5:1. They bound, or forbid the observance of days, months, times, and years; the keeping holy days, new moons, and sabbaths, which had been used in the Jewish church for ages past; such as the first day of the new year, and of every month, the day of atonement, the feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, the jubilee year, the sabbatical year, and seventh day sabbath, Galatians 4:9. They loosed, or declared lawful and free, both civil and religious conversation between Jews and Gentiles; whereas, before, the Jews had no dealings with the Gentiles, nor would not enter into their houses, nor keep company with them, would have no conversation with them; neither eat, nor drink with them; but now it was determined and declared, that no man should be called common, or unclean; and that in Christ Jesus, and in his church, there is no distinction of Jew and Gentile, Acts 10:28. They also loosed, or pronounced lawful, the eating of any sort of food, without distinction, even that which was before counted common and unclean, being persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ, by the words he said, Matthew 15:11. They asserted, that there is nothing unclean of itself; and that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; or that true religion does not lie in the observance of those things; that every creature of God is good, and fit for food, and nothing to be refused, or abstained from, on a religious account, provided it be received with thanksgiving, Romans 14:14. And these things now being by them bound or loosed, pronounced unlawful or lawful, are confirmed as such by the authority of God, and are so to be considered by us.”





Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)



Matthew 19:9 - Did Erasmus introduce an error in the Textus Receptus?


A Christian brother writes: 


Hello Will, This was the response I received about Matthew 19:9



“Just to summarize the argument regarding Matthew 19:9 with a bit more information, in case you want to follow up with your friend who is King James Only, the TR reads ei mē epi porneiai, which is not found in any Greek text in existence prior to that time, including the Greek texts which Erasmus himself consulted. 


The TR reading is found as a marginal note on one of the Greek texts which Erasmus consulted, a 15th century manuscript called Codex Leicestrensis (Manuscript 69); however, there is good evidence to suggest, which I did not realize when I spoke to you yesterday, that this correction was added after Erasmus saw the text (because the same corrector elsewhere uses verse numbering, which was first introduced in Robert Stephens’ royal edition of 1550, whereas Erasmus died in 1536). So it seems clear that the word ei was added by Erasmus out of the blue, without any textual support at all of any kind. He invented this reading out of nowhere.


So why did he do this? What was his motivation for corrupting the text? The argument for a theological motivation is as follows:


(a) Erasmus was introducing a new perspective on divorce and remarriage, which is still known today as the “Erasmian view”. This was in opposition to the traditional view of the Roman Catholic church, which was also pretty much uniformly the view of the church fathers.


(b) Matthew 19:9 is the crucial text in the debate. There is no other text in the entire New Testament which is potentially decisive in favour of the Erasmian view, and which is not open to very plausible and widely accepted alternative interpretations that many commentators continue to defend today.


(c) The reading mē epi porneiai is much more ambiguous as an exceptive clause for remarriage than the phrase invented by Erasmus.


(d) Erasmus also changed the reading in the Latin Vulgate of Matthew 19:9 in such a way as to widen the exemption clause.


So I would submit, this is a good example of a theologically motivated corruption to the TR by Erasmus. This in itself should be enough for anyone to reject King James Onlyism. I will be intrigued to see what your friend comes up with to explain this particular issue away.”  


[End of Bible critics comments]


My Response -


First of all, it is obvious that this friend of yours does not believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God.  


Just ask him to show you a copy of what he really believes is the inerrant Bible in ANY language - including “the” Greek and Hebrew.  My bet is that he will never do it.


Secondly, it would have been more than a little difficult for Erasmus to have changed the Latin Vulgate reading found in Matthew 19:9 since he was not born till about 11 centuries later. 



Thirdly, in the King James Bible we read: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”


The modern Vatican supervised Critical text versions like the NASB, ESV, NIV, NET, Holman, etc. all have THE SAME MEANING.


NASB 1995 - “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”


ESV 2016 - “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”


NIV 2011 - “ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”


The only difference translation wise is that the KJB is far more accurate when it says “except it be for FORNICATION”, which is a specific sexual sin, whereas the phony new versions use the open ended “you define it as you want to” vague term of “sexual immorality”.


See my article “Fornication or immorality - Sodomites or something else?”


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


Fourthly, when we look at the Greek texts here, what we see is a cluster of variant readings.


The Reformation Textus Receptus reads: “ει μη επι πορνεια” = except [it be] for fornication.


The so called “oldest and best manuscripts”, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, do not even agree with each other here.


Sinaiticus reads μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, and this is the text adopted by Westcott and Hort and the Vatican supervised Critical Greek text of Nestle-Aland.


However Vaticanus has a completely different reading and says  παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶται.  But even though it reads  παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας instead of μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (All three words are different, and two of them are radically different) yet it comes out to mean the same thing. 


Literally the Vaticanus reading would be “except for reason of fornication”.


And manuscript D reads differently than both Sinaiticus or Vaticanus with παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, differing from Vaticanus in the last 3 words, and different from Sinaiticus in all of them!


And these are his so called “oldest and best manuscripts”!


But even with all these textual differences here, the meaning comes out to be the same.  Just different ways of expressing the same idea.


Even the Modern Greek Bible, which uses modern Greek rather than New Testament Greek, makes up its own text in modern speech Greek, but it comes out to MEAN THE SAME THING.  


It reads: εκτος δια πορνειαν και νυμφευθη αλλην = except for fornication and marries another


The reading found in the Textus Receptus of Scrivener 1894 is ει μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην.  This is also the reading apparently found in Erasmus, and it is that of Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, and the Elzevir brothers Textus Receptus of 1624 - ει μη επι πορνεια 


Your “scholar wannabe” friend is making much ado about absolutely nothing, and is seeing “errors” where none exist.


He is his own authority, and it looks like not a very knowledgable one at that.  Again, ask him to show you a copy of this complete and inerrant Bible he supposedly believes in.  My bet is that he won’t be able to do it.


I hope this has been of some help to you, brother.


The King James Bible is always right, and the Bible critics just can’t stand it.


 


Matthew 20:22-23 KJB - “But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, AND TO BE BAPTIZED WITH THE BAPTISM THAT I AM BAPTIZED WITH? They say unto him, We are able.


And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, AND BE BAPTIZED WITH THE BAPTISM THAT I AM BAPTIZED WITH: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” 

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, ISV, all Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - “Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

 

You will notice that all the capitalized words in both verses are omitted by the Vatican Versions. They are omitted by the usual suspects, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and D, plus a very few others as well as the Latin Vulgate.  

 

However all these words are found in the Majority of all manuscripts including C, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, O, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma, Phi, Omega. They are also found in some Old Latin copies (f, h, q) and are in the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Arminian and in some Coptic Boharic ancient versions.  

 

These extra 23 words are also found in Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Modern Greek Bible and in the Modern Hebrew Bible.

 

Bibles that include all these words are the Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808,  The Revised Translation 1815, Webster’s bible 1833, the Longman Version 1841, the Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, the Smith Bible 1876, Young’s 1898, the New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, God’s First Truth 1999,  the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering N.T. 2005, Green’s Literal 2005,  Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Conservative Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011,  the Far Above All Translation 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012 (normally a critical text version), The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Foreign language Bibles that include all these extra 23 words are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera’s from 1909 to 1995 (but the R.V. Contemporánea 2011 has now omitted all these words), Luther’s German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000,  the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1998 and Louis Segond 2007, The Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida Bible 2009,  the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Finnish Bible 1776, the Maori Bible, the Quechua-Chimborazo N.T. 2010, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Somali Bible, the Albanian Bible, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, Vereen’s Contemporary Bulgarian Bible, the Dutch Staten-Vertaling Bible, the Czech BKR Bible, the Lithuanian N.T., the Basque N.T., the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.  

 

You can either have the Reformation Bible text or the Vatican Versions.  The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.

 

NASB & Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic versions Confusion - The two sons and the Father's vineyard - Matthew 21:28-31 


 

Matthew 21:28-31 - "A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in MY vineyard. He answered and said, I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, sir.; and HE WENT NOT. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The FIRST."


This is the reading of the King James Bible 1611, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Alford N.T. 1870, the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV of 2011, the NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2009, the ISV 2014, the Catholic Douay 1950 and Jerusalem bibles 1969, 1985, the NIV of 1984 and 2011 and even the NET version.  

 

These readings are found in the majority of all manuscripts and in the Siniaticus copy, one of the so called oldest and best.

 

However Vaticanus reverses the order of the two sons and has the first son in verse 29 saying "I WILL GO, BUT HE WENT NOT" and the second son in verse 30 saying "I WILL NOT, BUT LATER HE GOES."

 

Westcott and Hort originally followed this reading found in Vaticanus and so did the earlier Critical Greek texts. I have a Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 21st edition 1975 and both of them read this way.  Yet in spite of the Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland Vaticanus reading in their text, versions like the RV 1885, ASV 1901 and not even the RSV followed it.

 

But later on (with NO ADDITIONAL textual discoveries) they just changed their minds and now the more recent Nestle-Aland texts follow the reading that has been in the KJB all along.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Even "most" of the Catholic bibles rejected the Vaticanus reading here, and they have it in the Vatican library as one of their treasured possessions. Yet they chose to follow the reading that matches the one found in the King James Bible and placed it in the 1582 Douay-Rheims, the Douay 1950, the Jerusalem bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. 

 

However the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reverses the two sons and has the first one saying he will go and then doesn't, while the second son says he will not go, and then does.   But the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain version goes back to the traditional reading found in the King James Bible and in all Reformation bibles.


 When the Father came to the first son and told him to go work in his vineyard, instead of saying "I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT." the NASBs from 1962, 63, 68, 71, 72, 75 and 1977 say "I WILL, AND HE DID NOT GO.”  And when he comes to the second son, in the NASBs from 1962 to 1977, instead of him saying "I GO SIR, AND HE WENT NOT” the NASBs have "I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT.”  Then, when Jesus asks which of them did the father's will, instead of “the FIRST”, the NASBs (1963 to 1977) say "the LATTER"!!!


Other bible versions that also followed the reading found in Vaticanus are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 edition, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904,  Riverside N.T. 1923, Montgomery N.T. 1924, Moffatt N.T. 1926,  Goodspeed 1943, the New English Bible 1970, and the Revised English Bible of 1989, put out as a recent joint effort between Protestants and Catholics.  All these versions follow the Vaticanus reading, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is wrong.

 

BUT now the Jehovah Witnesses have "revised" their New World Translation in 2013 and the new JW "bible" has now reversed itself just like the NASB 1995 did, and it now has the first son saying he will not go, but afterwards repents, while it is the second son who says he will go, but doesn't.


The NASB does not always follow the Vaticanus readings.  Siniaticus differs from it over 3000 times in the gospels alone. In fact in verse 28 the “my” of "MY vineyard" is in Vaticanus, but not in Siniaticus, but the NASB did not put it in. 

 

So the NASB goes back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, sometimes following one, sometimes the other, and sometimes changing their opinion from one year to the next. Here in verse 28 both the NIV and NASB have followed Siniaticus and rejected the Vaticanus and Majority reading of “MY vineyard”and have merely "THE" vineyard. 


The NASBs then chose to follow the Vaticanus reading (and not the Sinaiticus nor Majority reading) in verses 29-31 in all their editions from 1960 through 8 different editions until 1995 when they again changed their "scholarly opinion", based on the same evidence which they had all along! NOW the 1995 NASB “update” and the Jehovah Witness NWT update both read like the King James Bible and many others did all along. 


Which NASB was or is the true words of God?  Short answer - None of them.  There is no “science” in their critical text methods; only the fickle and every changing opinions of men who make change for change’s sake (and perhaps for a few dollars and personal fame tossed in as well.)   Their bogus bibles only serve to undermine the authority of God's true words and sow doubt and confusion among God’s people. 


 


Matthew 21:42 Jesus Christ the head of the corner


In Matthew 21:42 we read: "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the HEAD OF THE CORNER: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?"


The KJB contains the literal rendering. So also the Revised Version, the ASV, Geneva, Young, Tyndale and even the RSV. The head, kephale (κεφαλὴν), is used as Christ the head of the Church, the head of the body, the man being the head of the woman, etc. Corner is gonia (γωνίας) as in "the corners of the streets"; "this thing was not done in a corner" and "the four corners of the earth"


This name or reference to Christ as the head of the corner occurs in Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10, Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:7. The NKJV and NASB are pretty close with "chief corner stone", though the word stone is not in the text, but it can be implied. Several other versions like the ESV and NASB and NET version tell us that Christ is the "cornerstone", but then the ESV correctly informs us that The Greek is literally "the head of the corner" just as the King James Bible has it.


In any case, a corner stone, or head of the corner is a large stone placed at the angle where 2 walls of a building meet, and helps bind them together. This large stone gives direction to the entire structure, and is the first stone put into place on  the foundation.


Notice the reference in Job 38:4-6 where the LORD asks Job "Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?"


However the NIV 1973, 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions have totally messed up these four references to Christ being the head of the corner, and instead has translated the exact same Greek as "the CAPSTONE." "The stone which the builders rejected has become the capstone."


Now the capstone is not the first stone placed in the foundation of the building to give it shape and direction, but is rather the very last stone to be placed at the TOP of the  finished structure. A capstone goes on the top of the building, so it is the exact opposite of "the head of the corner".


The NIV's 4 earlier editions even contradict themselves. If we look at the prophesy found in Isaiah 28:16 we read: "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a FOUNDATION a stone, a tried stone, a precious CORNER STONE, a sure FOUNDATION." This corner stone is the foundation, not the capstone. Even the NIVs have "precious CORNER STONE stone for a sure foundation."


Don't worry, they are just updating that old fashioned King James language so we can better understand it. They aren't really perverting (turning upside down) the words of God.


HOWEVER, now in 2011 the brand new New International Version has come out and changed well over 10% of the  verses found in the previous NIVs.  They have now gone back to the correct reading that was always found in the King James Bible. The NIV 2011 now reads once again: "the stone the builders rejected has become THE CORNERSTONE", and they changed "capstone" to "cornerstone" in Mark 12:10, Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:7 as well.


We see the same confusion in the Catholic versions. The Douay Rheims of 1582 actually had it right and was the best with "the head of the corner", which is literally what all Greek texts as well as the King James Bible say. Then the 1950 Douay version changed this to "the cornerstone", just like the NASB, ESV and NET versions have it.


But then in the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible both these versions changed it to "the KEYSTONE", and this is very much like the erroneous NIVs. A keystone is the central, topmost stone place in an arch. It is not a foundation stone at all, just like the NIV's "capstone" is not. 


But then once again in the 1985 New Jerusalem version they have now gone back to "cornerstone".


I am reminded of a Proverb found in God's word - "My son, fear thou the LORD and the king; and MEDDLE NOT WITH THEM THAT ARE GIVEN TO CHANGE." Proverbs 24:21


Matthew 24:28 "Eagles" or "Vultures"? 


In Matthew 24 the Lord Jesus is telling us of the signs that will occur before the end of the world. He mentions famines, pestilences, wars, earthquakes, false Christs and false prophets. In verse 28 He says: "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will THE EAGLES be gathered together."


This is a reference to the book of Job 39: 27-30, where we read "Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high? She dwelleth and abideth on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place. From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off. Her young ones also suck up blood; and where the slain are, there is she."


All versions have the word eagle here in Job 39:27-30. In the book of Revelation 19:17-18 we read of the fowls of heaven being gathered for judgement. "And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great."


 

EAGLES


The word in Matthew 24:28 is clearly in all texts eagles, aetoi, and is correctly translated as "eagles" in Wycliffe's Bibld 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "For whersoeuer a dead carkes is, euen thither wyl EGLES resort.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "thither will the Egles be gathered together.", the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Webster's 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Noyes Translation 1869, The Alford N.T. 1870, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, the Revised Standard Version 1971, Bible in Basic English 1969, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Green's MKJV, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, New European Version 2010, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011 and The Modern English Version 2014.  


Just a few of the foreign language Bibles that also correctly read EAGLES instead of VULTURES are the Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991 and Italian Riveduta of 2006 - "quivi si accoglieranno le aquile.", Luther's German Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 and the R.V. Gómez of 2010 - "allí se juntarán las águilas.", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "allí se juntarán las águilas." and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - " Pois onde estiver o cadáver, aí se ajuntaräo as águias." and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "שם יקבצו הנשרים" = "where the EAGLES gathered"

 

However the ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, ISV, Holman Standard, Dan Wallace's and company's NET version, most modern Catholic versions and an host of modern paraphrase versions have mistranslated this word as VULTURES.  ESV - "Wherever the corpse is, there THE VULTURES will gather."   


Dan Wallace's NET version says: "Wherever the corpse is, there the VULTURES will gather." Then he footnotes: "The same Greek term can refer to “eagles” or “vultures” (L&N 4.42; BDAG 22 s.v. ἀετός), but in this context it must mean vultures because the gruesome image is one of dead bodies being consumed by scavengers."  And then he tells us: "Greek “will be gathered.” The passive construction has been translated as an active one in English."


 

You will notice that the ESV did both the same things, translating "eagles" as "vultures" and changing the literal "will be gathered" (passive, because God is the one who does it to them) to an active voice "will gather".  This is pure human reasoning gone to seed.  I admit I am not much of an expert about birds, but I sure have the common sense to know that an eagle is not a vulture.  Any Greek dictionary will tell you that the word ἀετός means "eagle" and the word γύπας means "vulture".  


 

The Catholic Connection


Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay both read like the KJB with: "there shall the EAGLES eagles also BE GATHERED TOGETHER." (Notice too the passive "be gathered").  


But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible are in agreement with the other Vatican versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and say: "there THE VULTURES WILL GATHER."


But wait! They are not done yet. Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it goes back to the original reading which follows the Greek text and says: "there also will the EAGLES BE GATHERED TOGETHER."


Greek Dictionary online. Type in the word "eagle"; it is aetos.  Type in the word "vulture" it is gupas.


http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon


I have a Divry's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dictionary here in my study. It is just a secular dictionary. It has nothing to do with the Bible. If you look up the word "eagle" you find only one word and that is aetos. You look up aetos and it gives one definition - eagle. Then if you look up "vulture" it give one word - gup.  


 

The Greek word  ἀετός or "eagle" is found four times in the New Testament. It is used here in Matthew 24:28 and in Luke 17:37 (in the same context) and in Revelation 4:7 "the fourth beast was like a flying EAGLE" and in Revelation 12:14 "and to the woman were given two wings of a great EAGLE", and even the ESV, NIV, NASB and NET all translated the two times the word is mentioned in the book of Revelation as an "EAGLE"! Yet in Matthew 24 and Luke 17 they changed this bird into a VULTURE.  


 

What has happened is that some unbelieving bible agnostic similar to Dan Wallace has relied on his own carnal misunderstanding of the passage and thinks that only "vultures" eat dead animals, and so he assumes that the Greek word can only mean "vultures" in this context.  So some guy writes this nonsense down in some book or lexicon or commentary and another bible agnostic picks it up and runs with it. This is how modern scholarship works. They can't tell the difference between an eagle and a vulture.


Look up eagles in any encyclopedia or internet site and you will find that they are most definitely considered to be birds of prey. Here is a quote from one such site - "Due to the size and power of many eagle species, they are ranked at the top of the food chain as apex predators in the avian world. The type of prey varies from genus to genus....The eagles of the genus Aquila are often the top birds of prey in open habitats, taking almost any medium-sized vertebrate they can catch."


Just do some basic research. Google "Feeding habits of eagles".  Here is from the first site I found -  http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle3.html


Or Google "Feeding habits of eagles". Here is the first site I found.


http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle3.html


 " A bald eagle's lifting power is about 4 pounds. They do not generally feed on chickens or other domestic livestock, but they will make use of available food sources. Bald eagles will take advantage of carrion (dead and decaying flesh), giving it a scavenger image, which causes some people to dislike eagles. Other people do not care for powerful and aggressive birds; while some object merely on the grounds that it is a bird of prey which kills other animals for food."  


And this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle#Diet_and_feeding -

 

"Bald Eagles also regularly exploit water turbines which produce battered, stunned or dead fish easily consumed. Predators who leave behind scraps of dead fish that they kill, such as Brown Bears (Ursus arctos), Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) and Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes), may be habitually followed in order to scavenge the kills secondarily."   "On San Juan Island in Washington, introduced European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), mainly those killed by auto accidents, comprise nearly 60% of the dietary intake of eagles." 

 

"The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it." Proverbs 3:31 

 

If someone were to change our American national bird from the eagle to the vulture, do you think most red blooded Americans would calmly accept this change without protest? Of course they wouldn't.  Yet modern bible correcting scholars can freely change and pervert God's holy word and no one raises an eyebrow or cares in the least. Something is seriously wrong with our priorities.


Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and you will never go wrong.  Accept no phony substitutes.


 


Matthew 24:36 “nor the Son”?  Is it inspired Scripture?


A Christian brother recently wrote me asking: “Concerning the verse Matt 24:36, how does a person defend the KJB when proponents of the NASB claim that the KJB omit the "nor the Son"? Thanks. “



Matthew 24:36 “nor the Son”?  Are these extra words part of inspired Scripture?


In the King James Bible we read: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”  


But in versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV we read: Matthew 24:36 ESV - “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, NOR THE SON, but the Father only.”


The extra words “nor the Son” is a minority reading that is not found in the Majority of remaining Greek manuscripts, nor in the Old Latin copies g1, 2, l, r2, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic or Harclean, nor in the Coptic Sahidic and Boharic ancient versions.


The reading “nor the Son” comes primarily from the Vaticanus manuscript.  Sinaiticus originally had it, then another scribe removed these words, and then a third scribe inserted them again. They are also found in the Armenian and Ethiopic versions.


NO English language Bible ever included these extra words in them until the Westcott-Hort revised critical Greek text came out in 1881.  Versions that contain these extra words “NOR THE SON” are the Revised Version 1881, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, The Voice, the Jehovah Witness NWT and ISV.  


Very surprisingly, Daniel Wallace’s NET version of 2006, which almost always follows the critical text editions, does NOT add the extra words but follows the Traditional Greek text here and says: “But as for that day and hour no one knows it – not even the angels in heaven – except the Father alone.” And then he footnotes that he does not believe these extra words (nor the Son) were part of Matthew’s original writings.


These extra words are NOT found in the Anglo Saxon Gospels of A.D. 990 - “Nat nan mann be am dæge ne be ære tide ne furun englas buton fæder äna” nor  Wycliffe 1395 - “But of thilke dai and our no man wote, nethir aungels of heuenes, but the fadir aloone.”


Tyndale 1525 - “But of that daye and houre knowith no man no not ye angels of heve but my father only.”  


Nor are they found in Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 - “But of that daye and houre knoweth no man, no not the aungels of heauen, but my father onelye.”,  the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “But of yt day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Angels of heauen, but my father only.”, The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation 1755, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, Darby 1890, Young 1898, the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Knox Bible 2012, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2012, nor the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The Modern English Version 2014.


Foreign language Bibles that read like the King James Bible and do NOT add the extra words are Luther’s German bible 1545, and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - “Um jenen Tag aber und die Stunde weiß niemand, auch die Engel im Himmel nicht, sondern allein mein Vater.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1602, 1909 - 1995 - “Pero del día y la hora nadie sabe, ni aun los ángeles de los cielos, sino sólo mi Padre.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuova Diodati 1991 - “Quanto poi a quel giorno e a quell'ora, nessuno li conosce, neppure gli angeli dei cieli, ma soltanto il Padre mio.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - “Mas daquele dia e hora ninguém sabe, nem os anjos do céu, mas unicamente meu Pai. “ and the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald of 1996 - “Or quant à ce jour-là, et à l'heure, personne ne le sait; non pas même les Anges du ciel, mais mon Père seul.” and the Greek  New Testament used by the Greek Orthodox Churches all over the world today.


 

The Catholic Connection


The Catholic versions show their usual confusion and disagreement among themselves.  The early Douay Rheims of 1610 did not contain them, nor did the Douay of 1950 - “But of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.”


But now that the Vatican has made a formal agreement with the UBS (United Bible Society), the more modern St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible ADD these extra words. 


But wait!  Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out, and it goes BACK to the Traditional text here and now does NOT contain the extra words.  It reads: “But concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the Angels of the heavens, but only the Father.”  So too does The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible of 2012 leave out these extra words of "nor the Son."


 

The King James Bible is right, as always, and not even today’s bible critics are in agreement with each other and not one of them has a complete, inspired and infallible Bible in ANY language to believe in himself nor to offer you.  That is the simple truth.


God’s Book = the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


Psalm 69:21 compared to Matthew 27:34 A Messianic Prophesy


Psalm 69:21 with Matthew 27:34 -Prophesy of the Messiah fulfilled, but perverted in many versions.


The idea for this comparative study was given to me by a dear KJB believing sister names Barbara who lives in Canada.  She studied this on her own and compared 48 different bible versions and was amazed at how few of them got it right.


Psalm 69 is a prophetic Psalm about the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. In 69:21 in the King James Bible we read: “They gave me GALL for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me VINEGAR to drink.”


We see the fulfillment of this prophesy in Matthew 27:34 - “They gave me VINEGAR to drink, mingled with GALL: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.”


GALL and VINEGAR are both found in both Scriptures (Psalm 69:21 and Matthew 27:34)  in the King James Bible.  


Now let’s do some version comparisons.


GALL/VINEGAR  (Psalm 69) = GALL/VINEGAR (Matthew 27)  -  Having both VINEGAR and GALL in both passages are Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB 1611, Webster’s translation 1833, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the English Jubilee Bible 2010.


Also reading GALL and VINEGAR in Psalm 69:21 are the so called Greek Septuagint, the Douay-Rheims 1610, RV 1881, ASV 1901,  NASB, NIV, Lexham English bible 2012, Orthodox Jewish bible 2011 and Holman Standard 2009.  


But the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, the Message and the ISV tell us in Psalm 69 that it was POISON and vinegar. 


Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac is a little weird in that it says: “The gave me BITTER HERBS for my food; and in my thirst they gave me VINEGAR to drink.” Yet in the New Testament it agrees with the KJB’s Traditional Text and says: “And they gave him to drink VINEGAR mixed with GALL; and he tasted it, but he would not drink.”


When we get to the New Testament readings of the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical texts we have a different reading.  Instead of “VINEGAR mixed with GALL”, they read “WINE mixed with GALL”.  


These include the ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.


The NKJV is all messed up and gives a false footnote in Matthew.  


In Psalm 69:21 the NKJV correctly says “They also gave me GALL for my food, and for my thirst they gave me VINEGAR to drink.” but in Matthew 27:34 the NKJV reads: “ they gave Him SOUR [a] WINE  mingled with GALL to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink.” 


Then it gives this misleading footnote: [a] NU Text omits SOUR.  


This is both a wrong footnote and a wrong translation. There is no word for “sour” in any text.  The word is simply οξος (oxos) and it means VINEGAR.  The UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical text has a completely different word here. It reads “WINE” οινον (oinon).  The NKJV footnote implies that the Traditional Text reads WINE but that the Vatican Critical text reads SOUR wine. It doesn’t. It just reads WINE, and the Traditional Reformation text simply reads VINEGAR.


The word VINEGAR οξος is found 7 times in the N.T. It is used in Matthew 27:48 “took a sponge and filled it with vinegar” and is the reading of the Majority of all manuscripts including A, E, F, G, H, M, N, S, U, V, W, Y, Delta, Sigma, Phi, Omega, the Old Latin c, f, h, g, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, and some Coptic Boharic ancient versions.  


The KJB and many others have always translated οξος as VINEGAR all 7 times, but the NKJV has translated all 7 as “SOUR WINE”.


The reading of WINE (οινον) here instead of VINEGAR (οξος) is that of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, D, K, L and Theta, the Vulgate and Armenian and Ethiopic versions.  So it is definitely a variant reading and it has nothing to do with “SOUR” being omitted by the Vatican Versions.  The NKJV’s footnote is misleading.


Foreign language Bibles that agree with the King James Bible and have both VINEGAR and GALL in BOTH Psalm 69:21 AND in Matthew 27:34 are Luther’s German bible 1545 and German Schlachter 2000 - “gaben sie ihm Essig zu trinken, mit Galle vermischt” = “vinegar to drink mingled with gall”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, and the Reina Valera’s 1909-2011 - “le dieron a beber VINAGRE mezclado con hiel”, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - “du VINAIGRE mêlé avec du fiel”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “gli diedero a bere dell’aceto mescolato con fiele” = “vinegar to drink mingled with gall”, the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 1681 - “Deram-lhe a beber VINAGRE misturado com fel” and the Modern Greek Bible - “εδωκαν εις αυτον να πιη οξος μεμιγμενον μετα χολης·


The King James Bible is always right; don’t be fooled by one of the fake Vatican Versions.


Matthew 27:16 “Barabbas” or “JESUS Barabbas”?

 

 

KJB - “And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.”

 

So read the Geneva bible, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, ESV 2011, Holman 2009, New European Version 2010,  The Voice 2012 and the NIVs 1973, 1975 and 1984 editions.

 

BUT now the NIV 2011 edition reads; “At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was JESUS BARABBAS.”

 

Then it footnotes: “Many manuscripts do not have JESUS. also verse 17.”

 

The single name Barabbas is found in virtually every manuscript in existence, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, D, E, F, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Ethiopian, Gothic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

 

As pointed out, even the THREE previous NIV editions of 1973, 1975 and 1984 all read the single name of Barabbas.

 

So what manuscripts says Jesus Barabbas?  Basically is is one Greek mss. called Theta.  The previous Nestle-Aland critical text versions like the 4th edition 1934, 21st edition 1975 only had Barabbas - But now the Nestle-Aland 27th and 28 editions place the name JESUS in the Greek text but in [brackets] indicating doubt about its authenticity.

 

And the Critical Text (Vatican supervised) Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament 2010 places both names in the text with NO brackets.  It reads “λεγόμενον Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν.”


And our nutter “scholar”, Dan (anything but the KJB) Wallace’s NET version also includes this extra name (big surprise) reading - “At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas.”




It is of interest to compare the RSV 1946, 1972 and the NRSV 1989 and then the ESV 2011 editions, which are all revisions of one another.


The RSV merely had “called Barabbas.”  Then it footnoted - “Other ancient authorities read JESUS BARABBAS.

 


Then the NRSV came out in 1989 and it read: “ At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called JESUS Barabbas.”  And this time they footnote - “Other ancient authorities lack Jesus.”


But now they have come out with the ESV 2001-2011 and once again they omitted the extra name of JESUS and went back to “And they had then a notorious prisoner called BARABBAS.” with NO footnotes this time.


This is how the “science” of textual criticism works, folks.


As Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. points out 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".4 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).

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."



Mark 1:1-2 KJB - "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD.  As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare the way BEFORE THEE."


Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare thy way BEFORE ME."


ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, ISV, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT 2013 edition, Catholic versions)  - Mark 1:1-2 - "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God*. As it is written in ISAIAH THE PROPHET*, Behold I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way."


First of all, the reading of "the Son of God" was omitted from the text in Sinaiticus original and Westcott and Hort as well as Tischendorf also omitted these words in their respective Greek texts.


Omit "THE SON OF GOD"


The Noyes Translation 1869, Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, The Anderson N.T. 1918 Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript, Goodspeed N.T. 1923, Riverside N.T. 1923, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 edition followed the Westcott-Hort text and omitted these words, saying: "Beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ." (Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 edition) , the Lexham English Bible 2012,  


 

BUT Jehovah Witnesses have now "updated" their "bible" and the 2013 New World Translation now includes the words "the Son of God", but it still has the wrong reading in verse two.  


The  2013 edition now reads: "The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God: 2  Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “(Look! I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way.)"


 

However "the Son of God" - υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ - is found in Vaticanus as well as the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A and D and the Old Latin, the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions.

 

Many "Vatican Versions" like the ESV, RSV, NIV have a footnote that says "Some manuscripts omit 'the Son of God'".  But the reading "the Son of God" is found in virtually every Bible in existence including Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman Standard.  

 

The second textual problem is between the reading of "IN THE PROPHETS" - ἐν τοῖς προφήταις - versus "IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET" - ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ.  There are TWO different prophets being quoted here, Malachi and Isaiah and the reading of "in the prophets" is that found again in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts as well as A, E, F, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, W, Y the Syriac Harclean, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Slavonic and some Coptic Boharic ancient versions.

 

It is directly quoted by the early church writer Iraneaus in  Against Heresies Book III, written in 180 A.D. where he writes:  "Wherefore Mark also says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written IN THE PROPHETS."

 

"IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET"

 

The reading of "IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET" is found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and D, the Old Latin, Vulgate and Gothic.  It is also the reading in ALL Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1582, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985. And it is the reading of the critical text versions like Darby 1890, the ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NETl, Holman Standard, the Jehovah Witness NWT and all Catholic versions. 

 

 

"IN THE PROPHETS"


However "IN THE PROPHETS" rather than "in Isaiah the prophet" is found in Tyndale 1525 - "as yt is wrytten in the Prophetes", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - " As it is written in the Prophets", the Beza New Testament 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Clarke N.T. 1795, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815***, Webster's 1833, the Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Dillard N.T. 1885, Youngs 1898, Godbey N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Worldwide English N.T. 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days Bible 1999,  the Jubilee Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 (Vince Garcia),  Conservative Version Interlinear 2005, Green's Literal 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Faithful New Testament 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Far Above All Translation 2011, Pickering Majority Text N.T. 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Modern Literal New Testament 2014.


The Revised Translation 1815 included a note in the text about "the prophets". It read "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 2. As it is written in the prophets, Mal.3:1, Isaiah 40:3, Behold, I send my messenger (the Baptist) before thy face, to prepare thy way before thee"


 

Foreign Language Bibles


Many foreign language Bibles read like the King James Bible's "IN THE PROPHETS".  Among these are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865 and La Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - "Como está escrito en los profetas", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991- "Secondo ch’egli è scritto ne’ profit", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007- "conformément à ce qui est écrit dans les prophètes", Luther's German Bible 1545, Modernized German Bible and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "wie geschrieben stehet in den Propheten", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "Como está escrito no profetas", the Russian Synodal Bible - "как написано у пророков", the Finnish Bible 1776 - "Niinkuin prophetaissa kirjoitettu on", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "A mint meg van írva a prófétáknál", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "Soos geskrywe is in die Profete", the Czech BKR - "Jakož psáno jest v Prorocích", Dutch Staten Vertaling - "Gelijk geschreven is in de profeten",

 

the Modern Greek Bible - "Καθως ειναι γεγραμμενον εν τοις προφηταις· Ιδου, εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου, οστις θελει κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου·"

 

and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "ככתוב בנביאים הנני שלח מלאכי לפניך ופנה דרכך לפניך׃" = "As it is written in THE PROPHETS, I will send messenger ahead of you and your way BEFORE YOU."  

 

And the third textual problem in just these 2 verses are the last words in Mark 1:2 where it says "BEORE YOU" - ἔμπροσθέν σου.  These words are found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, Delta, the some Old Latin copies, Vulgate Clementine, the Syriac Harclean, Coptic, and Gothic ancient versions.  

 

The significance of these two little words is huge, when we compare them with the prophesy given in Malachi 3.  There the prophet records God Himself predicting "I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way BEFORE ME." 

 

But the fulfillment in the New Testament has the Holy Ghost say through Mark - "Behold, I will send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE."  In other words, this Jesus, who is the Son of God, is none other than the LORD God Jehovah Himself!  This truth is lost in the Vatican Versions.


John Trapp Commentary - “As it is written in the prophets Isaiah and Malachi, Behold, I send my Messenger before thy face.  Malachi saith, "Before my face," in the person of Christ; to show that He and the Father are one.”

  

 

Matthew Henry. Though commentators constantly differ with each other, yet Matthew Henry comments - " Isaiah and Malachi each spake concerning the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in the ministry of John. From these prophets we may observe, that Christ, in his gospel, comes among us, bringing with him a treasure of grace, and a sceptre of government."  

 

John Gill writes: "As it is written in the prophets,.... Malachi and Isaiah; for passages out of both follow; though the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions read, "as it is written in the prophet Isaias"; and so it is in some Greek copies: but the former seems to be the better reading, since two prophets are cited, and Isaiah is the last; to which agree the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and the greater number of Greek copies."

 

Barnes' Notes on the Bible - As it is written in the prophets - Mark mentions "prophets" here without specifying which. The places are found in Malachi 3:1 and in Isaiah 40:3.

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee—(Mal 3:1; Isa 40:3)."  


Matthew Poole - “The prophets Malachi and Isaiah (saith the evangelist) prophesied of this beginning of the gospel."


John Lightfoot Commentary - “When two places are cited out of two prophets, it is far more congruously said, as it is written in the prophets; than, as it is written in Esaias: but especially when the place first alleged is not in Esaias, but in another prophet.”


Kretzmann Commentary - “Two of the prophets of olden times had distinctly described the person and the work of John the Baptist, and the evangelist combines their prophecies for the purpose of brevity. The first prophecy, Mal.3:1, is one in which the God of Israel promises to send His personal messenger before the Messiah… In the second prophecy, Isa 40:3, the distinctive contents of the message are given.”

 

There are 3 significant textual variations here in just these 2 verses. Obviously God did not inspire 6 different readings in just 2 verses. One set of Scripture readings is that of the Reformation Bibles and the other is that of the Jesuit Counter Reformation versions, that nobody seriously believes are the infallible words of God.

 

Get the one God has clearly set His mark of approval on and don't settle for an inferior substitute. The King James Bible is God's infallible Book. 


 

Mark 1:41 “Jesus moved with compassion” or “Jesus was indignant”?


In Mark 1:40 - 41 we read: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.  And Jesus, MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”


“moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, the  Greek Lectionaries, the Old Latin Italic aur, c, e, f, l and q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.  It is even the reading found in the UBS IV critical Greek text.


“moved with compassion” is the reading found in Wycliffe 1390, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Douay, Darby, Young’s, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the RSV, NRSV, 1989, ESV 2001 - "moved with pity", NASB 1963 - 1995, Holman Standard 2003 and the ISV to name but a few. 


The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “ Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”


And even the Spanish version of the NIV reads the same.  Marcos 1:41 (Nueva Versión Internacional) “Movido a compasión, Jesús extendió la mano y tocó al hombre, diciéndole: — Sí quiero. ¡Queda limpio! “


Well, the 2010 NIV finally did it!  Here it is -


Mark 1:41 (New International Version, ©2011)  -  " Jesus was indignant.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”


Footnotes: Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion.


Well, this totally bogus reading comes basically from one very corrupt manuscript called manuscript D, which  scholars have known about for centuries and rejected. But now the “late$t, greate$t and be$t $cholarly re$earch” has once again changed their minds and so we have this absurd reading in the latest NIV 2011.


They just keep getting better and better, right?

 

 

Mark 2:15 KJB - “And it came to pass, that, as JESUS sat at meat in HIS house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with JESUS and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.”

 

NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB) - “Now it happened, as HE was dining in LEVI'S house, that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with JESUS and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him.”

 

(Notice that the NKJV "added" the word "Levi's", but the NASB, ESV did not.  Many others do, though)

 

Some have criticized the King James Bible and tell us that it is in error because it “adds” that first word JESUS to the verse when it is not found in “the” Textus Receptus or the Critical text.  

 

Of course none of these Bible critics actually believe that any edition of “the” TR (there is no such animal as "the" TR. There are at least 14 varieties of it out there) or the ever changing Critical Greek text is in fact the complete and inerrant words of God either.  

 

When these guys start criticizing the KJB in this nit picky fashion, we know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something they hope will stick so they can try to convince you that there is something wrong with God’s masterpiece.

 

But is their criticism valid?  Not at all, as we shall see in a moment.

 

The word JESUS appearing twice in Mark 2:15 may not be in today’s printed Greek texts, but that does not mean that the KJB is wrong for translating this verse the way they did. I think the arguments for they way they and MANY others translated it this way are quite compelling. 

 

They simply saw the need to clarify the text (not "add to" or "take away" from it) so that the common reader would not be confused as to who was “sitting at meat” and in whose “his house” this was where this event took place.

 

 

When we read the previous verse, it tells us: “And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.”  

 

If we remove the word JESUS, the next verse then says: 

 

“And it came to pass, that, as he sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.” 

 

We would then have to ask Who was sitting at meat? and and In whose house did this take place? because we just got done reading about Matthew Levi.  

 

So to avoid any confusion, the KJB translators and MANY others (as we shall soon see) simply clarified the text. They didn’t “add” anything to the text, nor take any thing away from it. They just made it easier to understand.

 

 

One Bible version I found got confused and translated it wrong. It is called the Conservative Bible 2011 done by John Isett. Notice what he did in this verse.  

 

It says: “As it happened, Jesus then dined at His house with a great many tax collectors and sinners who chose to follow Him.”

 

Here they “added” the first word Jesus, then omitted it from the second half of the verse, and then they Capitalized the word “Him”, making it Jesus’s house, rather than Matthew Levi’s house.

 

 

ALL the major bible versions “add” words like God, Jesus, the Lord, or Christ to varying degrees to clarify certain verses.  Popular versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and NKJV ALL do this. 

 

I have a pretty good list of examples where they do this in my article on the expression “God forbid”.  You can see it here -

 

“God forbid” 

 

http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/godforbid.htm

 

In fact, I found about 20 different Bible translations that did what the NIV did here in Mark 2:15.  The NIV “added” the word JESUS to the first part of the verse, just as the KJB did, but then they omitted the word JESUS when it appears in all Greek texts in the second part of the verse.  And they “added” the word LEVI to the text, to clarify the words “his” house.  

 

This is how the NIV 1984 - 2011, The TNIV 2005, The New International Version 2011 and several other translations clarified the fact that it was Jesus who was sitting at meat and it took place in Matthew Levi’s house.  

 

The NIV reads: “While JESUS was having dinner at LEVI’S house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.”  

 

At least 17 (SEVENTEEN) bibles I ran into translated the verse like this - “It came to pass, as JESUS sat at a meal in LEVI’S house, many publicans and sinners sat down together with JESUS and His disciples, for there were many who also followed him.”

 

 

These were The Contemporary English Version 1995, The God’s Word Translation 1995, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The New Century Version 2005, The Easy to Read Version 2006, The Spoken English N.T. 2008, The Easy English Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Orthodox Jewish bible 2011, The Common English Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011,  The Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice Translation 2012, The New Living Translation 2013 and The Translator’s Bible 2014.   All of these have the word JESUS twice and they “add” LEVI to the text as well. 

 

The Translator’s Bible 2014 even went further than the others and had the name of JESUS three times plus they added LEVI too, saying: 

 

“Later, JESUS was eating a meal in LEVI’S house. Many men who collected taxes and other people who were considered to be sinning regularly were eating with JESUS and his disciples. This was not surprising, for there were many people like this who were going everywhere with JESUS.”

 

 

Back to Mark 2:15 and the KJB’s  - JESUS……JESUS 

 

Not only does the King James Bible have the name of JESUS two times in this verse, but so also do the following Bible translations - Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza New Testament 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, the Clarke N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, the Dickenson N.T. 1833, the Webster Bible 1833, the Pickering N.T. 1840, the Longman Version 1841, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Dillard N.T. 1885, The Corrected English N.T. 1905, The Clarke N.T. 1913, the Riverside N.T. 1923, the New Life Version 1969, Good News Translation 1992, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Contemporary English Version 1995, The Revised Webster  Bible 1995 (Larry Pierce), God’s Word Translation 1995, the Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Last Days Bible 1999, the Tomson N.T. 2002, the New Century Version 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 (Vince Garcia), The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Easy-to-Read Version 2006, Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Names of God Bible 2011, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “as YEHOSHUA  (יהושע) reclined at tish in LEVI’S house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with YEHOSHA  (יהושע) and His talmidim”, The Expanded Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the New Living Translation 2013, the New International Reader’s Version 2014, the Modern English Version 2014, and The International Children’s Bible 2015.

 

Foreign Language Bibles 

 

Foreign language Bibles that have the word JESUS twice in Mark 2:15 are the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, La Biblia de Las Américas 1997, the Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2010, and the Spanish Reina Valeras from 1909 to 2011, the Reina Valera Gómez 2010,  the French Martin Bible 1744 and the French Ostervald 1998,  the Danish Bibelen på hverdagsdansk (BPH) 2006, the Hungarian Easy to Read Version 2012, the Hawaii Pidgin Bible 2000 (Wycliffe Bible Translators), the Italian Conferenza Episcopale Italiana Bible, the Nederlands Het Boek 2007, the Portuguese Nova Traduҫão na Linguagem de Hoje 2000 and the Portuguese Easy to Read Bible 1999, the Quichua Mushuj Testamento Diospaj Shimi 2010, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998, The Vietnamese Easy to Read Version 2010, the Chinese Union Traditional Bible, the Swedish Bible 1917 and the Swedish Nya Levande Bibeln (SVL) 2004, the Somaii Bible 2008, the Russian Synodal Bible, and the Russian Easy to Read Bible 2007,  the Albanian Bible, the Basque Navarro-Labourdin N.T., the Haitian-Creole Bible, the Indonesian Bahasa Seharihari Bible, and the Japanese Bungo-yaku/Taisho-kaiyaku Bible and the Romanian Fidela  Bible 2014 - "Și s-a întâmplat, pe când ISUS şedea la masă în casa lui Levi, că mulţi vameşi şi păcătoşi şedeau şi ei împreună cu ISUS şi discipolii lui; fiindcă erau mulţi şi îl urmau.".

 

The King James Bible is right, as always. 

  


 Luke 1:28 "blessed art thou among women" - Reformation Bibles or the Vatican Versions?



Another verse having to do with Mary is Luke 1:28.  Here we read the inspired words of the angel Gabriel when he was sent from God to announce that the virgin Mary would soon give birth to the Son of God. "And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN." 


Notice it does not say "you are blessed ABOVE all women" or "more than other women" but rather "thou art blessed AMONG women", and indeed she was.  



The reading of "blessed art thou among women" again is found in the Majority of all remaining Greek texts as well as A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Lambda, Pi, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, 1, q, r1 and the Latin Vulgate of 382.  It is also the reading found in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, some Coptic Boharic mss, the Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

 

However once again it is primarily Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that omit this entire phrase, plus a very few others as well, and so do the modern versions like the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, ISV, Holman Standard and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. 


The ESV omits the phrase and then gives us a deliberately misleading footnote saying: "Some manuscripts add Blessed are you among women."  SOME!?! Rather it is the overwhelming Majority of all Greek manuscripts  that include this reading and it is only "some" very few that omit it!  Their footnote is a deceptive attempt to make us think the opposite.  


 

The Catholic Connection

 

Once again the Catholic bible versions themselves are in their usual disarray.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the 1950 Douay both contained these words, reading: "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN."


But then in 1968 in the Jerusalem bible and again in 1985 with the New Jerusalem bible these modern Catholic bible versions omitted this entire phrase and merely read: "He went in and said to her, "Rejoice, so highly favored! The Lord is with you."


But the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible STILL retains the words in their text and reads "Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN." 


And once again we see that the latest Catholic bible version (the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version) has put these words back into their text too. It now reads: “And upon entering, the Angel said to her: “Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN."



 So, in the Catholic versions this phrase was first in their bibles (1582, 1950), then taken out, (1968) then put back in (1970), then removed (1985) and now in again (2009)!  Both the Catholic and their modern day counterparts - the Evangelicals - keep changing the texts of their respective 'bibles' from one edition to the next. 


No verse is sure or settled and none of them believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% textually pure and true words of the living God.


 

"BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN"



Bible translations that agree with the Traditional reading of "Blessed art thou among women" in Luke 1:28 are the following: the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D. and 405 A.D. - "benedicta tu in mulieribus", the Anglo-Saxon gospels  1000 A.D. - "þu eart gebletsud on wifum.", Wycliffe 1395 - "Heil, ful of grace; the Lord be with thee; blessid be thou among wymmen.", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE is with the: blessed art thou amonge wemen.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's translation 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's Bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac, New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987, NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987 edition, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 (Vince Garcia), Green's Literal 2005, Concordant Version 2006, Bond Slave Version 2009, Faithful N.T. 2009, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Jubilee Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, World English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012 (normally a Critical Text version), The Biblos Bible 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, Far Above All Translation 2014,  the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014 - "Blessed are you among women."


 

Foreign Language Bibles



Other foreign language translations that contain the phrase "Blessed art thou among women" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valeras of 1909, 1960, 1995, and 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "El Señor es contigo; bendita tú entre las mujeres.", the Italian Diodati of 1649 and 1991, as well as the Nuova Riveduta of 2006  - "il Signore è con te; tu sei benedetta fra le donne", the Russian Synodal Version, Luther's German Bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "du Gesegnete unter den Frauen!", the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald of 1996 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - "le Seigneur est avec toi; tu es bénie entre les femmes.", the Portugues Almeida Corrigida 2009 and A Sagrada Biblia - "bem-dita és tu entre as mulheres.", the Afrikaans bible 1953 - "Die Here is met jou; geseënd is jy onder die vroue.",  the Maori Bible - "ko koe te manaakitia i roto i nga wahine.", the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 - "velsignet er du blandt kvinner!", the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - "Błogosławiona jesteś między kobietami.", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Russian Synodal Bible - "благословенна Ты между женами.", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998, Czech BKR Bible, the Dutch Staten Vertaling,  the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible and the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible - فدخل اليها الملاك وقال سلام لك ايتها المنعم عليها. الرب معك مباركة انت في النساء., Hungarian Karoli Bible - "áldott vagy te az asszonyok között."



the Modern Greek and the Greek Orthodox Church's text all over the world - "ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν." as well as the Modern Hebrew New Testament.


 

God either inspired these words and they belong in His Book, or He didn't. You either have a complete and inerrant words of God Bible or you don't.   Most Christians today do NOT believe there is such a thing.

 

 

Luke 1:37 “For with God nothing shall be impossible.”

Is the King James Bible a “bad translation” of this verse?

Some Version rummaging, self appointed authority over at the Baptist Board named Dr. Bob tells us that the King James Bible “is not always the best translation” and another Bible Agnostic chimes in saying: “
Which shows that no translation version is perfect including the KJV.  In this case, this passage, the ASV is more faithful to the original language than the KJB.”

The ASV reads: “ For no word from God shall be void of power.”

Let’s examine the verse and the meaning of the Greek word “rhema” more closely.

The Greek for this verse has no variant readings. It says: “οτι ουκ αδυνατησει παρα τω θεω παν ρημα”

A strictly literal translation would not make much sense in English. It would be something like “For not impossible with the God every thing (or word).”

The main difference is how the various versions translate the word ρημα = rheema.

This Greek word can mean such varied things as “word, saying or thing.”

Every Bible version I checked sometimes translates this word as “thing” or “things” in the plural.

The NASB complete concordance shows that they have translated this word as  “charge, bidding, discourse, FACT, MATTER, message, NOTHING (once), remark, sayings, statement, THING (2 times), THINGS (4 times) and word.”

Likewise the NIV Complete Concordance for the 1984 edition shows that they have translated this single Greek word as “word, MATTER, THING, this, nothing, it, charge and command”.

A similar thing occurs in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew word Dabar # 1697 can mean either “word” or “thing”, plus a lot of other things besides.

The NASB concordance shows that they have translated this Hebrew word “debar” as word many times, but also as THING or THINGS some 133 times!

Likewise the NIV has translated this word as THINGS 60 times, MATTER 24 times  and as EVENTS 51 times.

Back to the Greek word rheema (ρημα)

The Greek lexicons also tell us that this word can mean both “word” and THING.

The Greek English Lexicon of Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich 1952 on page 743 tells us this word can mean “thing, object, matter, event” and they even quote Luke 1:37 as an example. - “nothing will be impossible with God.”

Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexion 1887 on page 624 informs us that the Greek word rheema can mean “word, that which is spoken, A THING, or THE THING spoken of.”

And Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon pages 562-563 also says that this word means “that which is uttered by the living voice, word, THING and MATTER.”

The ESV translates this word as THING not only in Luke 1:37 like the KJB does, but also in Luke 2:15- “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this THING that has happened”, and in Acts 5:32 - “And we are witnesses to these THINGS and so is the Holy Spirit”.

The Ever Changing NIVs

The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions all say: “For NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE with God.” BUT the “new” New International Version 2011 edition has now changed this to read: “For NO WORD from God WILL EVER FAIL.”



Agreeing with the King James Bible in Luke 1:37 where we read: “For with God NOTHING shall be impossible.” are the ESV 2001-2016, NASB 1995, NKJV, Holman Standard 2017, Complete Jewish bible 1998, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, RSV, NRSV 1989, Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006, the Tree of Life Version 2015 and the New Matthew’s Bible 2016 just to name a few of them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the King James Bible and many others have translated this verse.

  Only self appointed Bible critics who have made their own minds their final authority and who will NEVER show us a copy of ANY Bible in ANY language that these guys really believe is the inspired, complete and inerrant words of God.

 

Luke 2:22 “her” purification or “their” purification


One King James Bible critic wrote me his thoughts on why he thinks the King James Bible reading of “her” purification is wrong and versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV supposedly have it right when they say “their” purification. Here is what he wrote:


“Now, some of the discrepencies you noted are worth attention. Some are not. Like Luke 2:22. Even Matthew Henry notes that "Many copies, and authentic ones, read autoµn for autees, the days of their purification, the purification both of the mother and of the child, for so it was intended to be by the law;" In other words, it was not a sacrifice to be cleansed from sin, it was a fulfillment of the Old Testament law that required purification for mother AND CHILD forty days after birth, cleansing from the birth process. If the sacrifice had not been made for Jesus' purification, then He could not later say the He came to fulfill the law. Just as later He fulfilled the Passover feasts--not for sin, but for fulfillment of the law.”


My response to him was this: Hi, brother. I would suggest you stick to the Bible itself here.


You said: " In other words, it was not a sacrifice to be cleansed from sin, it was a fulfillment of the Old Testament law that required purification for mother AND CHILD forty days after birth, cleansing from the birth process."


You did not find any of this in the O.T. law, brother. It is not there.


Luke 2:22 "And when the days of HER purification ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord."


This is clearly a referrence to Leviticus 12:6-8


Lev. 12:6 - And when the days of HER purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, SHE shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:


12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make AN ATONEMENT FOR HER; and SHE SHALL BE CLEANSED from the issue of her blood. This is the law for HER that hath born a male or a female.


12:8 And if SHE be not able to bring a lamb, then SHE shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement FOR HER AND SHE shall be clean.


Only the mother was to bring a sacrifice and only the woman was to have an atonement made for her and thus be cleansed- not the child too.


The reading of HER is a minority reading, but it is the correct one. For every single "minority reading" found in the KJB, there are a hundred found in the NASB, NIV, RSV. In fact, manuscript D, which is sometimes exclusively followd by the NASB, actually reads "HIS purification".


"HER purification" is found in several Greek copies. It is the reading of Beza's and Elzevir's Greek texts. It is also the reading of the Modern Greek text of the Greek speaking Orthodox churches, Green's interlinear Greek, and the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek text.


It is also found in the Old Latin (a, aur, b, beta ,c, d, e, ff2 ,1, r1), as well as the Greek manuscripts of R, Y, 047, 055, 0211. Her purification is also the reading of the Spanish Reina Valera 1858 and 1909 - “Y como se cumplieron los dias de la purificacion DE ELLA, conforme á la ley de Moisés, le trajeron á Jerusalem para presentar[le] al Señor;, the Geneva Bible 1599, Bishop's bible 1568, the King James Bible 1611, Webster's 1833 translation, the NKJV 1982, the 1994 KJV 21st Century, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible and even the Catholic Douay Version 1950.


Wycliffe's English version 1395 says: "the purification of Mary", as well as the French Martin version of 1744 - “Et quand les jours de la purification de [Marie] furent accomplis...”


The reading found the NASB, NIV, RSV and JW bibles of "after the days of THEIR purification" teaches that the baby Jesus needed to have an atonement and a sin offering made for his cleansing, which is contrary to anything found in the law of Moses, to which this passage directly refers. It is not the correct reading.


It is interesting to note that the new TNIV has altered the text in such a way as to avoid the blunder found in the previous NIV and make it agree with the correct teaching found in the King James Bible reading. The 2005 TNIV now reads: “When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.”


 Luke 2:49 "I must be about my Father's BUSINESS?"


A brother writes me saying, "Will -- in our study it was pointed out "business" is not there in the greek -- what say ye?, Rick


 

Luke 2:49 KJB - “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s BUSINESS?

 

Luke 2:49 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Τί ὅτι ἐζητεῖτέ με οὐκ ᾔδειτε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με

 

Actually there is no word here for what the modern versions have either.  The Greek word under consideration is merely tois - τοῖς and the word “tois” is nothing more that the definite article, plural and in the dative case. It literally means simply “the”.  So a strictly literal translation would be “I must be in THE of my Father.”

 

So all the versions have to supply some kind of a word there for it to make sense.

 

Let’s look at a few modern versions and then at some others that read like the KJB.

 

NET 2006 by Dan Wallace - “But he replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s HOUSE?”

 

There obviously is no word at all for “house” either.

 

ESV, NASB, NIV, Holman -  “And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's HOUSE?”[a]

 

Then the ESV and the NIV both footnote - “Or about my Father’s BUSINESS”, while the NASB footnotes: “Or affairs; lit. in the things of My Father.” and the Holman footnotes: “Or be involved in My Father’s interests (or things), or be among My Father’s people”

 

Young’s ‘literal’ 1898 - “`Why [is it] that ye were seeking me? did ye not know that in THE THINGS of my Father it behoveth me to be?’”  Yet there is no word for “THINGS” either. He had to “add” this for it to make sense. 

 

Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 - “Perceived ye not, that, in THE COURTS of my Father, I must needs be?” 

 

Godbey N.T. 1902 - “Did you not know that it behooved me to be in THE AFFAIRS of my Father?”

 

Complete Jewish bible 1998 and Green’s literal Translation - “Didn’t you know that I had to be concerning myself with my Father’s AFFAIRS?”

 

Easy to Read Version 2006 - “You should have known that I must be WHERE my Father’s WORK IS.”

 

Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “Did you not have daas that I must be in the Beis Avi [i.e., dealing with His affairs]?”

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible and reading “that I must be about my Father’s BUSINESS” are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890,  Worrell N.T. 1904, Weymouth’s N.T. 1912, the NKJV 1982, Amplified bible 1987, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the English Jubilee Bible 2010 and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - “And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's BUSINESS?"

  

 

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

Will Kinney

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