Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

 
 

Bible Babble Four



 

 1 Kings 19:12 - "a still small voice"



 

“A Still Small Voice”  1 Kings 19:12 - Did Elijah hear the voice of the Lord or not?

 

“My sheep hear my voice.”  John 10:27

 

KJB - “And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire A STILL SMALL VOICE.”


 

V. Price, Bible critic and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible, says: “Literally, as in "A SOUND OF GENTLE STILLNESS."  There is nothing to indicate to us whether the sound was articulate or not."  

 

NASB - “After the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire A SOUND OF A GENTLE BLOWING.”


NRSV - “and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire A SOUND OF SHEER SILENCE.”


NIV - “After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came A GENTLE WHISPER.”


ESV - “And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire THE SOUND OF A LOW WHISPER.”


The Voice 2012 - “After the fire died out, there was nothing but THE SOUND OF A CALM BREEZE.”




The Catholic Connection


The Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and Douay Version 1950 both read: “A WHISTLING OF A GENTLE AIR.”  


But the St. Joseph NAB 1970 says it was “A TINY WHISPERING SOUND.” and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has “A LIGHT MURMURING SOUND”, 


but now the Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 says it was “THE WHISPER OF A GENTLE BREEZE.”


The so called Greek Septuagint has “THE VOICE OF A GENTLE BREEZE”

 

 A STILL SMALL VOICE


Agreeing with the KJB’s “A STILL SMALL VOICE” are The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885, The ASV 1901, Young’s 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “a still small voice”, The Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “a still small voice”, The RSV 1946-1971, The NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green’s Literal 2005, New Heart English Bible 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Hebrew Names Version 2014,  and The Modern English Version 2014 - “A STILL SMALL VOICE.”



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


 

2 Kings 2:23-24 KJB - “And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth LITTLE CHILDREN out of the city, and mocked him, Go up, thou bald head; go up thou bald head.

 

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she BEARS out of the wood, and tare forty and two CHILDREN of them.”

 

Some Bible critics complain about this reading in the King James Bible and claim it is an error. They tell us it should be “YOUNG MEN” instead of “LITTLE CHILDREN”. I guess they think that somehow the severity of what happened to them is somehow lessened. One goofy bible agnostic was even trying to tell us that there were no BEARS in Israel, even though ALL translations in all languages I have looked at say these were "she bears" and bears are mentioned some 12 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.

 

For example, in 1 Samuel 17:34, 36, 37 David tells of his encounter with a lion and a bear and he "slew both the lion and the bear".

 

2 Samuel 17:8 - "as a bear robbed of her whelps"

 

2 Kings 2:24 "there came forth two she bears"

 

Bears are also mentioned in Proverbs 17:12 and 28:15, Isaiah 11:7 tells us "And the cow and THE BEAR shall feed", Isaiah 59:11 "we all roar like BEARS"; Lamentations 4:3 "He was unto me as A BEAR"; Hosea 13:8 "I will meet them as a BEAR" and Amos 5:19 - "As if a man did flee from a lion and A BEAR met him" 

 

Let’s take a closer look.  The Hebrew for “little children” is two words. The work “little” is #6996 kah-tohn. It is variously translated in the KJB as “little, small, youngest, the least and younger.”  

 

It is translated as “little” in such places as “my LITTLE finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins.” (1 Kings 12:10) and “a LITTLE CHILD shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6 BOTH words here) and “when thou wast LITTLE in thine own sight” (1 Samuel 15:17) and “I am but a LITTLE CHILD” (1 Kings 3:7 - again, both words used here).

 

 

The word “CHILDREN” is #5288 nah-gar, and is variously translated as “child, young man, servant, the lad, boys, and children.”

 

Both words are used together in Isaiah 11:6 - “A LITTLE CHILD shall lead them” and in 1 Kings 3:7 “I am but A LITTLE CHILD”. It is also used in places like “THE CHILD shall be a Nazarite” (Judges 13:5) and “Train up a CHILD in the way he should go” (Proverbs 22:6) and “And I will give CHILDREN to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.” (Isaiah 3:4) 

 

2 Kings 2:23 - Other Translations

 

The New English Bible 1970, ESV 2011, Holman 2009, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 - “some small boys”

 

ASV 1901, NASB 1995, Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “young lads” 

 

NET 2006 - “some young boys” 

 

NKJV 1982 - “some youths” (omits Hebrew word “little”)

 

Youngs 1898, Catholic Douay 1950 -“little youths” 

 

NIV 2011, Jehovah Witness NWT - “some boys”

 

Coverdale 1535, Darby 1890 - “little boys” 

 

Living Bible 1971 - “a gang of young men” 

 

The Message 2002 - “some little kids”

 

Common English Bible 2011 -“some young people” 

 

ISV 2014 - “some insignificant young men”

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “LITTLE CHILDREN” are The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, Wycliffe 1395, The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Longman Version 1841,The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Sharpe Bible 1883,  The Revised Version 1885, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New Brenton Translation 2012, the Biblos Interlinear 2013 - “LITTLE CHILDREN”

 

And the Modern Greek Bible - “εξηλθον εκ της πολεως παιδια μικρα” =  there came out of the city SMALL CHILDREN - δυο αρκτοι και διεσπαραξαν εξ αυτων τεσσαρακοντα δυο παιδια. - "and two BEARS tore of them 42 children."


 

 

2 Kings 6:25 “dove’s dung” or “seed pods”?


In 2 Kings 6:25 we read: “And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the forth part of a cab of DOVE’S DUNG for five pieces of silver.”


The famine was so severe that the unclean ass’s head, with very little meat on it, was sold for much and the dove’s dung may well have served as fuel for cooking. There obviously would not have been any trees left within the city walls to use for heating a fire.  John Gill comments: "some of the Jewish writers say this was bought for fuel."  Other commentators like Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole, both of whom affirmed that it was "dove's dung", believed that it was actually sold as food in times of famine.


In any event, the reading of “a cab of DOVE’S DUNG” is that of the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Hebrew Names Bible 2012, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Bible, the Revised Version 1885, American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Peshitta, the Greek LXX, the Modern Greek bible, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the RSV 1971, NRSV 1989, and the ESV 2011, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the Holman Standard of 2003, the NASBs 1963 to 1995, Green’s interlinear, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the 2011 Lexham English Bible,  the 2012 Knox Bible, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible, and the Common English Bible of 2011.  Even Dan Wallace's NET version has "dove's droppings".

 

The NKJV  also reads “dove droppings” but it comes out to the same thing. 

 

Also agreeing with the KJB’s “dove’s dung” are Luther’s German bible 1545, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, 1960, 1995 as well as the 2011 Reina Valera Contemporánea - "estiércol de paloma", the Portugues Almeida  and O Livro - "cabo de esterco de pombas, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1902, French Ostervald 1996, the French Louis Segond of 2007 - "crotte de pigeon 5 pièces d'argent." and the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991 and Riveduta of 2006 - "cab di sterco di colombi" AND the NIV Portuguese edition of 2000 called Nova Versão Internacional - "de esterco de pomba" = "dove's dung"


However the NIV stands virtually alone in that it says: “a donkey’s head...and a fourth of a cab of SEED PODS.”  The NIV then footnotes "or doves dung". The Message has “A BOWL OF FIELD GREENS"!!, and the 1989 Revised English Version says it was a "kab of LOCUST-BEANS". 

 

The Catholic versions are a riot.  The 1610 Douay Rheims and the 1950 Douay version both read "one forth cab of PIGEON'S DUNG"; BUT then the Jerusalem bible of 1968, the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible of 1985 all say "a quarter kad of WILD ONIONS"!!! 

 

And the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 goes so far as to foonote "pigeon dung is impossible".  Oh, but wait. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out, and the Pope's scholars have now gone back to that 'impossible'  "one fourth part of a pint of PIGEONS' DUNG sold for five silver coins." 

 

Now I am not a professional biologist or botanist but I’m pretty sure there is a big difference between “a bowl of field greens”,  “seed pods”,  "locust beans", "wild onions"  and “dove’s dung”. 


Vashni or Joel or both?



1 Samuel 8:2 “Now the name of his firstborn was JOEL; and the name of his second, Abiah; they were judges in Beersheba.”


1 Chronicles 6:28 KJB - “And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn VASHNI, and Abiah.”


Some bible agnostics (boy, do they hate being called what they are) claim the King James Bible and the Hebrew texts themselves have an error here. They tell us that somehow a scribe either omitted the name Joel in 1 Chronicles 6:28 or mistook some Hebrew word for VASHNI.


As usual the commentators are all over the board and in disagreement with each other trying to explain what happened here in 1 Chron. 6:28.


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown claim it is a scribal error, saying: “the sons of Samuel--The sons of Samuel are here named VASHNI and Abiah. The first-born is called JOEL (1Sa 8:2); and this name is given to him in 1Ch 6:33. It is now generally thought by the best critics that, through AN ERROR OF THE COPYISTS, AN OMISSION has been made of the oldest son's name, and that Vashni, which is not the name of a person, merely signifies "and the second." This critical emendation of the text makes all clear, as well as consistent with other passages relating to the family of Samuel.”


Dan Wallace and company’s NET version (not surprisingly) has 1 Chron. 6:28 as “The sons of Samuel: JOEL THE FIRSTBORN (footnote) and Abijah THE SECOND OLDEST.”  They then tell us: “The Hebrew text lacks the name יוֹאֵל (yo’el, “Joel”), which has probably dropped out due to homoioteleuton (note the last three letters of the preceding name שְׁמוּאֵל (shÿmuel, “Samuel”).”


Of course Dan Wallace and his group also added the words “THE SECOND” to the Hebrew text here so their “correction” would make more sense; but he fails to mention this little detail.


Adam Clarke likewise says: “The first-born VASHNI, and Abiah - There is a great mistake in this verse: in 1 Samuel 8:2; we read, Now the name of his (Samuel's) first-born was JOEL; and the name of his second Abiah. The word יואל JOEL IS LOST OUT OF THE TEXT IN THIS PLACE, and ושני vesheni, which signifies the second, and which refers to Abiah, is made here into a proper name. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Chaldee, copy this blunder; but the Syriac and Arabic read as in 1 Samuel 8:2. The MSS. have all copied the corrupted Hebrew in this place.”


So, according to men like Adam Clarke, not only was the Hebrew text corrupted but so too were the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.


But John Gill and Bullinger affirm that this man (like many others listed in the Hebrew Old Testament) had two names.


For example, Mose’s father in law had three different names. He is called Jethro in Exodus 3:1, but Reul in Exodus 2:18 and Hobab in Numbers 10:29.  


Likewise Joshua is usually called Joshua, but is called Oshea in Numbers 13:8a and 16 and Jehoshua in Numbers 13:16. Just in this one verse (Numbers 13:16) he is called both Oshea and Jehoshua. 


And of course in the New Testament we have Peter, Cephas and Simon for the apostle Peter.


Bullinger comments: “the firstborn VASHNI. Compare 1 Samuel 8:2, where the firstborn’s name CAME TO BE JOEL. From 1 Chronicles 6:28 IT SEEMS TO HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN VASHNI. From 1 Chronicles 6:23, HE SEEMS TO HAVE HAD TWO NAMES.”


John Gill simply says: “Samuel the prophet, whose firstborn was Vashni, and whose name also was Joel, 1 Chronicles 6:33.” 


Haydock’s Commentary says: “This person had therefore either two names, or Joel has been omitted, and we should translate "Joel and the second, Abia.--- These brothers acted so ill as judges, that the people took occasion to demand a king, 1 Kings viii. 3.”



The Geneva Bible study notes agrees, saying: “6:28 And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn  Vashni, and Abiah. (e) WHO IS ALSO CALLED JOEL, 1 Samuel 8:2; 1 Chronicles 6:33)


Versions that change the name VASHNI to JOEL in 1 Chronicles 6:28 are the ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. 


The NKJV also changed the text. It reads: “The sons of Samuel were JOEL (in italics) the firstborn, and Ahijah the second.”  


Then the NKJV footnotes that the Hebrew text reads VASHENI, but “following the Septuagint, Syriac and Arabic” they came up with JOEL.


However even this footnote is false. The so called Septuagint does NOT read JOEL. I have a hard copy of it right here in front of me and it reads “Sons of Samuel the firstboren SANI, and Abia.”  SANI is not even close to “Joel”.


Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read “VASHNI” are The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 bible - “the sons of Samuel: the first-born Vashni; then Abiah.”, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004,  The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1610, Webster’s Bible 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, The Word of Yah 1993, God’s First Truth 1999,  Green’s Literal 2005, The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Revised Geneva Bible 2009, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “And the benai Shemu'el; the bakor VASHNI, and Avyah.”, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011, 


Foreign Language Bibles Foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and have VASHNI are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909 - 2011 - “Los hijos de Samuel fueron Vasni, su primogénito, y Abías.”, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “Vaşni şi al doilea Abia.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Riveduta 2006 - “ I figli di Samuele furono: VASNI, il primogenito, e Abiia.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigenda 2009 - “ E os filhos de Samuel: VASNI, seu primogênito, e o segundo Abias.”, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - “ Og Samuels sønner var VASNI, hans førstefødte, og Abia.”, Luther’s German Bible 1545 - “der Erstgeborene VASNI und Abia.”


Even though the NIV English version reads JOEL, yet the NIV Spanish Version 2005, Nueva Versión Internacional (Castilian), sticks with the Hebrew and reads VASNI - “Los hijos de Samuel fueron VASNI, el primogénito, y Abías.”


The French Martin 1744, Louis Second and the French Ostervald 1998 - “ et les fils de Samuel, le premier-né VASCHNI et Abija.”, the Hungarian Karoli Bible - “Vásni”, the Czech BKR bible - “VASNI a Abia.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - “zijn eerstgeborene was VASNI, daarna Abia.”,


And the Modern Greek Bible - “Και οι υιοι του Σαμουηλ, Βασνι ο πρωτοτοκος και Αβια.”

 

 

1 Chronicles 29:15 KJB - "For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on earth are as a shadow, AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING."

 

NKJV (NIV, NASB, Holman, ISV, MEV)- "For we are aliens and pilgrims before You. As were all our fathers;  Our days on earth are as a shadow, AND WITHOUT HOPE."

 

This is pretty straight forward in the King James Bible. There is none abiding here on this earth, we are just passing through and soon die. The common sense reading of "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING” is also found in Coverdale of 1535 - "Oure life vpon earth is as a shadowe, and here is no abydinge.", the  Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587 - "our dayes are like ye shadowe vpon the earth, & there is none abiding.", Douay-Rheims 1610, the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Jewish translations of 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, Young's 1898, the New English Bible 1970, the RSV 1954, and the 2001 English Standard Version - "Our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no abiding."  The Updated Bible Version of 2004 also has the same sense as the KJB with: "our days on the earth are as a shadow, AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING."

 

Other Bibles that  read like the KJB - AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING." - are The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING.", The Revised English Bible 1877, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING.", The Amplified Bible 1987 - "AND THERE IS NO HOPE OF REMAINING.", The Word of Yah 1993, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Green’s literal 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The ESV 2011 - "AND THERE IS NO ABIDING.", The World English Bible 2012, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012 - "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING.", The Lexham English Bible 2012 - "and THERE IS NO HOPE OF ABIDING.", and The Biblos Bible 2013 - "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING."


The so called Greek Septuagint also reads: "our days upon the earth are as a shadow, AND THERE IS NO REMAINING."  as does the Latin Vulgate of 405 A.D. - "dies nostri quasi umbra super terram et nulla est mora" = "days of our fathers are like a shadow over the earth AND NOTHING IS ABIDING."


The New Living Translation says: "Our days on earth are like a passing shadow, gone so soon without a trace." The 2012 Knox Bible says: "AND THERE IS NO ABIDING HERE."


The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "Our days on earth are as a shadow, AND WITHOUT PERMANENCE."


The Easy to Read Version 2006 has the same meaning with: "Our time on earth is like a passing shadow, AND WE CANNOT STOP IT."


The New European Version 2010 - "AND THERE IS NO REMAINING."


The Living Bible 1971 - "our days on earth are like a shadow, GONE SO SOON, WITHOUT A TRACE."


The Wycliffe bible of 1395 has the same sense as found in the King James Bible saying: "our days be as a shadow on the earth, AND THERE IS NO TARRYING."


The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 reads: "Our days on earth are as a shadow, AND THERE IS NO STAY."


The Voice 2012 - "Our days on earth are dark AND TEMPORARY." 


The Amplified Bible of 1987 actually has an interesting way of translating the verse, that still agrees with the sense found in the King James Bible. It says: "our days on the earth are like a shadow, AND THERE IS NO HOPE OR EXPECTATION OF REMAINING."

 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE BIBLES

 

Foreign language versions that agree with the sense of the KJB that “there is none abiding” are Luther’s German bible 1545, and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "Unser Leben auf Erden ist wie ein Schatten und bleibt nicht bestehen." = "Our life on Earth is like a shadow and is not maintained.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1995 - “y nuestros días sobre la tierra, cual sombra que no dura.”  and the  2011 Reina Valera Contemporánea reads: "¡Nuestros días sobre la tierra son como una sombra pasajera!" = "our days upon the earth are as a passing shadow", and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014. 

The Portuguese Almeida Atualizada - “e não há permanência” - “and there is not permanence (remaining), 

 

and The Modern Greek Bible - αι ημεραι ημων επι της γης ειναι ως σκια, και μονιμοτης δεν υπαρχει. = "and there is no (permanence) remaining."


Adam Clarke comments on this verse, saying: "There is none abiding. However we may wish to settle and remain in this state of things, it is impossible, because every earthly form is passing swiftly away, all is in a state of revolution and decay, and there is no abiding, mikveh, no expectation, that we shall be exempt from those changes and chances to which our fathers were subjected. "As the shadow of a bird flying in the air of heaven, such are our days upon the earth; nor is there any hope to any son of man that he shall live for ever."-Targum.

 

Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible - “There is none abiding: we only give to thee what we must shortly leave, and what we cannot keep to ourselves; and therefore it is a great favour that thou wilt accept such offerings; or, and therefore we are not perpetual possessors of this land, and the fruits of it, but only pilgrims and passengers through it.”


However again the NKJV joins the NIV, NASB, Holman Standard with the ridiculous reading of: "our days on earth are as a shadow, AND WITHOUT HOPE."


One of the main points of David’s public prayer before the congregation of Israel was to emphasize the confidence and hope they all shared in the living God. “and David the king also rejoiced with great joy. Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.”


For these versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB and several other modern versions to then turn around and have king David say that their days were "as a shadow and WITHOUT HOPE” is absurd.  

 

Dan Wallace's NET version says: "our days are like a shadow on the earth, WITHOUT SECURITY." (Wrong!)  They had just expressed their confidence in God.

 

The Catholic Connection


The Catholic versions are in their usual contradictory mess.  The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay version read: "Our days upon earth are as a shadow, and THERE IS NO STAY."


The St. Joseph NAB 1970 has the sense found in the KJB and reads: "Our life on earth is like a shadow THAT DOES NOT ABIDE."

But the Jerusalem bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read like the NKJV, NIV, NASB with: "our days on earth fleeting as a shadow WITHOUT HOPE." 


And the latest Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 is nonsensical with: "Our days upon the earth are like a shadow, AND THERE IS NO DELAY."

 

2 Chronicles 34:6 “Mattocks” or “Ruins” or Something Else?

 

In the King James Bible we read in 2 Chronicles 34 of the young king Josiah who began to seek after the God of David his father. In the 12th year of his reign “he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images.  And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence; and the images…he cut down; and the groves, and the carved images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of them” (2 Chron. 34:3-4)

 

Then in verses 6-7 we read: “And so he did in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali, WITH THEIR MATTOCKS round about.  And when he had broken down the altars and groves, and had beaten the graven images into powder, and cut down all the idols throughout all the land of Israel, he returned to Jerusalem.”

 

A mattock is an agricultural tool shaped like a pickax, with an adze and a chisel edge as the ends of the head. It looks like a pickax with two sharpened edges on each end of the head.  It would have been the perfect tool for breaking down the altars, groves and graven idolatrous images.

 

However several modern Vatican versions have changed the text in verse 6. Instead of saying “WITH THEIR MATTOCKS” versions like the NIV, NASB and ESV say “and as far as Naphtali, IN THEIR RUINS all around.”

 

Then the ESV footnotes - “The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.”

 

The Holman Standard is interesting in that it reads differently than them all. It says: “He did the same in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, and as far as Naphtali AND ON THEIR SURROUNDING MOUNTAIN SHRINES.”

 

Then the Holman Standard footnotes: “Syriac, Vulgate read ‘THE RUINS ALL AROUND’; Hebrew is obscure.”

 

However I have a copy of Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac and it does NOT say what the Holman says it does. It reads: “And so did he in the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon and Naphtali, IN THEIR STREETS round about.”

 

The Hebrew word used here is #2719 gheh-rev and it has a wide variety of meanings including “sword, tool, knives, dagger, and mattocks.”  One thing for sure, it does NOT mean “RUINS” and it certainly does not mean “STREETS” either.

 

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay 1950 merely say: “And in the cities of Manasses, and of Ephraim, and of Simeon, even to Nephtali HE DEMOLISHED ALL.” 


But the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible has: “He did likewise in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon and IN THE RUINED VILLAGES OF THE SURROUNDING COUNTRY as far as Naphtali.”


But then again the 1985 New Jerusalem bible changed it once more to now read: “In the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim and Simeon, as far as Naphtali, AND ROUND THEIR OPEN SPACES.”


Agreeing with the sense found in the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible 1587 - “euen vnto Naphtali, with their MAULES they brake all round about.”, the Lesser Bible 1853 - “even as far as Naphtali, with their MATTOCKS, round about.”, Webster’s Version 1833 - “with their MATTOCKS around.”, Young’s literal translation 1898 and J.P. Green’s translation - “even unto Naphtali, WITH THEIR TOOLS, round about.”, JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 - “even unto Naphtali, with their AXES round about.”, The Word of Yah 1993 - “with their MATTOCKS”, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998 - “with their MATTOCKS round about.”, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - “as far as Naphtali with their INSTRUMENTS OF DESTRUCTION round about.”, The Apostolic Bible 2006 (Charles Van der Pool) - “even unto Naphtali WITH THEIR MATTOCKS”, Bond Slave Version 2009 “with THEIR MATTOCKS”, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 “with their MATTOCKS” (Yerusha Shen),  Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - “with THEIR MATTOCKS”,  Conservative Bible 2011 - “with their MATTOCKS round about.” (Andrew Schlafly), the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “as far as Naphtali and all around, WITH AXES.”



Other Versions with different meanings


NKJV 1982, Jubilee Bible - “even unto Naphtali, with their SWORDS round about.”


J. P. Green’s 2005 -“even to Naphtali, with THEIR TOOLS all around.”


Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 - “even as far as Naphtali, - SEARCHED HE THEIR HOUSES, round about.”


Common English Bible 2011 (Critical Text Version) - “and as far as Naphtali, HE REMOVED THEIR TEMPLES.” Footnote =Hebrew is uncertain.


The Voice 2012 (another Critical Text version) - “and Naphtali AND THEIR SURROUNDING VILLAGES.”


The Message 2002 (New Living Translation 1996, CEV) - “The clean-up campaign ranged outward to the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS —as far north as Naphtali.”


Some Bible Commentators -


Commentators, like bible versions, are all over the board with conflicting and contradictory opinions, but here are a couple that side with the meaning found in the KJB and many others.


Adam Clarke - “Even those who were under the government of the Israelitish king permitted their idols and places of idolatry to be hewn down and destroyed: after the truth was declared and acknowledged, THE SPADE AND THE AXE were employed to complete the reformation.”


John Gill - “with their mattocks round about; or hammers or mauls, as Kimchi, or pick axes, such sort of instruments as were used in demolishing altars and images”



 

Ezra 1:9 - another prime example of the modern Bible Babel


In the book of Ezra we read of king Cyrus being moved upon by God Almighty to issue a decree that the Israelites could leave the kingdom of Persia and return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple.


Among the various vessels and utensils the children of Israel carried back with them, we find the following list in Ezra 1:9. "And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty KNIVES,..."


However there is a confusing hodge-podge of contradictory and conflicting modern versions that have totally different meanings the one from the other. Many people wrongly assume that if they could only learn "the original languages" then they would have a firm grasp on what God REALLY said. Well, if this were true, then why do we have all these modern scholars giving us such a mess of uncertainty?


Let's compare the various Bible versions to see what the scholars have come up with.


"29 KNIVES" is the reading found in the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay-Rheims bible of 1610, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, both the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) and the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Jewish translations, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Douay of 1950, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the NKJV of 1982, the NRSV of 1989, the Bible in Basic English 1960, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The New Jewish Version 1985, God's Word Translation 1995, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, God's First Truth 1999, The World English Bible 2000, Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Holman Standard 2009, The New European Version 2010, the Common English Bible 2011, The Names of God Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Bond Slave Version 2012, the Knox Bible 2012 The Biblos Bible 201he Hebrew Names Version 2014, The International Standard Version 2014, The Modern English Version 2014.

 

Foreign Language Bibles = 29 KNIVES

 

Among foreign language bibles that correctly read "29 KNIVES" are Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter bible - "29 Messer" = 29 knives; the Italian Diodati 1649 and 1991 and the 2006 Italian Riveduta - "ventinove coltelli" = 29 KNIVES, the French Martin, Ostervald 1996, Louis Segond of 2007 - "29 couteaux" = 29 knives, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - "vinte e nove facas" = 29 KNIVES,  the  Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960, 1995, the  Reina Valera Contemporánea of 2011, AND the NIV Spanish edition Nueva Versión Internacional of 1999!!! - "veintinueve cuchillos" = 29 KNIVES.

 

ODD BALL VERSIONS in The Bible Babble Buffet

 

BUT, the NASB says there were "29 DUPLICATES" (of what? It doesn't tell us)


The NIV 1984-2011, The Message 2002 and The New International Reader's Version 2014 all say  - "29 SILVER PANS" and then the NIV footnotes "the meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain".


Well, even if it wasn't uncertain, it SURE IS NOW, huh!?


The RSV, and the ESV 2001-2011 tell us there were "29 CENSERS".


Notice how the RSV of 1952 was the first version to reject "knives", then the NRSV 1989 went back to "knives", and then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV - has now gone back to the "29 censers" of the previous RSV.

  

The 1969 New Life Bible says "29 OTHER DISHES"


Amplified Bible says: "29 SACRIFICIAL DISHES" 

 

The Voice 2012 - "29 EXTRA DISHES"


The so called Greek Septuagint says there were "29 CHANGES", and then footnotes that the Hebrew text reads "knives".


Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac tells us there were "29 VESTMENTS".


The New English Bible 1970 gives us "29 VESSELS OF VARIOUS KINDS"


The Scripture 4 All Translation 2010 - "29 ALTERNATIVES." (Yep. That's what it says!)


And The New Living Translation 2015 tells us there were "29 SILVER INCENSE BURNERS."


The Catholic Connection


The Catholic versions are all over the board, with hardly any one agreeing with the others. Both the Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 correctly read "29 KNIVES"


but the 1968 Jerusalem bible says "29 SILVER BOWLS"; then the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible has "sacks of silverware, one thousand AND TWENTY NINE.", thus combining the numbers 1000 and 29 and omitting the Hebrew word "knives". 


But then the 1985 Catholic New Jerusalem bible says: "1000 silver dishes 29 REPAIRED"! 


BUT, once again in 2009 the latest Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to "one thousand silver bowls, twenty-nine KNIVES."


Doctor Dan Wallace and Company In Action


Dan Wallace's NET 2006 tells us there were "29 SILVER UTENSILS", And THEN he Footnotes: "Hebrew - knives. The Hebrew noun מַחֲלָפִים (makhalafim, "knives") is found only here in the O.T. While the basic meaning of the term is fairly clear, what it refers to is unclear."


And I suppose Doctor Dan's "29 SILVER UTENSILS" is now crystal clear, Right?  Folks, you have to be a modern day Seminary Professor to be able to talk like this and do it with a straight face and actually think that people are going to take you seriously and not think you are some kind of a NUT!


Oh, if we only went to seminary and learned the original languages, then we would have it all figured out, right? Don't count on it.

Get yourself a King James Bible and believe the Infallible Book God in His providence has given us. You will never go wrong.

 

 Ezra 4:21  A “real big mistake” in the KJB?

 

There is an ignorant Bible correcting pastor out there in videoland named David Middleton. This man believes that ALL Bibles have errors in them and that he, with his school boy knowledge of “the” Greek and Hebrew, is The Man to whom people need to come to find out what God REALLY said.

 

One of the alleged horrible mistakes he thinks he has found in the King James Bible is in Ezra 4:21 where the KJB has an italicized word that he says should not be there.

 

The verse in question is Ezra 4:21 and in the KJB it reads: “Give you now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until ANOTHER commandment shall be given to me.”

 

These words were spoken by Artaxerxes, the king of Persia, in the beginning of his reign after the enemies of the Jews wrote him a letter complaining about the Jews building in the city of Jerusalem and trying to get the king to stop the ongoing work.  

 

Many Jews were in the process of re-building the house of the Lord in Jerusalem after they had  returned from their 70 year captivity in Babylon.

 

Mr. Middleton then tells us: “In Ezra 4:21 there is A REAL BIG MISTAKE the KJB did. They added a word - “another”.  This implies that he (Artaxerxes) already gave one commandment about building the city. But he never gave an original commandment. NO OTHER TRANSLATION has “another” in it. Not even the modern translations.  They have seen that it is wrong and it is deceptive.”  

 

(End of quotes by our “deep insights scholar” who is here to tell you and the rest of us what God REALLY said.)

 

The more I hear from these “know it all” King James Bible correctors, the more I believe the saying - “If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.”

 

First of all, the King James Bible is NOT the only translation that has this extra word “another” in it, as our eminent  teacher  ffirms so strongly.  

 

This man obviously has not bothered to do much research on the matter, but what he lacks in knowledge he makes up for with "conviction."

 

Not only does the King James Bible “add” this little word “until ANOTHER commandment be given from me.” but so too do The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "until [another] commandment be given from me.", The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "until ANOTHER ma'am shall be given from me.", the Bond Slave Version 2012, the Jubilee Bible 2010 and the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013.  

 

 

The simple reason why the KJB and others are correct for “adding” this extra word here is because THERE HAD BEEN A PREVIOUS COMMANDMENT given by a king of Persia, and we read about this FIRST decree  to rebuild the city of Jerusalem in the first chapter of the book of Ezra itself.

 

In Ezra 1:2 we read: “Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.”

 

And in Chapter 4 where Artaxerxes issues his commandment, as a king of Persia, we read that “Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.” 4:24  

 

Then once again, another king of Persia, Darius, reaffirms the first commandment of Cyrus, king of Persia, and in Ezra chapter 6 he makes search of the court records and finds where Cyrus had previously issued the decree that the house of the LORD be built in Jerusalem and he reaffirms it, and even provides the Jews with more building material.  

 

Though I believe this is the correct understanding of the passage, even if we look at it in another way, the KJB STILL makes perfect sense. King Artaxerxes says in Ezra 4:21 - "Give ye NOW commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, UNTIL ANOTHER commandment shall be given from me."  

 

They were already building in the city. He now commanded them to cease, and this would be UNTIL another commandment would be given, that is, in case he (Artaxerxes) changed his mind, and would give another commandment to continue the work again, or until another king of Persia would give a different order.

 

The fact that "pastor" Middleton would see what he calls "a real big mistake" in the KJB here, shows that there is something seriously wrong with this man's thinking processes.

 

The King James Bible is absolutely correct and is not even remotely “a real big mistake”, as our ignorant Bible corrector claims.

 

Nehemiah 3:5 - King James Bible - “And next unto them the Tekoites repaired; but their nobles put not their necks to the work of their Lord.  


Notice that the literal translation of the word “necks” is given in the King James Bible, and “the work of their Lord” refers to serving their God. The Hebrew word for “Lord” is #113 Adon, and it is found only three times in the book of Nehemiah, here, in 8:10 “for this day is holy unto our Lord”, and 10:29 “and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD, our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes.”


Agreeing with the King James Bible reading and meaning word for word are the following Bible translations: the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Amplified, the Revised Standard Version 1956, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, Douay-Rheims, Darby, Young’s, Green’s translation, Bible in Basic English, KJV 21st Century Version, and Third Millennium Bible.


The 1395 Wycliffe bible read: “but the principal men of hem puttiden not her neckis vndur in the werk of her Lord God.” Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac also agrees with the KJB meaning, as well as the Complete Jewish Bible - “but their chiefs did not burden themselves with the work of their Lord.”


The Spanish Reina-Valera Bible reads just like the King James Bible with: “mas sus grandes no prestaron su cerviz á la obra de su Señor.” They use the literal word for ‘necks’ (cerviz = the nape of the neck) and refer to their work as being of their Lord.


Likewise the French Martin 1744, and the Modern Greek also have the same meaning as the King James Bible, as do the Italian Diodati - “il collo al servigio del lor Signore.”, and the Portuguese Almeida - “seus nobres não meteram o pescoço os serviço do Senhor.”


Even the modern English Standard Version 2003 reads: “but their nobles would not stoop to serve their Lord.” They changed “necks” to ‘stoop’ but at least the reference is to their Lord, or God. 


The NKJV has: “but their nobles did not put their SHOULDERS (R12) to the work of their Lord.”, then footnote “literally, necks”.


There is a change in meaning with the RV and ASV in that they say: “but their nobles put not their necks to the work of their lord.” Here they keep the literal “necks” but change the work from that of the Lord (God) to their human master (their lord). So, did the nobles have a human master or lord? Doubtful, and if so, he wasn’t much of a ‘lord’.


The NASB went even further, and it now says: “the Tekoites made repairs, but their nobles DID NOT SUPPORT the work of their MASTERS.” ASV = one ‘lord’; NASB = ‘multiple masters.’ Then in a footnote it tells us the literal reading is “necks” and not ‘support’.


The Geneva bible was similar to the NASB reading: “but the great men of them put not their neckes to the worke of their lordes.”

The NIV puts a similar spin on the meaning of this verse and says: “The next section was repaired by the men of Tekoa, but their nobles would not put THEIR SHOULDERS to the work UNDER THEIR SUPERVISORS.”


The Holman Standard has: “but their nobles did NOT LIFT A FINGER TO HELP their supervisors.”; and The Message reads: “and next to him the Tekoites (except for their nobles, who wouldn't work with THEIR MASTER (one master again) and refused TO GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY with such work).“


Wallace’s NET version reads: “but their town leaders WOULD NOT ASSIST with the work of THEIR MASTER.” Then he informs us in his footnotes that the literal reading is ‘necks’, and also notes that “The plural form (’adonehem, “lords”) is probably a plural of majesty referring to Nehemiah. However, some English versions take the plural to refer to the “supervisors” (NIV, NCV, TEV) and others to “their Lord” (KJV, NRSV).”


In any case, it is obvious that not all Bibles mean the same thing, even when we “go to the Hebrew”.


Nehemiah 8:4 “pulpit”, “a wooden platform”, “wooden podium”, “a tower of wood”?


“And Ezra the scribe stood upon A PULPIT of wood, which they had made for the purpose….”

 

I had never heard that Nehemiah 8:4 is an alleged “error” until  today (January 11, 2016) when some bible agnostic at one of the forums told me it was. Of course this guy also thinks the words “pastor” and “baptize” are errors, so you know right off the bat that this man has made his own mind his “final authority” and has NO inerrant Bible to believe in himself or to give to anybody else.  

 

He thinks "baptize" should be "submerge". If you "submerge" new converts in water, then it's Glug, Glug, and they drown.  But "baptize" symbolizes the going down into the water and coming up again - death, burial and resurrection.  

 

This is what he actually said - "I personally don’t like the King James choice to translate as “pulpit” what is “tower” in every other appearance. In that case, I think the translators were not only wrong, but intentionally wrong, so as to promote an agenda, reading a particular ecclesiology into the text. Same with “baptize” rather than the more literal (not to mention accurate and understandable) “submerge.” Wrong. And intentionally wrong."


 

This man, like so many today, is his own authority and he doesn't even understand his own English language very well.  A pulpit was originally an upraised platform on which the preacher or teacher STOOD. Notice that the King James Bible says "and Ezra the scribe STOOD UPON A PULPIT."

 

Definition of “pulpit”

 

Merriam Webster Dictionary - a pulpit - an elevated place in the which a clergyman stands while preaching. 

 

 

Oxford English Dictionary - pulpit - a raised platform or lectern from which the preacher delivers a sermon.

 

American Heritage Dictionary - 1. An elevated platform, lectern, or stand used in preaching or conducting a religious service.

 

This Bible corrector is not looking at the original meaning of the word "pulpit" but is thinking of the modern counterpart, which got its name from original raised platform, where todays preachers stand IN FRONT OF the "pulpit" and places his Bible and notes on it.  But the King James Bible, and many others, tell us that Ezra STOOD UPON the pulpit.  That was the raised platform. You can see similar pulpits in many of the older churches today. 

 

 

In Nehemiah 8:4 we read: “And Ezra the scribe STOOD UPON A PULPIT of wood, which they had made for the purpose….”  Then we are told that “they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8)


The Hebrew word used here for “pulpit” in the KJB (and many others as well will soon see) is #4026 mig-dahl. About 45 times it is translated as “tower”. Once as “pulpit”, and once as “flowers” (Song of Solomon 5:13) and once as “castles” (1 Chronicles 27:25)


Young’s “literal” is a little too literal and ends up being ridiculous. It says - “And Ezra the scribe standeth on A TOWER OF WOOD that they made for the purpose”


The ESV, NIV, Holman and NKJV unite to tell us it was “a wooden PLATFORM”


NASB - “a wooden PODIUM” 


NET version 2006 - Ezra the scribe stood on A TOWERING WOODEN PLATFORM constructed for this purpose. 


Darby 1890 - “a HIGH STAGE of wood” 


New Life Version 1979 - Ezra the writer stood on A RAISED FLOOR of wood  


ISV 2014 - Ezra the scribe stood on A WOODEN ROSTRUM


Wycliffe 1395 - And Ezra the writer stood on THE DEGREES OF WOOD 


The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011 - “stood upon A STEP OF WOOD”


 

A PULPIT of wood


Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “a pulpit of wood” are the following Bible translations - The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917, The Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, The Revised Standard Version 1946-1971, Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, God’s First Truth 1999, Green’s Literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The New Heart English Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, the Word English Bible 2012, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, and The Hebrew Names Version 2014.


and this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “a pulpit of wood”


http://studybible.info/IHOT/Nehemiah%208:4


Foreign Language Bibles that also read “a PULPIT of wood” are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1960, 1977 - “un púlpito de madera” and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “sobre um púlpito de madeira”


It should be obvious that our Bible corrector doesn’t know what he is talking about and the King James Bible is right, as always.


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

Will Kinney

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