Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

Bible Babble Buffet Versions Part Two

 
 


Psalm 10:5

KJV wicked...His ways are always GRIEVOUS

NIV wicked...His ways are always prosperous

NKJV wicked...His ways are always prospering

ESV wicked...His ways prosper at all times

HCSB wicked...His ways are always secure

 

The description of the wicked in verse 5 "His ways are always GRIEVOUS". 

 

However the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV, ESV and the Jehovah Witness NWT in saying: "his ways are always PROSPEROUS." 

 

The NKJV has translated this same word as "grieved" in  Jeremiah 5:3 and as "violent"  in  Jeremiah 23:19.  The word means "to afflict, to be in pain, to travail, anguish and to wound". It never means to be prosperous. In fact, I looked in the NIV and NASB concordances and many times they render the word with the above meanings, but only ONE time do they translate it as "prosperous", and that is here in Psalm 10:5. 

 

There are many different ways the various Bible versions have translated this word, and some of them are opposites, but many of them side with the meaning found in the King James Bible.  

 

Wycliffe's translation of 1395 has "his ways BE DEFOULED in all time", Coverdale's bible of 1535 reads: "His wayes are allwaye FILTHIE". The Bishops' Bible 1568 agrees with the KJB -"His wayes are alwayes GREEVOUS". 

 

The Thomson Bible 1808 reads: "His ways ARE POLLUTED on every occasion" 

 

The Longman Version 1841 reads: " His ways are ALWAYS EVIL." 

 

The Boothroyd Bible 1853 - "PERVERSE at all times are his ways"

 

Lamsa's translation of the Syriac has "His ways are always WEAK", but the Bible in Basic English has the opposite with "His ways ARE EVER FIXED, while the Douay-Rheims reads "his ways ARE FILTHY at all times". 

 

God's First Truth 1999 says: "His ways are always FILTHY"

 

Young's 1898 says "PAIN do his ways at all times." and the Julia Smith Translation 1855 is similar with: "His way WILL BE IN PAIN in all time"

 

Green's 2000 literal and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 have "His ways ARE PERVERTED at all times"

 

The 2011 Common English Bible says "Their ways ARE ALWAYS TWISTED." and the Amplified of 1987 reads: "His ways ARE GRIEVOUS [or persist] at all times." 

 

The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, A Conservative Version 2005 and The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) have: "PROFANE are his ways at all times"  

 

"His ways are always GRIEVOUS"

 

Also reading "his ways are always GRIEVOUS" are The Bill Bible 1671 - "his was are always GRIEVOUS", Webster's 1833 translation, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "his ways are always GRIEVOUS", The Amplified Version 1987 edition "His ways ARE GRIEVOUS", The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the English Jubilee Bible of 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the BRG Bible 2012 .

 

Among foreign language Bibles the Spanish Antigua Versión agrees with the sense of the KJB saying: "Sus caminos son viciosos en todo tiempo" = his ways are VICIOUS. The 1960 and  1995 Reina Valera have "Sus caminos son torcidos" = his ways are twisted.  The 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras has "Sus caminos atormentan en todo tiempo" = his ways cause torment at all times" and the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel both agree, saying "Os seus caminhos atormentam sempre" = his was always cause torment,  while the 1649 Italian Diodati says: "Le sue vie son profane in ogni tempo" = his ways are profane at all times . 

 

The Modern Greek Bible says "his ways DEFILE at all times" - ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ?? ????? ?????? 

 

You can get a sense of the total confusion among scholars by seeing what the commentaries say about this verse.  John Gill mentions them all saying: "His ways are always grievous?To God and to his people; or, "his ways cause terror" , so Aben Ezra; make men fear... or, "his ways are defiled", as the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin render it; for to him is nothing pure, his mind and conscience being defiled, (Titus 1:15) ; or, "his ways always remain"; they are always the same, there is no change in them for the better: or they "prosper"  as Jarchi interprets it." 

 

Matthew Henry comments: "His ways are always grievous; he is very daring and resolute in his sinful courses; he will have his way, though ever so tiresome to himself and vexatious to others; he travails with pain in his wicked courses, and yet his pride makes him wilful and obstinate in them."


Psalm 29:9

KJV The voice of the LORD maketh the HINDS TO CALVE

NIV The voice of the LORD TWISTS THE OAKS

 



In Psalm 29:9 we read "The voice of the LORD MAKETH THE HINDS TO CALVE, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory." Here the NASB 1995, the NKJV, 1982, the ASV of 1901, the Revised Version 1881, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587, 1917 Hebrew-English, Darby, Complete Jewish Bible, the Amplified Bible 1987, the Italian Diodati, 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991 - "La voce dell'Eterno fa partorire le cerve Spanish  Reina Valera 1909 - "Voz de Jehová que hará estar de parto á las ciervas, the French Louis Segond - "La voix de l'Éternel fait enfanter les biches", the ESV 2001, Holman Standard 2003, and Green's literal translation of 2000 read as does the KJB. A hind is a female deer, it is not an archaic word.

However the NIV reads: "The voice of the LORD TWISTS THE OAKS, and strips the forests bare, and in his temple all cry, "Glory." 

 

Now, I am not much of an expert of husbandry but I do know there is a difference between "maketh the hinds to calve" and "twists the oaks'. According to Strongs concordance, Wigrams Hebrew Lexicon and Green's interlinear the same Hebrew words are used here as in Job 39:1 "Or canst thou mark when the HINDS DO CALVE?" Here in Job the NIV has: Do you watch when THE DOE BEARS HER FAWN?", but gives a totally different meaning to the same words in Psalm 29:9. 

 

Notice the RSV 1952 and the NRSV OF 1989. They both read -"The voice of the Lord CAUSES THE OAKS TO WHIRL", but then footnote "or causes the deer to calve" and then the revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV of 2001 has gone back to -"The voice of the Lord MAKES THE DEER GIVE BIRTH."  

 

Daniel Wallace and company's goofy NET version is similar to the NIV saying: "The Lord?s shout BENDS THE LARGE TREES" and then he has this absurd footnote; "Heb the deer. Preserving this reading, some translate the preceding verb, "causes [the deer] to give premature birth" (cf. NEB, NASB). But the Polel of  (khul/khil) means "give birth" not "cause to give birth" and the statement "the Lord's shout gives birth to deer" is absurd. In light of the parallelism (note "forests" in the next line) and v. 5, it is preferable to emend (ayyalot, deer) to (elot, "large trees")" 

 

In other words, he acknowledges that the Hebrew text reads "deer" or "hinds" but then he says "the voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve" is, in his humble opinion, "absurd", so he "emends", that is, changes the text.  Well, I wonder if it ever occured to our seminary professor that it is by God's voice or His word that He creates ALL things, including the life of animals as well as men. 

 

John Gill comments on this verse - "The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve" Which being timorous creatures, the bringing forth of their young, which is naturally very painful and difficult, is lessened and facilitated by thunder; they being either so frightened with it that they feel not their pains; or their pains, being hastened by it, become more easy; and naturalists observe, that the time of bringing forth their young is at that season of the year when thunder is most frequent; see (Job 39:1-4)

 

Guess who else mistranslates the verse in this way. You got it! The Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 says: "The voice of the Lord TWISTS THE OAKS" and the  1985 New Jerusalem bible says: "Yahweh's voice CONVULSES TEREBINTHS"!!  But the older Douay-Rheims of 1610 as well as the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version have -"The voice of the Lord  IS PREPARING THE STAG." You gotta love this so called "science" of textual criticism, right?

 

Proverbs 7:22 KJB - "He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, OR AS A FOOL TO THE  CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS."  

NIV - " LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE." 

ESV -  AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST.

NASB - "OR AS ONE IN FETTERS TO THE DISCIPLINE OF A FOOL."

The Judaica Press Tanach 2005 - "He follows her immediately-as an ox goes to the slaughter, and as A VIPER to the chastisement of a fool"

Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 - "LIKE A LAMB ACTING LASCIVIOUSLY, AND NOT KNOWING THAT HE IS BEING DRAWN FOOLISHLY INTO CHAINS."  (It REALLY says this!)

Lamsa's 1933 - "AS A DOG TO BE MUZZLED."

 

Greek Septuagint - "AS A DOG TO BONDS, OR AS A HART SHOT IN THE LIVER WITH AN ARROW."  

 

Let's see...A FOOL.....A DEER.....ONE IN FETTERS....A VIPER.... A LASCIVIOUS LAMB...or A DOG?

  

Hmmmmm....Pretty much the same things, right?  Maybe if you're a product of American Public Education in the 21st century, they are. 


Proverbs 7:22 KJB - ?He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, OR AS A FOOL TO THE  CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS.?   

So read the Hebrew texts, as well as The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Bible 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Natural Israelite Bible 2010, Coverdale 1535, Matthew?s Bible 1549, the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, The Revised English Bible 1877, the RV 1885, Rotherham?s Emphasized bible 1902, the ASV 1901, the [NASB], Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green's Literal 2005, The Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Modern English Bible 2014 - "as a fool to the correction of the stocks."  

 

Foreign Language Bibles


Foreign language Bibles that read the same as the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible are the Spanish Reina Valera's 1909, 1960, 1995 - "o como va el necio a prisión para ser castigado", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond  1910, Ostervald 1991 and Louis Segond 2007- "Comme un fou qu'on lie pour le châtier", the Italian Diodati 1649 and 1991, Riveduta 2006 - "come un incatenato alla punizione dello stolto", the Portuguese Almeida - "como o louco ao castigo das prisões", and Luther's German bible 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "und wie ein Gefesselter zur Bestrafung der Toren."


Other Bible Babble Buffet Versions


The NKJV reads the same as the KJB: "Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, Or AS A FOOL TO THE CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS."

 

BUT THEN, just so you won't be too confident in what God said, it footnotes:  "Septuagint, Syriac, and Targum read AS A DOG TO BONDS,  Vulgate reads AS A LAMB...TO BONDS."


Let's see what a confusing mess the modern versions have made out of this verse.


The NIV actually says: "All at once he followed her like an ox going to the slaughter, LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE."

 

Then the NIV footnotes: Syriac; Hebrew "fool". And it also adds: "The meaning of the Hebrew for this line is uncertain."


Well, even the NIV tells us that the Hebrew clearly says "fool" but they have given us A DEER instead!  


Lamsa?s 1936 translation of the Syriac says: "He went after her as a little child, as an ox that goes to the slaughter, and AS A DOG TO BE MUZZLED."  - A DOG, not A DEER, not a FOOL.


The Holman Standard is basically like the NIV with: "He follows her impulsively like an ox going to the slaughter, like A DEER BOUNDING TOWARD A TRAP."

 

Then it tells us in their footnote: "Text emended (That means changed!)  - like shackles for the discipline of a fool; Hebrew obscure."!


Hey, wait a minute.  They admit they changed the text; then they give us their translation of the Hebrew, which is basically the same as what the KJB says, and then they tell us it is obscure!  You gotta luv 'em.  These bible correctors are a kick in the head, aren't they?


The liberal RSV 1954 has: "as an ox goes to the slaughter, or AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST."


The ESV 2001 is the same with: "All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, or AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST." 

 

Then it has this amazing footnote: "Probable reading (compare Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac) Hebrew -  as an anklet for the discipline of a fool"!!! 

 

They come right out and tell us what the Hebrew reading is, (though they have given us ballpark approximations with their paraphrase) and it is what is found in the KJB and so many others. = as a fool to the correction of the stocks. "anklet = stocks", "discipline=correction" and "fool". And to think that people use these bogus bible versions then criticize the King James Bible! Just amazing.

 

It should also be noted that neither the so called Septuagint, nor the Vulgate, nor the Syriac read as does the Hebrew text they call "obscure" NOR do any one of them agree with each other! So why does the vaunted ESV change the Hebrew text; tell us to compare the Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac, and then tell us how the Hebrew reads, which is like what the King James Bible has had all along?


The Septuagint copy I have reads like no other Bible version on the face of the earth I am aware of and adds a whole bunch of words besides.  It says: ?And he followed her, being gently led on, and that as an ox is led to the slaughter, AND AS A DOG TO BONDS, OR AS A HART SHOT IN THE LIVER WITH AN ARROW.?!!!  Hellooooo? 

 

And the Syriac, as we have seen, says: "He went after her as A LITTLE CHILD, as an ox that goes to the slaughter, and AS A DOG TO BE MUZZLED."  So, in other words, their "helpful footnote" is nothing more than a confusing bunch of Baloney.


Dan Wallace and Company's silly NET version reads: "Suddenly he went after her like an ox that goes to the slaughter, LIKE A STAG PRANCING INTO A TRAPPER?S SNARE." (This is basically like the NIV, Holman junk)


The Lexham English Bible 2012 has something different than them all with: "He goes after her suddenly; like an ox to the slaughter he goes,  and LIKE A STAG TO THE INSTRUCTION OF A FOOL" - 

(Huh?  Is a fool going to teach the stag?  I don't get it.)

 

 

The 2012 critical text Names of God Bible gives us: "like A RAM HOBBLING INTO CAPTIVITY." 

 

 The Catholic Connection


Both the Douay Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay version are translated from the Latin and they both say: "Immediately he followeth her as an ox led to be a victim, and AS A LAMB PLAYING THE WANTON, AND NOT KNOWING THAT HE IS DRAWN LIKE A FOOL TO BONDS." (Read that again just to capture the "meaning")  

 

Then in 1968 the Jerusalem bible came out with - "Bemused, he follows her LIKE AN OX BEING LED TO THE SLAUGHER, LIKE A STAG CAUGHT IN A NOOSE."  This is like the ESV, NIV, Holman, NET versions. Surprise!

 

Then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB gave us some more innovation with: "He follows her stupidly, like an ox that is led to the slaughter, LIKE A STAG THAT MINCES TOWARD THE NET."

 

But once again Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 changed it again to now read: "Forthwith he follows her, like an ox on its way to the slaughterhouse, LIKE A MADMAN ON HIS WAY TO THE STOCKS."

 

 

And finally in 2009 they came out with the Catholic Public Domain Version and it reads differently than them all. It says: "Immediately, he follows her, like an ox being led to the sacrifice, and LIKE A LAMB ACTING LASCIVIOUSLY, AND NOT KNOWING THAT HE IS BEING DRAWN FOOLISHLY INTO CHAINS."  Well... that IS, after all, what every lascivious lamb deserves, right?

 

  

With today?s multiple Bible Babble Buffet "scholars" giving us such "an embarrassment of riches" to chose from for what God may or may not have said in His word, small wonder most Christians no longer believe "The Bible" or any bible is the complete and 100% true words of the living God.

 

Get the Bible God has has born witness to in so many ways and the only one English speaking Christians actually believe is the inerrant words of truth and life - the King James Holy Bible.

  


Proverbs 18:24

KJV A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly

NASB A man of many friends COMES TO RUIN

NIV A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN

ESV A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN

HCSB A man with many friends MAY BE HARMED

 

Proverbs 18:24 "A man that hath friends MUST SHEW HIMSELF FRIENDLY: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother."

Agreeing with the King James Bible word for word or in sense are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "A man that hath friends, ought to shew him selfe friendly: for a friend is neerer then a brother.Barker's Bible 1615, the Italian Diodati of 1649 and  La Nuova Diodati of 1991 - "L'uomo che ha molti amici deve pure mostrarsi amico" = "A man of many friends must show himself friendly", Young's 'literal' - "man with friends is to show himself friendly",  Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - "El hombre que tiene amigos debe ser amistoso, The New Life Version 1995 -"A man who has friends must be a friend, NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the English Jubilee Bible of 2000 and the Modern Greek Bible - A man who has many friends ought to show himself friendly."

 

The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 and the  Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 both read: "El hombre que tiene amigos ha de mostrarse amigo; Y amigo hay más unido que un hermano." (The man who has friends must show himself friendly). Likewise the 1991 New Italian Diodati reads like the KJB with: "L'uomo che ha molti amici deve pure mostrarsi amico". = "The man who has many friends ought to show himself friendly", The French Martin of 1744 agrees with the meaning found in the KJB saying: "Que l'homme qui a des intimes amis, se tienne à leur amitié ." The Portugues O Livro of 2000 has -"Quem tem muitos amigos pode dar-se por muito satisfeito." = "Who has many friends can be given for very satisfied. The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel says the same as the KJB with - "O homem de muitos amigos deve mostrar-se amigável" = A man with many friends ought to show himself friendly." The Dutch Staten Vertaling also agrees with the KJB - "Een man, die vrienden heeft, heeft zich vriendelijk te houden" = "A man, who has friends, has to keep himself pleasant" and so does the Russian Synodal Bible. 

 

The Romanian Fidela Bible of 2009 reads exactly like the King James Bible saying: "Un om care are prieteni trebuie sa' se arate el i'nsusi prietenos; s'i este un prieten care se lipeste mai aproape ca un frate. "  = "A man who has friends must show himself friendly: and is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

 

Luther's German bible of 1545 reads: "Ein treuer Freund liebet mehr und steht fester bei denn ein Bruder." = "A faithful friend love more and stand more firmly with a brother."

 

 

John Gill comments: A man that hath friends must show himself friendly "Friendship ought to be mutual and reciprocal, as between David and Jonathan; a man that receives friendship ought to return it, or otherwise he is guilty of great ingratitude."

Adam Clarke writes: A man that hath friends must show himself friendly "Love begets love; and love requires love as its recompense. If a man do not maintain a friendly carriage, he cannot expect to retain his friends. Friendship is a good plant; but it requires cultivation to make it grow." 

 

Matthew Poole comments: "A man that hath friends must shew friendly and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother. A man that hath friends - Heb. a man of friends either 1 Who desires the friendship of others Or 2 Who professes friendship to others That sticketh closer to him -  desires and needs his help who is more hearty in of all friendly offices."

 

 

Here the NKJV reads as does the KJB but it has a footnote that supports the ridiculous reading of the NIV, NASB and Darby. The NIV and NASB say "A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. " (NIV 1984 edition). The NKJV, being in partnership to destroy faith in the words of God, includes a footnote "Or MAY COME TO RUIN". You see, some of the same "scholars" who worked on the NIV also participated in the NKJV.

The 2011 "new" NIV doesn't even agree with the previous NIV of 1984. The NIV 1984 has: "A MAN of MANY friends MAY come to ruin..." but the "new" NIV now reads: "ONE WHO HAS UNRELIABLE friends SOON comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." 

The Holman Standard 2003 is very similar with: "A MAN WITH MANY FRIENDS MAY BE HARMED."

The Message has: "FRIENDS COME AND GO, but a true friend sticks by you like family." 

 

The Amplified Bible of 1987 reads: "The man of many friends [a friend of all the world] WILL PROVE HIMSELF A BAD FRIEND"


The Judaica Press Tanach 2001 - "A MAN ACQUIRES FRIENDS WITH WHOM TO ASSOCIATE, and there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

Douay-Rheims version of 1610 reads: "A MAN AMIABLE IN SOCIETY, shall be more friendly than a brother."

Jerusalem Bible 1968  and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible (both modern Catholic versions) - "THERE ARE FRIENDS WHO LEAD ONE TO RUIN, others are closer than a brother."

 

The 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reads much like the other new Vatican Versions with - "SOME FRIENDS BRING RUIN ON US, but a true friend is more loyal than a brother."

 

However the latest Catholic version to come out in 2009 called The Sacred Scriptures Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to reading: "{18:24} A MAN AMIABLE TO SOCIETY shall be more friendly than a brother."  

 

RSV 1952 - "THERE ARE FRIENDS WHO PRETEND TO BE FRIENDS, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

NRSV 1989 - "SOME FRIENDS PLAY AT FRIENDSHIP but a true friend sticks closer than one's nearest kin." 

 

The Contemporary English Version of 1995 reads: "SOME FRIENDS DON'T HELP" but then Footnotes: "One possible meaning for the difficult Hebrew text."

 

ESV 2001 - "A MAN OF MANY COMPANIONS MAY COME TO RUIN but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

Good News Translation 1992 - "SOME FRIENDSHIPS DO NOT LAST, but some friends are more loyal than brothers."

Easy to Read Version 2001 - "SOME FRIENDS ARE FUN TO BE WITH. But a close friend can be even better than a brother."

Lamsa's 1936 translation - "THERE ARE FRIENDS WHO ARE MERELY FRIENDS; and there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." 

 

The brand new Common English Bible of 2011 (a critical text version) says: "THERE ARE PERSONS FOR COMPANIONSHIP, but then there are friends who are more loyal than family."

 

 

The so called Greek Septuagint shows its usual confusion by omitting Proverbs 18:23 and 24, and also omitting 19:1, 2 and 3. By the way, instead of Proverbs 18:22 reading: "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth the favor of the LORD." (KJB and an host of others), the LXX actually says: "He that PUTS AWAY A GOOD WIFE PUTS AWAY A GOOD THING, AND HE THAT KEEPS AN ADULTERESS IS FOOLISH AND UNGODLY." Yeah..., that's pretty close, isn't it?

New English Bible 1970 - "SOME COMPANIONS ARE GOOD ONLY FOR IDLE TALK, but a friend may stick closer than a brother."

As our scholarly friend James White writes: "By comparing various Bible versions we get a better idea of what God said."

Soooo true, don't ya think? ;-) 

 

Proverbs 22:20 "excellent things", "three times" or "thirty sayings"? 


KJB (RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV) -Have not I written unto thee EXCELLENT THINGS

NIV, ESV - Have I not written for you THIRTY SAYINGS of counsel and knowledge 

Young's -  "Have I not written to thee THREE TIMES with counsels and knowledge?

 


Proverbs 22:20 "excellent things", "three times" or "thirty sayings"?

Proverbs 22:20-21 "Have not I written to thee EXCELLENT THINGS in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of THE WORDS OF TRUTH; that thou mightest answer THE WORDS OF TRUTH to them that send unto thee."


"Have not I written unto thee EXCELLENT THINGS" is the reading found in the Revised Version 1881, Lesser Old Testament 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, A Conservative Version, the American Standard Version of 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Jewish translations of 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the NKJV 1982, the NASB 1972-1995, Darby 1870, the Amplified bible 1987, Green's MKJV 1998, the Updated Bible version 2004 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.


NASB 1995 - Have I not written to you excellent things Of counsels and knowledge

Darby - Have not I written to thee excellent things, in counsels and knowledge

Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - I have written you worthwhile things full of good counsel and knowledge

21st Century KJV 1994 - Have I not written to thee excellent things of counsel and knowledge

Amplified Bible 1987 - Have I not written to you long ago excellent things in counsels and knowledge

However there are several very different ways other Bible versions have translated this verse.  Here are some of them:


Young's - "Have I not written to thee three times with counsels and knowledge?


Bishops' Bible 1568 - Haue not I warned thee very oft with counsayle and learning


Geneva Bible 1587 - Haue not I written vnto thee three times in counsels and knowledge


Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 - Behold I have described it to thee three manner of ways, in thoughts and knowledge


RSV 1946 - Have I not written for you thirty sayings of admonition and knowledge

ESV - Have I not written for you thirty sayings of counsel and knowledge

NIV, NET - Have I not written thirty sayings for you, ?sayings of counsel and knowledge


New Living Translation 2007 - I have written thirty sayings for you, filled with advice and knowledge. Footnote: Or excellent sayings; the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

Knox Bible 2012 - Not once nor twice have I warned thee and instructed thee 

 J.P. Green's translation 2000 - Have I not written to you yesterday and the day before with counsels and knowledge

Holman Standard 2003 - Haven't I written for you thirty sayings about counsel and knowledge"  Footnote: Text emended; one Hb tradition reads you previously; alt Hb tradition reads you excellent things; LXX, Syr, Vg read you three times

The Catholic versions are all over the board. The Douay says "THREE MANNER OF WAYS"; while the St. Joseph New American Bible has "Have not I written to you "The Thirty"?, and the Jerusalem Bible has "to you the THIRTY CHAPTERS?"

Foreign Language Bibles -

Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - ¿Acaso no te he escrito tres veces, con consejos y ciencia = I have written to you THREE TIMES

Spanish La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation) - ¿No te he escrito cosas excelentes de consejo y conocimiento = EXCELLENT THINGS

Spanish La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005 - ¿No te he escrito cosas excelentes De consejo y conocimiento = EXCELLENT THINGS

Spanish Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - ¿No te he escrito cosas excelentes de consejo y conocimiento = EXCELLENT THINGS

Spanish Reina Valera 2011 - ¿Acaso no te he escrito treinta dichos para impartirte consejos y conocimientos? = I have written to you THIRTY SAYINGS...

Portuguese de Almeida Atualizada - Porventura não te escrevi excelentes coisas acerca dos conselhos e do conhecimento - EXCELLENT THINGS

Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada 1681 - Porventura näo te escrevi excelentes coisas, acerca de todo conselho e conhecimento = EXCELLENT THINGS

NIV Portuguese edition 2000 - Já não lhe escrevi conselhos e instruções = Have I not written to you counsels and instructions - (They just omit the phrase altogether!)

Portuguese O Livro 2000 - Não é verdade que te tenho escrito já coisas excelentes referentes ao conhecimento e à experiência da vida? = EXCELLENT THINGS

Italian Diodati 1649 - Non ti ho io scritto cose eccellenti In consigli e in dottrina? = EXCELLENT THINGS

John Gill 
- The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible - Proverbs 22:20 - "Have not I written to thee excellent things?" In the Scriptures. Some render it, "three things"; and think that Solomon refers to the three divisions of the Scriptures among the Jews, the law, the prophets, and holy writings; so Jarchi; but some of those writings then were not: or to the three books wrote by him; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Others render it, "in a threefold way", as the Targum and several versions; that is, in various ways, in different forms and styles, in order the better to inform and instruct. But it is best, with Kimchi, Gersom, and Ben Melech, to render it, "excellent things", as we do."

Matthew Henry 
- they are excellent things, which concern the glory of God, the holiness and happiness of our souls, the welfare of mankind and all communities; they are princely things (so the word is), fit for kings to speak and senates to hear."


Proverbs 25:23

KJV The north wind DRIVETH AWAY rain

NIV As a north wind BRINGS rain

NASB The north wind BRINGS forth rain

ESV The north wind BRINGS forth rain

HCSB The north wind PRODUCES rain  

 

Dan Wallace's NET version also translates it this way, but pay attention to his footnote. NET - "The north wind brings forth rain" - Footnote: One difficulty here is that it is the west wind that brings rain to Israel (e.g., 1 Kgs 18:41-44). C. H. Toy suggests that the expression is general, referring to a northwest wind  unless it is an error (Proverbs [ICC], 468). J. P. M. van der Ploeg suggests that the saying originated outside the land, perhaps in Egypt (Prov 25:23,? VT 3 [1953]: 189-92). But this would imply it was current in a place where it made no sense. R. N. Whybray suggests that the solution lies with the verb "brings forth"( tÿkholel); he suggests redefining it to mean "repels, holds back" (cf. KJV "driveth away"). Thus, the point would be that the north wind holds back the rain just as an angry look holds back slander (Proverbs [CBC], 149).  

 

John Gill goes into great explanations, and ends up agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible - The north wind driveth away rain. So the geographer F23 says, the swift north wind drives away the moist clouds; which usually come from the opposite quarter, the south. The word used has the signification of conceiving, and begetting, and bringing forth; hence some F24 render it to a different sense, and so the Targum,


``the north wind bringeth forth rain;''and in this sense Gersom interprets it, and says,``the north wind produces rain in Jerusalem, because it brings there the vapours that ascend from the sea, which lies north unto it;''and the philosopher F25 says, that in the northern parts of the world the south wind produces rain; and in the southern parts the north wind produces it, as in Judea. But in (Job 37:22) , fair, fine, golden, serene, "weather", is said to "come out of the north"; agreeably to which, the north wind is by Homer F26 called (aiyrhgenethv) , the producer of serene weather; and by Virgil F1 "clarus aquilo", i.e. what makes serene. The Arabic version reads it, "the south wind"; and that does bring rain, and, as that version has it, excites the clouds. But the first reading and sense of the words seem best F2, and agree with what follows: so [doth] an angry countenance a backbiting tongue; drives it away, discourages and silences it. When a man puts on a stern countenance, a frowning and angry look, on such who bring him slanderous reports and idle tales of their neighbours, and reproach and backbite them, it checks them, and puts a stop to their practices."



Agreeing with the KJB = Geneva Bible 1587 - "As the Northwinde driueth away the raine, so doeth an angry countenance the slandering tongue.", Coverdale's Bible 1535 - "The north wynde dryueth awaye the rayne", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims of 1610, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 - "El viento del norte ahuyenta la lluvia", the French Martin 1744 - "Le vent de bise chasse la pluie", the Italian Diodati of 1649- "Il vento settentrionale dissipa la pioggia", the Modern Greek translation -

 

Proverbs18:8

KJV The words of a talebearer are as WOUNDS

NKJV - The words of a talebearer are like TASTY TRIFLES 

NIV The words of a gossip are like choice morsels

NASB The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels

ESV The words of a whisperer are delicious morsels

HCSB A gossip?s words are like choice food

 

Both this Proverb and Proverbs 26:22 are the same. The KJB says: "The words of a talebearer are as WOUNDS, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly."  


The word translated as "wounds" is only found twice in the entire Hebrew Old Testament. The NKJV differs considerably from the KJB and sides with the modern versions, but footnotes "A Jewish tradition reads "wounds". As we shall soon see, it is far more than just "a Jewish tradition" but a legitimate translation of the Hebrew word. 


Strong's concordance tells us the word comes from the idea of to burn or rankle.

 

John Gill comments on the passage: "they are wounds; they wound the credit and reputation of the person of whom the tale is told; they wound the person to whom it is told, and destroy his love and affection to his friend; and in the issue they wound, hurt, and ruin the talebearer himself."

 

There are many translations both in English and other languages that agree with the King James Bible here.  The 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version says "the words of the talebearer are as STROKES". The 2004 Judiaca Press Complete Jewish Tanach translates Proverbs 18:8 as: "The words of a grumbler are LIKE BLOWS, and they descend into the inmost parts."  Translations that read "as WOUNDS" are the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Bishops' Bible of 1568 - "The wordes of a slaunderer are very woundes, and go through vnto the innermost partes of the body.", the Lesser Old Testament 1853 "as wounds",  Young's literal, Webster's translation of 1833, the KJV 21st Century Version of 1994, Green's Modern KJV 1998 edition - "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly." and the Third Millennium Bible of 1998.  

 

Among foreign language translations that read like the KJB's "words of a talebearer are as WOUNDS" are Luthers' German Bible of 1545 - "Die Worte des Verleumders sind Schlägeund gehen einem durchs Herz." and the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez of 2004 has - "Las palabras del chismoso son como estocadas" = "are like stabs". 

 

The Catholic versions are in their usual disarray. The older Douay-Rheims of 1610 read: "The words of the double tongued are as if they were harmless: and they reach even to the inner parts of the bowels." But then the more modern ones like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem read like the NKJV, NIV with "dainty morsels", and then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone with - "The words of the double-tongued seem simple."  

 

The so called Greek LXX version has a completely different meaning in Proverbs 18:8 and reads: "Fear casts down the slothful; and the souls of the effeminate shall hunger." (Yeah, that's pretty close, huh?) and in Proverbs 26 the LXX is missing all of chapters 25, 26, 27, 28, and only has one verse of chapter 29.  


The Syriac translation of Lamsa says: "The words of a slothful man bring evil to him, and they cause him to go down into the inner chambers of Sheol." (Pro. 18:8) while in Proverbs 26:22 it says: "The words of the malicious stir up trouble; they go down into the innermost parts of the heart." - And that is supposedly quoting the same Proverb! 


Ecclesiastes 8:10

KJV wicked .were FORGOTTEN

NIV wicked..receive praise

ESV wicked..were praised

 

 

Ecclesiastes 8:10 - "were forgotten" or "were praised"?

King James Bible -  "And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they WERE FORGOTTEN in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity."

ESV, NIV - "Then I saw the wicked buried. They used to go in and out of the holy place and WERE PRAISED in the city where they had done such things. This also is vanity."

I would hope that you can see there is an obvious difference between the wicked being forgotten and the wicked being, not only not forgotten, but even praised! You can't praise someone and have forgotten them at the same time.

Agreeing with the King James Bible in saying that the wicked were FORGOTTEN are: Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew?s Bible 1549, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NASB 1995, Lamsa?s translation of the Syriac 1933, Darby 1890, Young?s 1898, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the World English Bible 2000, The New European Version 2010, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, International Standard Version 2014, Tree of Life Version 2015, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "they were forgotten", the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the 2004 Jewish Complete Tanach and The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "and they were FORGOTTEN". 

Among foreign language translations that follow the Masorretic text and read as does the King James Bible are the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, and French Ostervald 1996 -"et sont oubliés dans la ville.", Luther's German Bible 1545, Spanish Reina Valera, and Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - "y ser olvidados en la ciudad donde esto hicieron. Esto también es vanidad.", the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991, and the Portuguese de Almeida and Biblia Sagrada  - "foram esquecidos na cidade."

The NASB - "So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out from the holy place, and they are soon FORGOTTEN in the city where they did thus. This too is futility." 

Lamsa's translation of the Syriac - "And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the holy place, and they WERE FORGOTTEN in the city where they had done such evil things; this also is vanity."


The "ever dependable" NIVs

 
NIV - "Then too, I saw the wicked buried-those who used to come and go from the holy place and RECEIVE PRAISE in the city where they did this. This too is meaningless."  

 

Even though the NIV English version says the wicked "RECEIVE PRAISE" yet the NIV SPANISH version, La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 says "THEY WERE FORGOTTEN". 

 

It reads: "Vi también a los malvados ser sepultados ?los que solían ir y venir del lugar santo?; a ellos SE LES ECHO AL OLVIDO en la ciudad donde así se condujeron. ¡Y también esto es absurdo!"  = "THEY WERE FORGOTTEN"

 

AND so too does the NIV Portuguese version, Nova Versão Internacional 2000 - "Todavia, os que haviam praticado o bem FORAM ESQUECIDOS na cidade. Isso também não faz sentido. = "THEY WERE FORGOTTEN"



 

 

So how did the NIV and the other perverted versions listed below come up with "receive praise" instead of "were forgotten"?  Well, the NIVs own footnote tells us.  The NIV footnote says the reading of "receive praise" comes from "Some Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint (Aquila), but most Hebrew manuscripts read "and are forgotten".

The ESV also perverts this verse and says: "were praised in the city" and then footnotes: "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint Vulgate read "praised"; Most Hebrew manuscripts read "forgotten".


RSV, NRSV, ESV -"Then I saw the wicked buried. They used to go in and out of the holy place and WERE PRAISED in the city where they had done such things. This also is vanity."

Holman Standard - " In such circumstances, I saw the wicked buried. They came and went from the holy place, and they WERE PRAISED in the city where they did so. This too is futile."

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Douay-Rheims Roman Catholic, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 - "I saw the wicked buried: who also when they were yet living were in the holy place, and WERE PRAISED in the city as men of just works: but this also is vanity."

Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 - "to honor them"

The Message tells us: "One time I saw wicked men given a solemn burial in holy ground. When the people returned to the city, THEY DELIVERED FLOWERY EULOGIES--and in the very place where wicked acts were done by those very men!"


The silly Amplified bible tells us: "and they are [praised and] forgotten in the city".  It's a little difficult ...No, it's impossible to be both praised and forgotten.  

Daniel Wallace and company have gone completely over the edge of all reason and their NET translation actually reads this way in Ecclesiastes 8:10 - "Not only that but I have seen the wicked approaching and entering the temple, and as they left the holy temple, THEY BOASTED IN THE CITY that they had done so. This also is an enigma."

Maybe James White will tell us that they are all "reliable and trustworthy" because each of them follows their own sources. Doesn't matter what God Himself inspired in His inerrant words; just as long as they follow "their sources" (no matter how wrong or corrupt,  James White thinks they are "reliable". 

Have these Bible critics lost their minds? (That's a rhetorical question ;-)


Isaiah 9:1

KJV afterward did more GRIEVOUSLY AFFLICT Galilee

NASB later on He shall make it glorious Galilee

NIV in the future he will honor Galilee

ESV in the latter time he has made glorious Galilee

 

Agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible's "did more grievously afflict her" are the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "nor afteward when he was more grieuous by the way of the sea beyond Iorden in Galile of the Gentiles.", Darby's translation,  the New English Bible 1970, the NKJV 1982 - "And afterward more heavily oppressed her, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, In Galilee of the Gentiles.", the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea",  the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and the Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - "Aunque no será esta oscuridad tal como fue en su angustia, cuando al principio Él levemente afligió la tierra de Zabulón y la tierra de Neftalí; y después más gravemente los afligió por el camino del mar, al otro lado del Jordán, en Galilea de los gentiles.", the Judaica Press Tanach - "he dealt mildly, [exiling only] the land of Zebulun and the land of Naftali, and the last one he dealt harshly.", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

 

The so called Greek Septuagint is very weird and totally different in meaning with its: "Drink this first. Act quickly, O land of Zabulon, land of Nephthalim, and the rest inhabiting the sea coast, and the land beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles."  

 

To show the contrast in meaning, here is the ESV along with the KJB.

 

King James Bible  - "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations."

 

ESV - "But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations." 

 

John Gill comments: "and afterwards did more grievously afflict her - by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, in the reign of Hoshea king of Israel, who took Samaria, and carried Israel or the ten tribes into captivity, from whence they returned not." 

 

David Guzik remarks in his Commentary on the Bible - "The northern regions of the Promised Land - around the Sea of Galilee (Galilee of the Gentiles) - were most severely ravaged when the Assyrians invaded from the north."  

 

John Calvin translates the passage in the same way as the KJB has it and comments: "As if he had said, "and yet, amidst that shocking calamity which the Jews shall endure, the darkness will not be such as when the land of Israel was afflicted, first, by Tiglath-pileser, (2 Kings 15:29,) and afterwards more grievously by Shalmanezer," (2 Kings 17:6.) 


Isaiah 9:3

KJV NOT increased their joy

NIV, TNIV  increased the joy

NKJV  increased its joy

ESV  increased its joy

NASB  increased their gladness

In discussing almost any verse or individual word of Scripture, once you begin to do a little research into the matter, you will find that there are as many different opinions among scholars as their different last names.

In Isaiah 9:3 we have such a case before us where most of the modern versions, including the NKJV, NIV and NASB depart from the standard Hebrew Masoretic text. In the King James Bible we read: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and NOT increased the joy."

This is the reading found in the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the  Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599 - "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased their ioye", Green's interlinear Hebrew 2000, the Douay version of 1950, the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. - "multiplicasti gentem non magnificasti laetitiam", the Spanish Versión Antigua of 1569 and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and the 2004 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "Aumentando la gente, no aumentaste la alegría.",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the ASV footnote, Webster's 1833 translation, the modern day Third Millenium Bible 1998,  the KJV 21st Century version 1994, and the Lexham English Bible of 2012 - "You have made the nation numerous; you have not made the joy great."  The Modern Hebrew Bible also reads this way  You can see this Modern Hebrew Bible here.

http://www.crosswire.org/study/passagestudy.jsp?mod=HebModern#cv 

Take the text to a translation site and you will see that it says "and NOT increased the joy"

The Catholic versions do their usual trick. The older Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible of 1610 followed the Hebrew text and reads as does the KJB saying: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and hast not increased the joy." So too does the 1950 Douay Version. However in 1968 the Jerusalem bible, and again in the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible now read like the other Vatican Versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB and the NKJV and say "you have increased the joy".  But just so you don't get too confident the latest 2009 Catholic Public Doman Version has once again gone back to the Hebrew Masorretic text which reads: "You have increased the nation, but you have not increased the rejoicing."

Even Daniel Wallace, of the ever-changing NET version, admits - "The Hebrew consonantal text reads "You multiply the nation, you do NOT make great the joy." The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 footnotes that the Hebrew text reads "and NOT increased the joy".

Most other modern day versions, including the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, the  NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB and most modern Catholic versions have all changed this to read: "You have multiplied the nation and increased its joy" - the exact opposite of the KJB.

Dr. Donald Waite Th.D., Ph.D., in his book Defending the King James Bible says "The editors of these new versions...often decide the issue on the basis of pure guesswork! But how do you know their decision is the the correct one? Just leave the Hebrew text as it is. The King James translators came along and saw what the Hebrew Masorretic text said and simply translated it right over into the English. They didn't quibble with it; they didn't try to harmonize it. For instance, you'll find in Isaiah 9:3 that there is a "not" (LO) which has been completely eliminated by the new versions. The Scripture says, "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy..."and these new versions have just taken it out because they think it makes more sense. But the Hebrew says "not" and the KING JAMES translators simply wrote it down, faithfully as they ought to have done." - quoted from page 32.

Another example from men who are by no stretch of the imagination KJB defenders say this regarding Isaiah 9:3. Jamison, Faucett and Brown's commentary: "NOT increased the joy--By a slight change in the Hebrew, its (joy) is substituted by some for NOT, because "NOT increased the joy" seems opposite to what immediately follows, "the joy," Others, "Hast thou not increased the joy?" The very difficulty of the reading, NOT, makes it less likely to be an interpolation." 

John Calvin likewise translates it as "and NOT increased the joy" and then adds these very revealing comments saying: " Thou hast multiplied. This passage is somewhat obscure, both in itself, and on account of the diversity of interpretations; for it appears to be absurd to say that the joy was not increased, seeing that he immediately afterwards adds, they rejoiced. On this account the Jews interpret al (lo) not negatively, but as if w (vau) had been substituted for a (aleph); for sometimes, though rarely, it has this meaning in the Scriptures. The Jews do this, because they cannot reconcile the words of the Prophet with their opinion."

Here we see that these men do not dispute the Hebrew reading of "Not", and in fact support the idea that it is the legitimate reading just because it seems so difficult to understand. They also note that because it doesn't make sense to some, that is why they have changed it.

Let me offer one very possible explanation of the passage in its immediate and prophetic context. Going back to the last half of chapter 8 and continuing in 9 we read of the judgment God is bringing upon rebellious Israel and of the blessing to be given to the Gentile nations.

In 2-4 we read: "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. Thou hast multiplied the nation, and NOT increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian."

This section of Scripture is referred to in Matthew 4:12-16 when the Lord Jesus came into this same region and we are told "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."

So, when we go back to look at Isaiah 9:3 both historically and prophetically the part about "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy" refers to the nation of Israel. God had increased them to be a great number, but they were all far from God and had no joy in the Lord. There is even a play on words found in verse 17 where God says: "Therefore the Lord shall have NO JOY in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and and evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly."

But the THEY in "they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest" refers not to the nation of Israel but rather to "the people" that walked in darkness who have seen a great light of the previous verse -the Gentiles.

I know of two or three different ways of looking at this section of Scripture that can explain it without changing the Hebrew text or the KJB, but this one seems to me for now to be the one that makes the most sense. Just because something doesn't seem to make sense to us is no reason to assume there is a scribal error or to change the text ourselves as the NKJV and many others have done.  Here is a KJB defense site that offers a different explanation of the passage 

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/not-increased-the-joy-or-increased-the-joy-in-isaiah-93


Jeremiah 51:3
KJV LET the archer BEND his bow
ESV Let NOT the archer BEND his bow
NIV Let NOT the archer STRING his bow
NASB Let NOT him who BENDS his bow BEND it
Holman Standard - Don't let the archer string his bow; don't let him put on his armor.

Jeremiah 51 speaks of the judgment God brings upon the Babylonians in their destruction.  The King James Bible reads: "Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow, and against him that lifteth himself up in his brigandine: and spare ye not her young men; destroy ye utterly all her host."  

However versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB read the opposite and have the archers NOT bending their bows against the Babylonians and it contradicts itself in its own reading.  The ESV reads: "Let NOT the archer bend his bow, and let him NOT stand up in his armor. Spare not her young men; devote to destruction all her army. " The Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the Public Domain Catholic Bible all side with the NIV, NASB, ESV, NET versions reading: "Let no archer bend his bow! "
 

Agreeing with the sense found in the King James Bible  that the archers are to bend their bows and attack the Babylonians are the Geneva Bible 1587 -"Also to the bender that bendeth his bowe, and to him that lifteth himselfe vp in his brigandine, will I say, Spare not her yong men, but destroy all her hoste.", Webster's 1833 translation, the Hebrew Names Version - "Against him who bends let the archer bend his bow", Darby's translation - "Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow", the Bible in Basic English 1961, God's Word to the Nations 1995 - "Have the archers bend their bows. Have them put on their armor.", God's Word Translation, the Complete Jewish Bible - "Let the archer draw his bow", the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation - "Let the archer bend his bow against her, and let him lift himself up against her in his coat of mail; and spare ye not her young men, destroy ye utterly all her host.", the Judaica Press Tanach - "the archer shall bend his bow", the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "Against her let the archer bend his keshet, and against her let him rise up in his armor",  the ASV of 1901 - "Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow", the 1987 Amplified Version, the 2011 Common English Bible - "Let the archers draw their bows; let them prepare their armor", the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

Among foreign language translations that say the same thing as the KJB are the so called Greek Septuagint - "Let the archer bend his bow, and him that has armour put it on, and spare ye not her young men, but destroy ye all her host.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - "Ordenaré al flechero que tensa su arco y al que se enorgullece de su coraza" and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "Diré al arquero que entesa su arco"

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Commentary says: "let the archer bend--that is, the Persian archer (Jer 50:4). The Chaldean version and JEROME, by changing the vowel points, read, "Let not him (the Babylonian) who bendeth his bow bend it." But the close of the verse is addressed to the Median invaders; therefore it is more likely that the first part of the verse is addressed to them, as in English Version, not to the Babylonians, to warn them against resistance as vain, as in the Chaldean version."

John Gill agrees saying: "Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow?These are either the words of the Lord to the Medes and Persians, to the archers among them, to bend their bows and level their arrows against the Chaldeans, who had bent their bows and shot their arrows against others; or of the Medes and Persians stirring up one another to draw their bows, and fight manfully against the enemy." 

 John Calvin also is aware of the textual difficulties. He discusses them and also sides with the translation found in the King James Bible and in most Jewish translations. He concludes: "As to the main point, it is evident that the Prophet exhorts the Persians and the Medes not to spare the young men among the Chaldeans, but to destroy their whole army, so that no part of it should be left remaining."



Hosea 10:1
KJV Israel is an EMPTY vine
NASB Israel is a luxuriant vine
ESV Israel is a luxuriant vine
NIV Israel was a spreading vine 

Also incorrectly reading that Israel is A LUXURIANT vine are the Catholic versions like the Jerusalem bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the ASV, RSV, NRSV, Green's literal and Dan Wallace's NET version.

The Hebrew word correctly translated as "empty" is found only 9 times in the Old Testament and every time is means "empty" or "void". "The Lord maketh the earth EMPTY" Isaiah 24:1; "The land shall be UTTERLY EMPTIED" Isaiah 24:3; "and shall EMPTY her land" Jeremiah 51:2; "the EMPTIERS have EMPTIED them out" Nahum 2:2  Israel brought forth fruit, but it was not for God. Therefore God considered it to be empty.

Agreeing with the sense of the King James Bible are the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Israel is  
an emptie vine, yet hath it brought foorth fruite vnto it selfe", Young's literal version, Webster's 1833 translation, the Lesser Old Testament 1853 - "An emptied vine is Israel", the NKJV 1982, the Judaica Press Tanach - "Israel is a vine devoid of fruit fitting for it.",  the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998. 

 Among foreign language bibles that have the correct reading of "Israel is an EMPTY vine" are the French Martin 1744 - "Israël est une vigne déserte",  the Italian Diodati of 1649 - "Israele è stato una vigna deserta", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 - "Israel parra vacía", the Spanish Reina Valera of 1865 "La vid vacía a Israel", the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez Bible of 2010 - " Israel es una viña vacía que da fruto para sí mismo", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - " Israel é uma vide estéril que dá fruto para si mesmo" = "Israel is a sterile vine which gives fruit for itself". It can be seen here -
http://www.baptistlink.com/creationists/acf/oseias.html

 The French La Bible du Semeur of 1999 is interesting in that it reads: "Israël est semblable à une vigne qui dégénère" = Israel is like a vine that degenerates".

John Gill comments: "Israel is an empty vine? The people of Israel are often compared to a vine, and such an one from whence fruit might be expected, being planted in a good soil, and well taken care of; see (Psalms 80:8) (Isaiah 5:1-3) (Jeremiah 2:21) ; but proved an "empty vine", empty of fruit; not of temporal good things, for a multitude of such fruit it is afterwards said to have; but of spiritual fruit, of the fruit of grace, and of good works, being destitute of the Spirit of God, and his grace; and, having no spiritual moisture, was incapable of bringing forth good fruit."

John Wesley, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown and David Guzlik all agree with the reading and the sense of the King James Bible.  John Wesley comments: "An empty vine - That hath lost its strength to bring forth fruit. Unto himself - Whatever fruit was brought forth by its remaining strength, was not brought forth to God. His fruit - When the land yielded more plentiful increase, this plenty was employed on multiplying idols."

Matthew Henry also agrees with the meaning found in the King James Bible and comments: "Israel is an empty vine. The church of God is fitly compared to a vine, weak, and of an unpromising outside, yet spreading and fruitful; believers are branches of that vine, and partake of its root and fatness. But this was the character of Israel, they were as an empty vine, a vine that had no sap or virtue in it, and therefore none of those good fruits produced by it that were expected from it, with which God and man should be honoured."

 


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

 

KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God

NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God

NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God


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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So which one is God's true word?

 

The Catholic Connection

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

and the Modern Greek translation -  "But Judah still has power with God and IS FAITHFUL with the saints."

 

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


 


Hosea 11:12 - "...but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints."
 
KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God
NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God
NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God

11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS."
 
Those bible versions that agree with the KJB in that Judah YET RULETH WITH GOD are the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011 - " but Judah still walks with God and is faithful to the Holy One.", Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 - "And Judah again is ruling with God, And with the Holy Ones is faithful!", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "but Iudah yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the Saints.", the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "but Iuda yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the saintes.", Green's interlinear, Hebrew Publishing Company Translation 1936 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.  
 
Also agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "but Yehudah yet ruleth with Elohim (?????), and is faithful with the Kadoshim.", Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "but Judah still walks with God and is faithful with the saints.",  Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 - "but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.", Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 and the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "Yahudah still rules with El, and is faithful with the holy ones."
 
 
But the NKJV puts a new twist here with its "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful."
 
The NKJV says it is God who is faithful, instead of Judah "ruling with God" and it changes "with the saints" to "with the Holy One". The meaning is not the same.
 
While the NASB & NIV completely spin it around to mean the opposite with "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One."
 
So which one is God's true word?
 
The Catholic Connection
 
 
The Catholic Versions are their usual confused mess.  The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 as well as the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version are all basically like the KJB and read: "Ephraim has besieged me with denials, and the house of Israel with deceit. But Judah went down as a witness before God and the holy ones of faith." 
 
But the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reads like the NIV, NASB and has "Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, the house of Israel, with deceit; Judah is STILL REBELLIOUS AGAINST GOD, AGAINST the Holy One, who is faithful." 
 
But then the 1985 New Jerusalem went back to "But Judah IS STILL ON GOD'S SIDE, HE IS FAITHFUL to the Holy One."
 
Foreign language Bibles that agree with the KJB reading are the Portuguese Almeida - "mas Judá ainda domina com Deus, e com o Santo está fiel.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - "Pero Judá aún gobierna con Dios, y es fiel con los santos.", the French Martin 1744 - "Juda dominait encore avec le Dieu Fort, et qu'il était fidèle avec les Saints."
 
and the Modern Greek translation - "???' ? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????." = "But Judah still has power with God and IS FAITHFUL with the saints."
 
 
This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One."

The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure.
 
If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God?
 
Adam Clarke comments: "Judah yet ruleth with God - There is an allusion here to Genesis 32:24, where Jacob, having "wrestled with the Angel," had his name changed to Israel, one that rules with God. That glory the Israelites had lost by their idolatry; but Judah still retained the true worship, and alone deserved the name of Israel." 
 
John Gill comments: "but Judah yet ruleth with God - a theocracy was as yet acknowledged and supported among them; God ruled in the midst of them, and; they ruled with him; their kings ruled in the fear of God, and according to his laws, statutes, and appointment, and not their own; particularly in the days of Hezekiah, which may be here respected, the people retained and practised the true worship and service of God."
 
John Wesley tersely comments: "Judah adheres to God's holy prophets, priests, and other saints of God."
 
John Calvin likewise translated the passage as it stands in the King James Bible -"Judah autem adhuc dominatur (vel, principatum tenet) cum Deo, et cum sanctis fidelis est." and then comments: "But of Judah the Prophet speaks much otherwise, that he still ruled with God, because the posterity of David, though we know that they laboured under many vices, had not yet changed the worship prescribed by the law, except that Ahab had erected an altar like one at Damascus, as the sacred history relates, (2 Kings 16:11,12;) but yet pure religion always prevailed at Jerusalem. But the Prophet speaks comparatively, as it will be presently seen: for he does not wholly excuse the Jews, but says that in comparison with Israel they yet ruled with God; for the kingdom and the priesthood, as we have said, were joined together in Judah, and both had been divinely instituted.

 

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

 

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

 

The Holman Standard - "I WILL DESTROY YOU, Israel; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."  

 

Agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395 - " Israel, thi perdicioun is of thee; thin help is oneli of me.", Coverdale 1535 - "O Israel, thou doest but destroyeth thyself, In me only is thy helpe.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "O Israel, thou doest but destroye thy selfe, in me onely is thy helpe.",  the Geneva Bible 1587, the NKJV, Young's - "Thou hast destroyed thyself, O Israel, But in Me `is' thy help", Green's MKJV and interlinear, Douay, Webster's, KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

 

The International Standard Version is pretty much like the KJB, reading: "You have destroyed yourself, Israel, although I remain your help."

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Latin Vulgate - "perditio tua Israhel tantummodo in me auxilium tuum" = "you have destroyed yourself Israel but in me is your help",  the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Cipriano de Valera of 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-1995, and the R.V. Gómez 2010 - "Te perdiste, Israel, mas en mí está tu ayuda." = "You destroyed yourself, Israel, but in me is your help.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "O Israele, tu sei stato perduto; ma il tuo aiuto è in me." = "O Israel, you have lost yourself, but your help is in me.", the Portuguese Almeida Revisada y Actualizada - "A tua runa, Israel, vem de ti, es de mim, o teu socorro." = "Your ruin, O Israel, is coming from you, and from me, your help.", Luther's German bible 1545 - "Israel, du bringst dich in Unglück; denn dein Heil steht allein bei mir.", the Modern German Bible - "Israel, du bringest dich in Unglück; denn dein Heil stehet allein bei mir." = "Israel, thou bringest you into evil, for thy salvation standeth with me.",  the French Martin 1744 - "On t'a perdu, ô Israël! mais en moi réside ton sec ours.",  the Russian Synodal Translation - "??????? ?? ????, ???????, ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????.", the Chinese Union Traditional Bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2009 - "Israele, tu te-ai nimicit pe tine însu?i; dar în mine este ajutorul t?u." = "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thine help.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Het heeft u bedorven, o Israel! want in Mij is uw hulp." "You have destroyed yourself, O Israel, but in me is your help." and the Modern Greek Bible - "?????????, ??????· ???? ?? ???? ????? ? ??????? ???." = "You have destroyed yourself, Israel, but in me is your help."

 

But the NASB, NIV say: "It is your destruction, O Israel, that you are against me, against your help."

 

Just to make it interesting, the New English Bible 1970, the Revised English Bible 1989 and the Bible in Basic English say: "I HAVE SENT DESTRUCTION ON YOU, O Israel. WHO WILL BE YOUR HELPER?"  

 

Then the ESV confuses this further by saying: "HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, AGAINST YOUR HELPER."

 

The Holman Standard takes another stab at it with: "I WILL DESTROY YOU, Israel; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."  (Now, that makes a lot of sense, huh?  Think about it.)

 

The Lexham English Bible 2012 puts another twist on things with: "I will destroy you, O Israel; WHO WILL HELP YOU?"

 

The Catholic versions present us with their usual confusion as well.  The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 as well as the Douay of 1950 both carry the same sense as found in the KJB, reading: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me."  

 

However then the Jerusalem bible of 1968 says: "I MEAN TO DESTROY YOU, ISRAEL; WHO CAN COME TO YOUR HELP?". The 1970 St. Joseph NAB has the enigmatic: "YOUR DESTRUCTION, O ISRAEL! WHO IS THERE TO HELP YOU?".  

 

Then the 1985 New Jerusalem bible goes back essentially to the meaning found in the KJB, saying: "Israel, YOU HAVE DESTROYED YOURSELF THOUGH IN ME LIES YOUR HELP." And the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version also carries this meaning with: " Perdition is yours, Israel. Your help is only in me."

 

So, as James White and other Bible agnostics tell us that by comparing several different versions we can get a better idea what the passage means, is it "Israel who has destroyed herself, or God? And is God their helper or is He asking Who will be their helper when God destroys them?

 

Adam Clarke comments: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself - These evils come not by my immediate infliction; they are the consequences of thy own crimes. "But in me is thine help" -Though thou hast destroyed thyself, yet in me alone can thy help be found" - others read, And who will help thee? reading mi, who, for bi, in me. Though this is countenanced by the Syriac, yet there is no evidence of it in any of the MSS. yet collated, nor do I think it to be the true reading."

 

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says: "God alone is our help, we are the sources of our own destruction."

 

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - "hast destroyed thyself ? that is, thy destruction is of thyself (Proverbs 6:32; Proverbs 8:36). in me is thine help ? Hadst thou rested thy hope in Me, I would have been always ready at hand for thy help [Grotius]."  

 

John Gill - "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself,.... Though the Lord was a lion, a leopard, and a bear to them, yet their destruction was not owing to him, but to themselves; he was not chargeable with it, but they only; the fault and blame was theirs; their own sins brought it on them."  "but in me is thine help; not in themselves, not in any creature, but in the Lord alone"

 

MacLaren's Expositions of Holy Scripture - "Israel?s destruction arose from the fact of Israel having turned against God, its Help. Sin is suicide. God is our Help, and only Help."

 

"Matthew Henry comments: "Thy case is bad, but it is not desperate. Thou hast destroyed thyself but come to me, and I will help thee." This is a plank thrown out after shipwreck, and greatly magnifies not only the power of God, that he can help when things are at the worst, can help those that cannot help themselves, but the riches of his grace, that he will help those that have destroyed themselves and therefore might justly be left to perish"  

 

The King James Bible is right, as always.

 

   

Hosea 13:14

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

 

ESV 2001-2011 - "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from Death? O Death, WHERE ARE your plagues? O Sheol, WHERE IS YOUR STING? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes." 

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

 

Hosea 13:14  "I will redeem them from death...REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."

 

One of the most beautiful and comforting promises in the book of the prophet Hosea has been completely turned on its head and made out to be utter non-sense in many versions. 

 

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

 

ESV 2001-2011 - "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from Death? O Death, WHERE ARE your plagues? O Sheol, WHERE IS YOUR STING? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."

 

Note the changing of the promise of God to redeem them from death into a Question in the ESV - "I WILL redeem them from death" to " SHALL I redeem them from death?".

 

Then we have the textual change from "I WILL BE thy plagues...I WILL BE thy destruction" to "WHERE ARE your plagues...WHERE IS your sting?.

 

And last we have the total change in meaning from "REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes" (I will not change my mind, but will surely do it) to "COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."


The ESV reads exactly the same as the liberal RSV 1952 and the NRSV 1989, but it lacks some of the footnotes found in both the RSV and NRSV. The RSV, NRSV inform us that the textual reading of "WHERE ARE YOUR PLAGUES? WHERE IS YOUR DESTRUCTION? (Both the RSV and NRSV read "destruction" as the KJB has it, but the ESV changed this to "sting") comes from the Greek and the Syriac, but that the Hebrew text reads: "I WILL BE thy plagues...I WILL BE thy destruction."  The ESV conveniently left out this information.  So right off the bat, the ESV is rejecting the clear Hebrew reading for something else. Not even the NIV rejected the Hebrew text in this passage, but several other modern versions have, as we shall see shortly. 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Not only does the King James Bible read this way but so do the following Bible translations: the Geneva Bible 1587 -"I will redeem them from the power of the graue: I will deliuer them from death: O death, I wil be thy death: O graue, I will be thy destruction: repentance is hid from mine eyes.", the Revised Version 1881, Noyes Translation 1869, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Darby, Youngs, the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society)- "Ho, thy plagues, O death! Ho, thy destruction, O nether-world! Repentance be hid from Mine eyes!", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's literal translation 2000, A Conservative Version, The Scriptures 1998 by the Institute for Scripture Research, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 - "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy plagues! O grave, I will be thy destruction! Repentance shall be hid from Mine eyes."

 

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

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865, the Reina Valera of 1909 and the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "De la mano del sepulcro los redimiré, los libraré de la muerte. Oh muerte, yo seré tu muerte; y seré tu destrucción, oh sepulcro; el arrepentimiento será escondido de mis ojos." = "repentance will be hidden from my eyes", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Je les rachèterais de la puissance du Sépulcre; je les garantirais de la mort. O mort! je serais ta peste. O Sépulcre! je serais ta destruction. Le repentir se cache à mes yeux!", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "Eu os remirei da violência do inferno e os resgatarei da morte; onde estão, ó morte, as tuas pragas? Onde está, ó inferno, a tua perdição? O arrependimento será escondido de meus olhos." = "repentance shall be hidden from my eyes", the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991,  and Italian Riveduta 1927, 1994, 2006 - "Io li riscatterei dal potere del soggiorno de? morti, li redimerei dalla morte; sarei la tua peste, o morte, sarei la tua distruzione, o soggiorno de? morti; ma il lor pentimento è nascosto agli occhi miei!" = "the repentance is hidden to the eyes mine!", the Modern Greek translation - "?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????????? ??????, ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??????. ??? ?????, ??????, ? ??????? ???; ???, ???, ? ????? ???; ? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ??? ??? ???????? ???." = "Repentance will be hid from my eyes".

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

While versions like the RSV, NRSV and ESV have turned all 4 statements into 4 questions and again completely change the meaning of the verse.  The ESV along with the RSV, NRSV change the 4 statements into 4 questions and alter the entire meaning of the verse, making it some sort of a threat instead of a comforting promise.  The ESV says: "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES." The NASBs keep on changing their text and meaning.  

 

The earlier NASBs of 1972, 1973 and 1977 all say: "I WILL ransom them from the power of Sheol; I WILL redeem them from death."  But the 1995 NASB now reads: "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol?  SHALL I redeem them from death?"  The of course it totally changed the meaning of the rest of the verse by saying: "O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION will be hidden from My sight."

 

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

 

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

 

Notice also the totally opposite meaning from the King James Bible that is found in what is called The Good News Bible (which turns out to be not good news at all) which says: " I will not save this people from the world of the dead or rescue them from the power of death. Bring on your plagues, death! Bring on your destruction, world of the dead! I will no longer have pity for this people."

 

Coffman's Commentary -

 

What I found to be of great interest is Burton Coffman's Commentary on the Old and New Testament regarding Hosea 13:14. He comments: "Many have tried to pervert this precious promise into a threat of destruction by the rendition of it as an interrogative instead of a declaration; but we are compelled to reject this. The apostle Paul viewed the passage as a promise and quoted it in 1 Cor. 15:55; and thus inspiration from God provides the true meaning of it. What upsets the commentators is the totally unexpected appearance of a blessed promise like this in the midst of the most severe denunciations to be found in the whole Bible; but the setting is this: God had promised that through Israel "all the families of the earth" should be blessed, and Hosea had been charged with the task of revealing God's purpose of rejection and destruction of the very Israel through whom the blessing of all men was promised to be conveyed! Did that mean that the hope of human salvation was lost? Indeed no! The ultimate victory of God, upon behalf of men, over the consequences of sin would yet be achieved. "I will ransom them!" thundered from the throne of God as the answer for any doubt. God was not being defeated in the apostasy of Israel; it was Israel that was being defeated. God would yet achieve his purpose through the righteous remnant which would remain, and particularly through the True Israel, even Jesus Christ our Lord! How appropriately, therefore, do the words of this sublime promise shine like a blazing lamp in the midnight darkness of Israel's wretched apostasy.

It is a fact that, "Modern scholarship is virtually unanimous in taking this verse as a threat. God is summoning up the plagues of death to punish his recalcitrant people." Despite this, we are certain that the scholars are wrong here because they are blind to the crying need for just such a promise in this exact place. They are looking only at Israel; but God's purpose in Israel has always been a redemption planned for all men, and not for Jews only. Most of the so-called "modern translations" follow the lead of the scholars in perverting this blessed promise; and in this particular, they become not "translations" in any sense but commentary, and woefully ignorant and inaccurate commentary at that! The apostle Paul could not have used this passage as he did, unless it is a glorious promise. Many of the scholars, even some of them who accept the passage as a threat, have pointed out that there is no genuine authority whatever for their changing the meaning of this verse." (end of comments - Coffman's Commentary)

 

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

 

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

 

It should be blatantly obvious that not all Bible versions teach the same things. Many of them teach the exact opposite from what is found in others.  Is God this confused? Of course not. Who is the father of lies and confusion?  Who corrupts and steals the words of God from the hearts of men? He's been at it since the garden of Eden. It is Satan, the devil and Lucifer who asks the very first question recorded in the Holy Bible way back in Genesis 3 - "Yeah, hath God said...?" 

 

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

All of grace, believing the Book,

 

Will Kinney



Colossians 2:18

KJV things which he hath NOT seen

NIV, TNIV, ISV what he HAS seen

NASB visions he HAS seen 

RSV, ESV, Holman, NET = NASB, NIV.

 

Now obviously God did NOT inspire both readings in the same verse that teach opposite things. Either one is right and the other is wrong; or both are wrong and the Bible agnostics are correct when they tell us that No Bible is the infallible words of God.


Colossians 2:18 - "NOT seen" or "SEEN"?

KJB - "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath NOT seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind."

 

On the other hand, that little word NOT has been removed from the NASB, NIV and ESV versions, which results in the opposite meaning. Has this false teacher seen or NOT SEEN the things of which he speaks? 

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Jehova Witness NWT, modern Catholic versions) - "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in details about VISIONS, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind." Footnote: "about the things HE HAS SEEN" 

The ESV just paraphrases a bad text.  The NASB says "taking his stand on visions HE HAS SEEN". It just adds the word "visions".  Surprisingly, the NIV is actually the most literal translation of a bad text. It says "goes into great detail about WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN." 

The reading of NOT SEEN is found in the Majority of all texts, Sinaiticus correction, D correction, C, F, G, K, L, P, Psi, the Old Latin copies ar, c, dem, div, f, g, mon, o, x, z, the Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Herclean, Gothic, and Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.  It is so quoted by such early church writers as Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Jerome, Theodore, Augustine, Theodoret and John-Damascus.


The Catholic Connection

Even the previous Catholic Douay Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay version read "those things he hath NOT SEEN". But the more modern Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985) have now changed to the other reading.

The word "NOT" is omitted by Vaticanus and A, and so we have the opposite meaning given in the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the more modern Catholic Versions.

The reading of "intruding into those things HE HATH NOT SEEN" is also that of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douai-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace 1729, Wesley's N.T 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Etheridge 1849, Murdock 1852 and Lamsa's translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, NKJV 1982, the Hebrew Names Version, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days Bible 1999, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, English Majority Text Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "things he HAS NOT SEEN", Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "things he HAS NOT SEEN", the World English Bible 2012 and the Holy Bible Modern Literal Version 2014. 

 

The Modern Greek Bible - "into things he has NOT seen"


And The Modern Hebrew Bible - 

 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "things HE HAS NOT SEEN" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909 to 2011- "metiéndose en lo que no ha visto", the Portuguese Biblia Sagrada - "metendo-se em coisas que não viu", the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - "vârându-se în cele pe care nu le-a v'zut", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 - "s'ingérant dans des choses qu'il n'a point vues", Luther's German bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "indem er sich in Demut und Verehrung von Engeln gefällt und sich in Sachen einlässt, die er nicht gesehen hat" = "things he HAS NOT SEEN", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "ponendo il piè nelle cose che non ha vedute", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "en indring in wat hy nie gesien het nie", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "intredende in hetgeen hij niet gezien heeft" = "intruding into those things he has NOT SEEN.", the Hungarian Károli Bible - " a melyeket nem látott", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998 - "Siya ay nagkukunwaring nakakita ng mga bagay na hindi naman niya nakita." and the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - " wdaj'c si' w to, czego nie widzia" = "thing HE HAS NOT SEEN"  

So, once again it comes down to either the Reformation Bibles text of "NOT seen" or the new Vatican Versions "HAS SEEN".

 

 
Colossians 4:8
KJV HE might know YOUR estate
ESV YOU may know how WE ARE
HCSB YOU may know how WE ARE
NIV YOU may know about OUR CIRCUMSTANCES
TNIV YOU may know about OUR CIRCUMSTANCES
 
The differences in this single text are obviously textual and it should be just as obvious that God did NOT inspire all these contradictory words. Either one is right and one is wrong, or they are both wrong and it is a fool's errand to call "the Bible" the infallible words of God.

The textual evidence for the reading found in the King James Bible is both massive and universal. "that HE might know YOUR estate" is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including the earliest known mss. called P46 which dates to about 150 years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also the reading found in Sinaiticus third correction, C, D third correction, the Byzantine Lectionaries, the Old Latin copies c, dem civ, f, o, x and z. It is also the reading found in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic Sahidic, the Coptic Boharic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. Early church fathers that quote the verse as it stands in the King James Bible are Chrysostom, Theodore, Theodoret, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, John-Damascus and Jerome.

The reading found in versions like the ever changing NASBs, NIVs and ESVs comes primarily from the Vatican manuscript and Alexandrinus.  Both Sinaiticus and D origianlly read like the Vatican mss. but were both later changed by early scribes who saw them as being in error. To see what the true character of these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which today's Vatican Versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NET are based read the following article replete with numerous concrete examples of just how utterly corrupt and contradictory they really are -

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

Agreeing with the King James reading of "that HE might know YOUR estate" are  Wycliffe's bible 1395 - "that he knowe what thingis ben aboute you, and coumforte youre hertis", Tyndale 1525 - "that he myght knowe how ye do", Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "that he might know your state", the Douay-Rheims bible 1582 (they didn't even follow their own Vatican mss.), Wesley's translation 1755, Darby, Young's literal, the Hebrew Names Version, the World English Bible, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "that he may know the state of your affairs", Webster's 1833 translation, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.  

Among foreign language Bible translations that read like the King James Bible "that HE might know YOUR estate" are the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "afin qu'il connaisse quel est votre état", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "para que entienda vuestros negocios", the 1960 and 1995 Reina Valera Bible, the Reina Valera Gómez of 2004 the Italian Diodati 1649 - "acciocchè sappia lo stato vostro" and the 1991 Nuova Diodati, Luther's German Bible 1545 - " daß er erfahre, wie es sich mit euch verhält,", the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 = so that he experiences, how it stands with you", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "para que saiba do vosso estado", and of course it is the Greek text followed by the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world today -

The Catholic Bibles do their usual switcheroo throughout history. The earlier 1582 Douay-Rheims read like the KJB as did the 1950 Douay, but the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible follow the Vatican manuscript and read like the NET, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV.  However now the latest Catholic Public Domain Version has come out in 2009 and it has gone back to the reading found in the Traditional Greek text and the King James Bible. It reads: "so that he may know the things that concern you". 

 

 

Hebrews 3:16

KJB - For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 

NKJV - For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? 

ESV -For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 

NIV - Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 

 

Hebrews 3:16 "Some did provoke:howbeit not all" - The KJB is right

3:16 "For SOME, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit, NOT ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses."

Notice that this is a statement in the King James Bible. Not everyone provoked God, but some did. Caleb and Joshua did believe God and the thousands of children from 20 years old and under did enter the promised land. It was only the grown men ages 20-up who were able to go to war (Numbers 1:3), numbering 603,548 (Numbers 1:46 minus Joshua and Caleb), who rejected God's command and died in the wilderness. The children, women, elderly men (unable to go to war), and possibly even all of the Levites (they were not numbered for war - Numbers 1:47) who came out of Egypt (therefore numbering more than the fighting men as a whole by estimation) are not included in the group of provokers. (Numbers 14:29, Deuteronomy 2:14) That is why the Hebrews passage is quite accurate to say "some" and then to describe who those "some" were.

This is the reading of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible.  This is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "For some whan they herde, prouoked. Howbeit not all they yt came out of Egipte by Moses.", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729,  the Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster's 1833 translation, Youngs literal, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot English text Bible,  the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's literal of 2000,  the 2012 Knox Bible and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible. 

Though the early Catholic versions were not entirely based on the Traditional Greek texts, yet the early Catholic bible versions did follow the same reading found here in Hebrews 3:16.  The 1582  Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay both correctly read: - "For some who heard did provoke: but not all that came out of Egypt by Moses."

However the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 now agree with the UBS critical text put together by the Vatican and "evangelicals". The New Jerusalem reads like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, Holman and NET versions saying: "Who was it who listened and then rebelled? SURELY ALL those whom Moses led out of Egypt."

Foreign language Bibles that follow the same Greek texts and have the same meaning as that found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the early Italian Diodati (I have a copy right here in front of me. Notice it is a statement, not a question) -"Percioché alcuni, avedndola udita lo irritarono; MA NON GIA TUTTI QUELLI CHE ERANO USCITID D' EGITTO PER OPERA DI MOSO." , the French Martin of 1744 -"Car quelques-uns l'ayant entendue, le provoquèrent à la colère; mais ce ne furent pas tous ceux qui étaient sortis d'Egypte par Moïse.", the Russian Synodal Bible 1876, the Finnish Bible 1776 - "Sillä koska muutamat sen kuulivat, niin he vihoittivat hänen, vaan ei kaikki, jotka Egyptistä Moseksen kautta läksivät ulos.",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Want sommigen, als zij die gehoord hadden, hebben Hem verbitterd, doch niet allen, die uit Egypte door Mozes uitgegaan zijn.", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Fiindca unii, dupa ce au auzit, au provocat; insa nu toti care au iesit din Egipt, prin Moise.",  Luther's 1545 German Bible and the 2000 Schlachter Bible - "Denn etliche, da sie höreten, richteten eine Verbitterung an, aber nicht alle, die von Ägypten ausgingen durch Mose."

 

The earlier Spanish translations like the 1569 Sagradas Escrituras, the Reina Valera?s of 1858 and 1909 editions read just like the King James Bible. ?Porque algunos de los que habían salido de Egipto con Moisés, habiendo oído, provocaron, However the latest 1960 and 1995 have been ?revised? by people like Eugene Nida to adopt more of the Westcott-Hort readings. On the other hand, the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible got it right, reading: " Porque algunos de los que habían salido de Egipto con Moisés, habiendo oído, provocaron, aunque no todos.?aunque no todos."

 The Portuguese Almeida of 1681 and the modern Almeida Corregida y Fiel as well as A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués  also read as does the Traditional Greek text of the Reformation bibles saying - "Porque, havendo-a alguns ouvido, o provocaram; mas näo todos os que saíram do Egito por meio de Moisés."

Lamsa?s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta is interesting in that it uses a question mark but still carries the same meaning as that found in the King James Bible. It says: "Who are those who have heard and provoked him? Were they not those who came out of Egypt under Moses, although not all of them."

Though Mace's New Testament translation of 1729 changed hundreds of textual readings found in the KJB, yet he agrees with the King James reading of Hebrews 3:16 saying: ?or some when they had heard his voice, did provoke him: however, not all that were brought out of Egypt by Moses did so.?

However here in Hebrews 3:16 the NKJV departs from the Greek text underlying the King James Bible and follows the Westcott-Hort text of the modern versions like the RSV, NASB, Holman, ESV, NIV and modern Catholic versions. The NKJV reads: "For WHO, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?" The NKJV, along with the Holman, NIV, NASB, forces you to answer, Yes, it was all of them. But this is untrue.

JOHN GILL on Hebrews 3:16 - "howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses"; that is, they did not all provoke, but some did; which is another aggravation of their sin; they were just come out of Egyptian bondage; brought out of it by the Lord, with the mighty and outstretched arm of his power; and yet they provoked him: but however all did not, yet these were but few; it seems only Caleb and Joshua, out of six hundred thousand; God will have a few to serve him in the worst of times."

MATTHEW HENRY comments: "Though the majority of hearers provoked God by unbelief, yet some there were who believed the report. God will have a remnant that shall be obedient to his voice, and he will take care of such and make mention of them with honour."

JOHN CALVIN also translates it the same way as found in the King James Bible and then comments about the unbelief of the many as opposed to the faith of the few. He remarks: "David spoke of the fathers as though that whole generation were unbelieving; but it appears that some who truly feared God mingled with the wicked. The apostle mentions this to modify what had been more severely said by David, in order that we may know that the word is preached to all for this end, that all may obey it with one consent, and that the whole people were justly condemned for unbelief, when the body was torn and mutilated by the defection of the greatest part. But by saying that some provoked, while yet they were by far the greatest part, this object was not only to avoid giving offense, but also to encourage the Jews to imitate those who believed; as though he had said, ?As God forbids you to follow the unbelief of the fathers, so he sets before you other fathers whose faith is to be your example".

JOHN OWEN also translates Hebrews 3:16 as it stands in the King James Bible and goes on in great detail to explain that SOME provoked and did not belief, while OTHERS did believe.

"The apostle adds expressly a limitation, with respect to the persons who heard and provoked: "Howbeit not all." In his preceding discourse he had expressed the sin and punishment of the people indefinitely, so as at first view to include the whole generation in the wilderness, without exception of any. Here, out of the story, he puts in an exception of some even of them who came up out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses....Caleb and Joshua; and it is certain that these are principally, if not solely intended. Now, the reason why the apostle expresseth this limitation of his former general assertion is, that he might enforce his exhortation with the example of them who believed and obeyed the voice of God, and who thereon both enjoyed the promises and entered into the rest of God."

Owens continues: "He that would choose his party by tale would scarce have joined himself with Caleb and Joshua, against the consent of about six hundred thousand men, who cried out to stone them because they were not of their mind. God's way, indeed, is always to preserve some; but sometimes his way is to reserve but a few, as we have seen in sundry instances before mentioned. They that provoked God were about six hundred thousand men, and upon the matter two only opposed them. But, in the language of the Holy Ghost, all that great multitude were but "some," some, not "all;" the principal part was preserved in those who were obedient. They were his portion, his inheritance, his jewels, dear to him as the apple of his eye..."

The People's New Testament Commentary - "3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke. Some in the wilderness heard God, but refused to listen, and did not provoke him. Howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses." There were a few exceptions: Joshua and Caleb, Eliezer, and perhaps some more of the Levites."

 
Additional sources which support the King James Bible reading.

Brother Steven Avery has done a lot of research on this verse and has found the following information.

LATIN EVIDENCES - OLD LATIN & VULGATE & REFORMATION BIBLES

Brother Avery writes: "First I think it is helpful to emphasize that the Rheims NT seems to be representing the full Old Latin and Latin manuscript evidence, 100% like the Reformation Bible. No Latin variants of significance having been referenced from :

Rheims - "For some who heard did provoke: but not all that came out of Egypt by Moses."

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Vulgate/Hebrews.html

quidam enim audientes exacerbaverunt sed non universi qui profecti sunt ab Aegypto per Mosen

As mentioned above, this is the Old Latin (Itala) line of 200 AD as well as the Vulgate translation of Jerome utilizing Latin and Greek ('the fountainhead' - Jerome) manuscripts in 400 AD. This solidifies the fact that these ancient translators and scholars, knowing the language much closer to the NT time, understood the uncial Greek as did the Reformation scholars much later. Thus the value of this evidence can be properly emphasized, against the modernists who tend to simply place it on ignore. Here is the early English translation from the Latin.

Wycliffe (1395) - "For some men hearing wrathed, but not all they that went out of Egypt by Moses."

Beza's Latin translation - Nam quidam, quum audissent, exacerbarunt [Domine]: non omnes tamen ii qui exierunt ex AEgypto per Mosen.

Calvin's Latin translation (used in his commentaries) Quidam enim quum audissent, exacerbarunt; at non omnes qui egressi fuerant ex AEgypto per Mosen.

OTHER EARLY TEXT-LINES

B. W. Johnson, in the People's New Testament is another who did not mangle this meaning of the verse and gave commentary in synch with the verse.

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke. Some in the wilderness heard God, but refused to listen, and did not provoke him. Howbeit not all." * There were a few exceptions; Joshua and Caleb, Eliezer, and perhaps some more of the Levites.


PESHITTA

Similarly Lamsa from the Syriac. Note that also the two other main Peshitta translators, while using a question, also do not reverse the verse meaning. As is done by the NKJV and the modern versions.

Murdock - "But who were they that heard, and angered him? It was not all they, who came out of Egypt under Moses."

Etheridge- "For who are they who heard and provoked him? Not all they who came out of Metsreen by the hand of Musha."

Lamsa - "Who are those who have heard and provoked him? Were they not those who came out of Egypt under Moses, although not all of them?"

All the Syriac translators line up with the meaning of the Reformation Bible against the Westcott-Hort deformed version juggernaut which rolled over the NKJV. A good guideline with the Bible text is Reformed over deformed.

Here are a couple of additional fine commentaries.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pi...ebrews_015.htm An Exposition of Hebrews - Christ Superior to Moses. - Arthur Pink (1886-1952)

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses" (verse 16). The apostle here begins to describe the kind of persons who sinned in the provocation, amplification being given in what follows. His purpose in making mention of these persons was to more fully evidence the need for Christian watchfulness against hardness of heart, even because those who of old yielded thereto provoked God to their ruin. The opening "for" gives point to what has preceded. The unspeakably solemn fact to which He here refers is that out of six hundred thousand men who left Egypt, but two of them were cut off in the wilderness, Caleb and Joshua.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4l0PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA342 Thomas Chalmers (1780- 1847)

And let me not be insensible to the call of " to-day," that I may no longer postpone the good work either of faith or of repentance. Let it be remarked that "some" might signify a small or a very large proportion of the whole. It is said that some, howbeit not all, who came out of Egypt by Moses did provoke God : certainly not all for both Caleb and Joshua were faithful, and got both an entry and an inheritance in the land of Canaan. Let them be examples to us, that we may shine as lights in the midst of a perverse and crooked generation.

Interestingly Edwin Gifford used the Hebrews verse as part of his interpretation of Romans, which led to the excellent Thomas Chalmers section above.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bGwsKmDfnCoC&pg=PA83 The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans By Edwin Hamilton Gifford

Romans 3:3 - It is to be remarked that "some" in the original signifies a part of the whole, but not necessarily a small part of it. It may be a very great part and majority of the whole, ? as in Hebrews iii. 16, where it is said, " Some when they heard provoked, howbeit not all that came out of Egypt with Moses." All did provoke God on that occasion except Joshua and Caleb, and those who were still too young to bear arms . . (Chalmers) - (end of notes by Steven Avery)

Hebrews 3:16 "For SOME, when they had heard, did provoke: HOWBEIT NOT ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses."

The King James Bible is right, as always!

 

Genesis 15:1 - "I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD"

A verse that holds forth a precious promise is found in Genesis 15:1, but it has been changed in such versions as the NASB, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT, the liberal RSV, NRSV and some of the more modern Catholic versions. 

In the King James Bible we read: "the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD."

Just think of this a moment. God Himself is our shield and our exceeding great reward. In my better moments it is so good to just think about the Person of God Himself. Who He is, what He is like, how great, wise, all powerful, merciful, loving, gracious, faithful and true. 

He spoke and the worlds were created. He suffered on Calvary's cross, bore my sins, paid for them in full and rose from the dead victorious over all His enemies and He is the Lover of my soul. Isn't He beautiful, that He would receive a wretch like me and make me His own for all eternity? God is our exceeding great reward.

That God Himself is our exceeding great reward is the reading of the Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1885, the ASV of 1901, the predecessor of the NASB, which according to the preface of the NASB was such a good translation. 

 

Genesis 15:1 - "I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD"


This is also the reading of the NKJV 1982, the NIV 1984 and 2011, the TNIV 2005,  Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, the 1610 Douay-Rheims bible - "Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great.", Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.", the Douay of 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998,  A Conservative Version 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Context Group Version 2007 - "I am your shield, and your exceeding great reward.", The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, the New Heart English Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010 - "I am your shield, your exceeding great reward.", The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011 - "I am your shield and very much your reward.", The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Modern English Version 2014 - "I am your shield, your exceeding great reward.", the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The International Standard Version 2014 - "Stop being afraid, Abram. he said. "I myself your shield am your very great reward." and The Tree of Life Version 2015 - "Do not fear" Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward."

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Both the earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay version read like the King James Bible - "Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great." but the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 read :"and I WILL MAKE YOUR REWARD VERY GREAT."  This is how versions like the RSV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman and the Jehovah Witness NWT read.  

But now the Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 has gone back to the reading of "I am your protector, and your reward exceeding great."

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Foreign Language Bibles that read like the  KJB are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valeras from 1602 - 1909, and the 2004 Reina Valera Gómez - "Yo soy tu escudo, Y SOY TU GALARDON SOBREMANERA GRANDE", the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia and the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 2009 - " Abräo, eu sou o teu escudo, o teu grandíssimo galardäo.", the French Martin 1744 - "je suis ton bouclier, ET TA GRANDE RECOMPENSE", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "ich bin dein Schild und dein sehr großer Lohn.", the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 and the Romanian Revised Cornilescu Bible 2014 - "Eu sunt scutul t'u 'I r'splata ta cea foarte mare.

 

Hawker's Poor Man's Commentary is precisely to the point, saying: "Observe also, what the Lord promiseth, not only to defend, but to bless; NOT SIMPLY TO REWARD, BUT HIMSELF TO BE THE REWARD, AND THAT EXCEEDINGLY GREAT."

Thomas Coke Commentary on the Whole Bible - "I am thy exceeding great reward. Every thing beside to a believing soul is light in the balance. The enjoyment of the Blessed God is the ultimatum, the whole of his felicity. O may I know more feelingly, and say more confidently, Thou art my portion, O Lord!"

 

Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments - "And thy exceeding great reward" NOT ONLY THY REWARDER, BUT THY REWARD. GOD HIMSELF IS THE FELICITY OF HOLY SOUL; HE IS THE "PORTION OF THEIR INHERITANCE, AND THEIR CUP."

 


John Gill comments on Genesis 15:1 "I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward" - nay, HE HIMSELF WOULD BE HIS REWARD, and which must be a great one, an exceeding great one; as Christ is to his people in his person, offices, and grace, all being theirs, and he all in all to them; all the blessings of grace and glory coming along with him, and HE BEING THEIR PORTION HERE AND HEREAFTER, to all eternity; for since he is theirs, all are theirs, all things appertaining to life and godliness, and eternal life itself."

Matthew Henry likewise remarks: "I will be thy exceedingly great reward; NOT ONLY THY REWARDER, BUT THY REWARD. (Caps are mine). Abram had generously refused the rewards which the king of Sodom offered him, and here God comes, and tells him he shall be no loser by it. GOD HIMSELF IS THE PROMISED FELICITY OF HOLY SOULS-- He is the portion of their inheritance and their cup."  

John Calvin comments on Genesis 15:1 - "The promise, therefore, that GOD WILL BE Abram?s shield AND HIS EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD, holds the first place; to which is added the exhortation, that, relying upon such a guardian of his safety, and such an author of his felicity, he should not fear. .. IN CALLING HIMSELF HIS "reward," HE TEACHES ABRAM TO BE SATISFIED WITH HIMSELF ALONE...God declares, that HE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT for the perfection of a happy life to the faithful. For the word "eward" has the force of inheritance, or felicity . Were it deeply engraven on our minds, that IN GOD ALONE WE HAVE THE HIGHEST AND COMPLETE PERFECTION OF ALL GOOD THINGS; we should easily fix bounds to those wicked desires by which we are miserably tormented. The meaning then of the passage is this, that we shall be truly happy when God is propitious to us; for he not only pours upon us the abundance of his kindness, but OFFERS HIMSELF TO US, THAT WE MAY ENJOY HIM. NOW WHAT IS THERE MORE, WHICH MEN CAN DESIRE, WHEN THEY ENJOY GOD? David knew the force of this promise, when he boasted that he had obtained a goodly lot, because THE LORD WAS HIS INHERITANCE, (Psalm 16:6.) But since nothing is more difficult than to curb the depraved appetites of the flesh, and since the ingratitude of man is so vile and impious, that God scarcely ever satisfies them; THE LORD CALLS HIMSELF NOT SIMPLY "reward" BUT AN EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD, with which we ought to be more than sufficiently contented."

Clearly men like John Calvin, John Gill, Thomas Coke, Joseph Benson and Matthew Henry saw this verse as teaching the truth found in the King James Bible and many others that God promised to Abraham that He Himself would be both his shield and his exceeding great reward- God Himself.

To see a really good, short study on this verse and others related to it that show that God Himself is our exceeding great reward, please see Jerry Bouey's blog here: 

http://buy-the-truth.blogspot.com/2007/08/genesis-15-thy-exceeding-great-reward.html

However the NASB along with the RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard along with the modern Catholic Versions have changed this to now read: "I am a shield to you; YOUR REWARD SHALL BE VERY GREAT." 

Daniel Wallace's NET bible version also misses the correct meaning with: "I am your shield and THE ONE WHO WILL REWARD YOU IN GREAT ABUNDANCE."

Do you see the difference? Is should be noted there is no verb in the Hebrew "shall be", yet the NASB has placed it in the text and not even in italics. All these versions have ADDED a verb to the Hebrew text that simply is not there, and thus they have entirely changed the meaning of God's promise to Abraham.

In the NASB, ESV, NET, etc. it is no longer God Himself who is the exceeding great reward but instead teaches that Abraham's material reward will be very great.

Consider, what else could God give Abraham? He already was very rich 13:2; he has already been promised the land of Canaan and told that kings would come out of him and that all nations would be blessed in him; his name would be great and God would bless them which bless him and curse the one who cursed him, and God had delivered his enemies into his hand. 

Nothing else could be added, but the promise that God Himself would be his exceeding great reward. Abraham was to continue his life journey learning more and more of God. 

This whole promise is lost in versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, St. Joseph NAB and Holman.  

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

 

In Genesis 16:12 we read of Ishmael, the father of the Arab nations, a verse that is highly significant of the history of the modern day Arab nations. "And he shall be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL his brethren."

The warlike Arabs have indeed been wild men, a contentious and warlike people; they are heavily concentrated in the same area of the world (in the presence of their brethren) and for the most part they still are in conflict with each other as well as all others.

He shall dwell "IN THE PRESENCE OF" all his brethren is the reading or meaning of the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera, the Revised Version, the ASV, RSV, Douay, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, the KJV 21 and others. Darby and Young's say "he will dwell before the face of all his brethren. Yet the NASB says: "And he will live TO THE EAST of all his brothers."

The NASB has translated this same word as "in the presence of" some 135 times. The word for east is an entirely different word.

The NIV has yet a different meaning and says: "and he will live IN HOSTILITY toward all his brothers." The Holman is similar with: "he will LIVE AT ODDS WITH with all his brothers."

Daniel Wallace's NET version says: "He will live AWAY FROM his brothers.? He then posts the usual confusing footnotes, saying: " Heb "opposite, across from." Ishmael would live on the edge of society (cf. NASB ?to the east of?). Some take this as an idiom meaning "be at odds with" (cf. NRSV, NLT) or "live in hostility toward" (cf. NIV)."

It's interesting how Mr. Wallace confidently tells us the Hebrew word means "opposite, across from", as though this were the only meaning of the word. Yet he himself translates this same word as "presence" in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 3:8 "Adam and his wife hid themselves FROM THE PRESENCE of the LORD God" but Wallace just omits the word saying: "and they hid FROM the Lord God". In Gen. 4:16 "And Cain went out from THE PRESENCE of the LORD", Wallace has "So Cain went out from THE PRESENCE of the Lord". In Genesis 27:30 "Jacob was scarce gone out from THE PRESENCE of Isaac his father", Wallace has "Jacob had scarcely left his father?s PRESENCE". In Genesis 41:46 "And Joseph went out from the PRESENCE of Pharoah", Wallace again paraphrases as: "Joseph WAS COMMISSIONED BY by Pharaoh". Then he footnotes: "Heb "went out from before." This is the type of misleading scholarship that is behind these modern versions.

So, which is it, will he dwell "in the presence of", "away from", "to the east of" or "in hostility towards" his brethren? See, if you go to seminary, become an expert in Biblical languages you too can be qualified to create confusion in the name of "the science of textual criticism".

Genesis 20:16 - "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."

 

Genesis 20:16 presents us with another example of paraphrasing found in the modern versions which misses the point of the passage and results in confusion.

Abraham had been told by God that He would give him a son by his wife Sarah. Yet we see the faltering steps of faith in our spiritual father as he and Sarah sojourned in the land of Gerar. Upon entering the region of king Abimelech, Abraham thought "Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake." So he told Sarah to say that he was her brother. 

The result of this was that Abimelech took Sarah into his house, thus putting her into a very precarious position. Then God came to Abimelech by night in a dream and told him that Sarah was Abraham's wife and that he was "but a dead man".

Abimelech arose early in the morning and called Abraham and asked him why he had done this. Then the king gave Abraham sheep, oxen, men and womenservants and restored him Sarah his wife and told him to dwell where he pleased. 

Then in Genesis 20:16 we read: "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."

"Covering of the eyes" is the literal reading of the Hebrew and is also found in the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Douay, Geneva and Spanish bibles. Even the NKJV shows in its footnote that the literal Hebrew is "covering of the eyes".

Abimelech is saying to Sarah that the truth is now known that her "brother" is in fact her husband and that Abraham will serve as a covering of other men's eyes so that they will not look upon Sarah as a potential wife. Thus she was reproved for her part in the deception that almost cost Abimelech his life.

However the NASB, NIV, and NKJV all miss this point and even contradict each other. Instead of "Behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved" the NKJV says: "INDEED, THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was REPROVED." 

The NASB has: "Behold, IT IS YOUR VINDICATION before all who are with you and before all men YOU ARE CLEARED.", while the NIV reads: " THIS IS TO COVER THE OFFENSE AGAINST YOU before all who are with you; you are COMPLETELY VINDICATED."

So which is it? Was she reproved as the KJB, NKJV and others say or was she cleared and vindicated as the NIV - NASB have it? And what on earth does "this vindicates you" mean? 

The NIV omits the word "behold" three times in verses 15, 16, adds "offence" though it did get "cover" more or less right but yet the meaning is totally different than either the NKJV, NASB or the KJB.

The Geneva Bible of 1599 notes:

20:16 "And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved." "God caused this heathen king to reprove her because she concealed her identity, seeing that God had given her a husband as her veil and defence."

Matthew Henry and John Wesley both say the same thing in their commentaries.

"He gives to Sarah good instruction, tells her that her husband (her brother he calls him, to upbraid her with calling him so) must be to her for a covering of the eyes, that is, she must look at no other, nor desire to be looked at by any other. The marriage-covenant is a covenant with the eyes, like Job says in ch. 31:1."

John Gill notes: "behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee; a protection of her person and chastity: so an husband, in our language, is said to be a cover to his wife, and she under a cover: thus Abraham being now known to be the husband of Sarah, would for the future be a covering to her, that no one should look upon her, and desire her, and take her to be his wife."

Genesis 25:17-18 "and he died in the presence of all his brethren."

In verse 18 we have very different meanings given to us regarding the death of Ishmael. In verse 17 we are told: "AND THESE ARE THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF ISHMAEL, an hundred and thirty and seven years; and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people. And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria; AND HE DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF all his brethren."

This is the reading and meaning of Wycliffe 1395 (he diede bifore alle his britheren), Coverdale 1535, Bishops? Bible 1568, the King James Bible 1611, Webster?s 1833, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the NKJV 1982, the Douay 1950, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, 1960, 1995 (y murió en presencia de todos sus hermanos. - And he DIED in the presence of all his brethren), the KJV 21st Century 1994. Young's "literal" is also very similar, reading: "in the presence of all his brethren hath he fallen."

However there are a multitude of different versions, all with different meanings. The NIV says: "THEY LIVED IN HOSTILITY toward all their brothers"; the NASB has: "HE SETTLED IN DEFIANCE of all his relatives" (notice the NIV says "They" and the NASB has "He"); the New English Bibles says: "They took their place TO THE EAST of all their brothers"; the New Living Translation has: "THEY CAMPED CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER.", while Today's English Version says: "THEY LIVED APART FROM THE OTHER DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM."

It is getting to the point where Hey, if you don't like what it says in one version, find another one you do like. No wonder people scoff at the idea of an inspired and inerrant Bible. Is God really this confused?

Genesis 27:39-40. A couple of very significant changes in meaning are found in these two verses. Isaac gave Esau another blessing after Jacob had stolen the original blessing. Though Esau would be subject to Jacob for a time, he did receive an abundant blessing. 

 

Genesis 27:39 KJB - "And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling SHALL BE THE FATNESS OF the earth, and OF the dew of heaven from above." 

Esau would be blessed with abundant earthly wealth.

This is the reading of Wycliffe 1390, Tyndale 1525 - "Beholde thy dwellynge place shall haue of the fatnesse of the erth and of the dewe of heauen fro above.", Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Revised Version 1885, American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, Douay 1950, the NKJV 1982, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, A Conservative Version 2005, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Hebrew Names Bible 2014, and the Spanish Reina Valera. 

 

The New Jewish Version 1985 says" See, your abode SHALL ENJOY THE FAT OF THE EARTH AND THE DEW OF HEAVEN ABOVE."

 

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta agrees with the KJB meaning, saying: "And Isaac his father answered and said to him, Behold, your dwelling shall be IN THE FERTILE PLACES OF THE EARTH, AND THE DEW OF HEAVEN SHALL FALL UPON YOU FROM HEAVEN." 

 

Even the so called Greek Septuagint agrees with the KJB and NOT these modern versions. It read: "Behold, thy dwelling shall be of the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above."

 

However beginning with the RSV and now continuing with the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, ISV, Holman, modern Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT, all these versions give us the opposite meaning here. 

The NIV, NASB say: "Your dwelling will be AWAY FROM the earth's richness, AWAY FROM the dew of heaven above." In other words, Esau would not enjoy these blessings - the exact opposite of the reading found in the KJB and all other previous English and Jewish Bible versions.  

The Jehovah Witness New World Translation likewise says: "Behold AWAY FROM the fertile soils of the earth your dwelling will be found, and AWAY FROM the dew of the heavens above."

 

The Catholic Connection  

The previous Catholic Douay-Rheims bible of 1610 and the Douay Version of 1950 both read like the KJB with: "IN the fat of the earth, and IN the dew of heaven from above, Shall thy blessing be" 

BUT now the Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 join the ESV, NIV, NASB and other Vatican Versions and  say the opposite with: "FAR FROM the fertile earth shall be your dwelling; FAR FROM the dew of the heavens above."

We know the KJB reading is correct and the NASB, NIV, ESV are false because we later see Esau with great wealth, cattle, servants, beasts and substance. So much so that "their riches were more that they might dwell together" and Esau moves on to another place. See Genesis 33:9 and 36:6.

Matthew Henry comments: " It was a good thing, and better than he deserved. It was promised him, [1.] That he should have a competent livelihood--the fatness of the earth, and the dew of heaven. Note, Those that come short of the blessings of the covenant may yet have a very good share of outward blessings. God gives good ground and good weather to many that reject his covenant, and have no part nor lot in it. [2.] That by degrees he should recover his liberty. If Jacob must rule (Genesis 27:29), Esau must serve; but he has this to comfort him, he shall live by his sword. He shall serve, but he shall not starve; and, at length, after much skirmishing, he shall break the yoke of bondage, and wear marks of freedom. This was fulfilled (2 Kings 8:20,22) when the Edomites revolted."

The meaning of verse 40 has also been changed in the NKJV, NIV, NASB. There Isaac tells his son Esau: "And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother. and it shall come to pass when thou SHALT HAVE THE DOMINION, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck." As Matthew Henry previously commented - ?This was fulfilled (2 Kings 8:20,22) when the Edomites revolted.?

This word "to have the dominion" is # 7300 rood. It is used only three times and is translated as "we are lords" in Jer. 3:21 and Hosea 11:12 as "Judah yet ruleth with God." "When thou shalt have the dominion" is the reading of Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera, 1936 Jewish translation. 

The Geneva and Bishops' Bibles say "when thou shalt get the mastery". However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all say: "when YOU BECOME RESTLESS, you shall break his yoke from your neck." The RV, RSV, and NRSV say: "when you BREAK LOOSE", and then in a footnote the RSV, NRSV tell us "the Hebrew meaning is uncertain." Well, one thing we know for sure is that the various English versions are definitely uncertain, aren't they?

NIV all messed up Gen. 47:21, 31

Genesis 47:21 The KJB, NKJV, and NASB all read the same here because they are following the Hebrew Massoretic Text. You know, the one God originally inspired.

In Genesis 47:21 the KJB, NKJV, NASB, Jewish translations, Young's, Darby, Geneva Bible, Holman, etc. say: "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES, from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof."

However the NIV says: "JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE". The NIV footnote tells us that this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, but the Hebrew reads "he moved the people into the cities". The NIV is also the reading of the super liberal RSV, the NRSV and the ESV, and they too have the same footnote telling us they have rejected the Hebrew text and followed some other source. This is your NIV.

 

Genesis 47:31 - In this same chapter the NIV again departs from the Hebrew text and mistakenly follows the Greek Septuagint. In Genesis 47:31 we read of Jacob making Joseph sware that he would not bury him in Egypt but in the land of his fathers in their buryingplace. "And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself UPON THE BED'S HEAD."

?UPON THE BED'S HEAD? is the reading of the Hebrew, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops? bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Young, Darby and even the liberal RSV, along with the NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard. ONLY the NIV here rejects the clear Hebrew text and follows the incorrect LXX at this point. The NIV says "Israel worshipped AS HE LEANED ON THE TOP OF HIS STAFF."

The NIV "scholars" mistakenly applied Hebrews 11:21 to this event in Genesis 47. In Hebrews 11:21 it says "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

However, if you look closely at the context in both the New Testament book of Hebrews and especially in Genesis chapters 47 through 49, we see that Joseph did not die during the events of Genesis 47 where the chapter ends with the correct reading that Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head.

In chapter 48 verse one we read: "And it came to pass AFTER THESE THINGS, that one told Joseph, Behold thy father is sick: and he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Then the whole of chapter 48 is taken up with Jacob blessing the two sons of Joseph and all of chapter 49 with Jacob telling each of his own sons what would befall them in the last days. Then Jacob dies at the very end of chapter 49 where we read: "And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people." The NIV has placed the wrong reading in the wrong place.

 

Genesis 49:6 - In Genesis chapter 49 Jacob is telling each of his sons something about what will befall them in the last days, and of their blessings or penalties. There we read what Jacob said concerning his two sons Simeon and Levi. "Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."

"They digged down a wall" is the reading of the King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 and 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1998, the Italian Diodati, the Modern Greek Old Testament (not the Septuagint), the Jewish Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Douay Rheims of 1950, (though more recent Catholic versions like Jerusalem Bible and St. Joseph New American Bible read "hamstrung oxen") Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millennium Bible. Darby's footnote mentions that "Some read "pulled down a wall"."

Matthew Henry comments: "They slew a man, Shechem himself, and many others; and, to effect that, they digged down a wall, broke the houses, to plunder them, and murder the inhabitants." (Note: if you want to see the "every man for himself bible version" mentality, take a look at the comments made by Adam Clarke, or even John Gill)

The Syriac translation (Lamsa, 1936) also agrees with the King James reading and says: "in their rage they destroyed a town wall."

John Calvin sides with the King James reading. He translates into Latin " et voluntate sua eradicaverunt murum". Then he comments: "Interpreters also differ respecting the meaning of the word (shor.) Some translate it "bullock," ... But a different exposition is far preferable, namely, that they "overturned a wall." For Jacob magnifies the atrociousness of their crime, from the fact, that they did not even spare buildings in their rage."

The NKJV says "THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX", the NIV "they hamstrung OXEN" and the NASB says "they LAMED AN OX." Young's has "they ERADICATED A PRINCE"!!! So what is going on here?

It all has to do with the pointed consonants introduced in the 6th century after Christ, and the points are not considered inspired. It is well know that an individual Hebrew word can multiple meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word. We believe He has done this in the King James Bible.

The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen", as found in the NKJV, is also contrary to the context. We are told in Genesis 34:27-29 that Simeon and Levi came upon the city of Hamor and Shechem his son and slew all the males; they spoiled the city and took their sheep, oxen and their asses and carried away all their wealth, their wives and children. They did in fact destroy the city but they did not kill or hamstring the oxen, but rather took them alive for themselves. Why would they damage what was now their own property? I believe the King James Bible is right - as always. 

Genesis 49:10

One of the best known verses in this chapter is 49:10. "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a LAWGIVER from between his feet, until SHILOH come; and unto him shall THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE be." This verse is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ.

LAWGIVER is the reading of the KJB, the Jewish translations, the NKJV, Geneva Bible, Darby and Young's. But the NASB and NIV say "THE RULER'S STAFF' yet they both translated this same word as "lawgiver" in Isaiah 33:22 "the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king."

?Until SHILOH COME? is the reading of the Geneva Bible, Bishops? bible, the KJB, NKJV, NASB, ASV, RV, Darby, Green, Rotherham?s Emphasized Bible, Hebrew Names Version, the Spanish Bibles and the Third Millenium Bible. The word Shiloh occurs only once in the Bible and it comes from the verb meaning to be tranquil or to be at peace.

Judaica Press Tanach - ?10. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the student of the law from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him will be a gathering of peoples.?

The NIV, along with the RSV and NRSV, says: "UNTIL HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS" instead of "until Shiloh come". You won't find this note in the NIV but the RSV and NRSV both tell us in their footnotes that the SYRIAC reads the way the NIV does, but that the Hebrew says UNTIL SHILOH COME.

Other bible versions give us yet other completely different meanings with the New English Bible 1970 reading: "the sceptre shall not pass from Judah...SO LONG AS TRIBUTE IS BROUGHT TO HIM, (not, "until Shiloh comes") and the obedience of the nations is his."

Now the new 2001 ESV (a revision of the RSV) has come out and it too has changed to now read: "nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM..."

Young's "literal" says: "And a lawgiver from between his feet, Till HIS SEED COME"

The 2001 Easy to Read Version says: "before THE REAL KING comes"

The Douay-Rheims has: "till HE COME THAT IS TO BE SENT"

The Holman Standard says: "or the staff from between his feet, until HE WHOSE RIGHT IT IS COMES"

The latest online NIV now gives us three options for this single word "Shiloh". It says: "until HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS and the obedience of the nations is his." FOOTNOTES: "Or until Shiloh comes; or until he comes to whom tribute belongs."

So why did the NIV "scholars" decide to dump the Hebrew text and follow the Syriac? Because in spite of all their rhetoric about being "good, godly, evangelical scholars" they are in reality biblical relativists, with no absolute authority but their own minds.

The NIV tells you in their own introduction that they have used sources other than the Hebrew for their Old Testament including "the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian, the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta, the Tagums. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful." Introduction to the NIV found on page xviii. They're lying to you. Many of the notes in the NIV tell you clearly what the Hebrew says, (it is not "doubtful") yet they follow these other sources.

The NIV has a unique reading in 49:21. The KJB, as well as Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops', the Geneva Bible, Douay, Darby, Youngs, RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB and the Jewish translations say: "Naphtali is a hind let loose: HE GIVETH GOODLY WORDS." However the NIV again joins the super liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard as says: "THAT BEARS BEAUTIFUL FAWNS."!

Now that would be quite a trick for Naphtali to bear fawns. The word is WORDS # 561 eh mar and is used phrases such as "the words of God" in Numbers 24:4. 16, Deut.32:1 etc.

The blessing upon Joseph includes verse 26 which reads: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my PROGENITORS unto the UTMOST BOUND of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head OF HIM THAT WAS SEPARATE FROM his brethren."

"HIM THAT WAS SEPARATE from his brethren" is the reading of the KJB, the Revised Version, the ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Youngs, Darby, the 1936 Jewish translation, the Judaica Press Tanach, and even the RSV and NRSV. We all know that Joseph was separated from his brethren and sold into Egypt. The word is translated as separate in places like Leviticus 15:31; 22:2 and Ezekiel 14:7. The NASB says "the one DISTINGUISHED AMONG his brethren" while the NIV has "the PRINCE among his brothers."

PROGENITORS is the reading of the RV, ASV, Young's, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, and "ancestors" is in the NKJV and NASB, which conveys the same meaning.

 The UTMOST BOUND or boundary is also the reading of these versions. However the NIV again goes along with the RSV and NRSV and says "blessings of THE ANCIENT MOUNTAINS, than the BOUNTY of the age old hills."

The NIV has changed PROGENITORS to ANCIENT MOUNTAINS, and UTMOST BOUND to BOUNTY. Why? Again the RSV gives us the reason. The RSV and NRSV footnote tells us that "ancient mountains" and "bounty" come from the Greek Septuagint but that the Hebrew says "progenitors" and "boundaries".

Anyone who knows these facts about the corrupt NIV perversion and still uses it or tries to defend it as being the words of God is willfully blind.