Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

Bible Babble Buffet - Part 3
 
 

 Bible Babble Buffet Part 3




 

 

 


 

Numbers 11:12   "nursing father, mother, nurse, guardian, nursing woman or foster father"


KJB - "Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as A NURSING FATHER  beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?"


New Living Translation 2015 - "Did I give birth to them? Did I bring them into the world? Why did you tell me to carry them in my arms like A MOTHER carries a nursing baby? How can I carry them to the land you swore to give their ancestors?"


ESV 2016 - "Did I conceive all this people? Did I give them birth, that you should say to me, Carry them in your bosom, as A NURSE carries a nursing child, to the land that you swore to give their fathers?"


NKJV 1982 - "Did I conceive all these people? Did I beget them, that You should say to me, Carry them in your bosom, as A GUARDIAN carries a nursing child, to the land which You swore to their fathers?"


Holman Christian Standard 2009 - "Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth so You should tell me, Carry them at your breast, as A NURSING WOMAN carries a baby, to the land that You swore to give their fathers?"



NET 2006 - "Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, Carry them in your arms, as A FOSTER FATHER bears a nursing child, to the land which you swore to their fathers?"


In the King James Bible (and many others as we shall soon see) Moses likens himself to A NURSING FATHER.  The English verb "to nurse" is NOT limited to the meaning of "to suckle or to breast feed an infant other than their own; a wet nurse."


To nurse or a nurse also means "one that looks after, fosters, or advises" (Webster's Dictionary), 


"one that looks after, fosters, or advises" (Oxford English Dictionary) 


"One that serves as a nurturing or fostering influence or means" (American Heritage Dictionary)


"look after, treat, tend to, care for" (Collins English Dictionary) 


The King James Bible, and many others as well, using this term again in reference to males being "nursing fathers" in Isaiah 49:23 where we read: 


"And kings shall be THY NURSING FATHERS, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me."  


"Nursing fathers? is also found in the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Young's literal 1898, the ASV 1901, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Jubilee Bible 2010, to name just a few.


Not only does the King James Bible have Moses (who was obviously a man) describing himself as A NURSING FATHER in Numbers 11:12 but so also do the following Bible translations:  the Lesser O.T. 1835, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Young's literal 1898, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Bond Slave Version 2012 and The Hebrew Names Version 2012.  


Deuteronomy 28:41 - "thou shalt not enjoy them"


"Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but THOU SHALT NOT ENJOY THEM; for they shall go into captivity."


One of the judgments God would bring upon the children of Israel for their disobedience is that He would send a nation against them that would deprive them of their children and take them into captivity. The KJB and others as we shall soon see, translate this phrase as "but thou shalt not enjoy them."  


There is a marginal note in the KJB that says: "Hebrew - they shall not be thine".  If this is so, then why did the KJB translators render this as "but thou shalt not enjoy them"?  I think the reason they did not translate it literally is because the literal meaning doesn't make sense.  They children would STILL be their children, even if they were taken into captivity.  


No Bible translation in any language is always a strictly literal translation.   Want some examples?  See "You Better Hope Your Surgeon is Not a Modern Versionist" 


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


The NKJV, ESV and NASB say "they shall not be yours", but the problem with this "literal" translation is that the children WOULD STILL be theirs, even if they were taken captive.  They would still be the parents of these children.

  

The Holman says "but THEY SHALL NOT REMAIN YOURS". - Same problem.


The NIV paraphrases this as "you will not keep them".  That IS the sense of the passage, but again, it is not a literal translation.


Agreeing with the KJB rendering of "BUT THOU SHALT NOT ENJOY THEM" are the Douay-Rheims 1610, the Webster Bible 1833, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "but thou shalt not enjoy them.", the Douay Version 1950, The Amplified Bible 1987, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Biblos Bible 2013, and the Modern English Bible 2014.  


Deuteronomy 29:19 - add drunkenness to thirst?


Moses was warning the children of Israel of the dire consequences that would befall them from the hand of the LORD if and when they forsook the covenant of the law and turned to idols. We pick up in verse 18:


"Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, TO ADD DRUNKENNESS TO THIRST."


This is the reading in the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster 1833 translation, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1936 Hebrew-English, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The Word of Yah 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Bond Slave Version 2009, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Jubilee Bible 2010 the Spanish and the Italian Diodati bibles. It is even found in the footnote of the NIV.


The Spanish Reina Valera equals the meaning of the King James Bible with: "Tendra paz, aunque ande en la dureza de mi corazon, a fin de con la embriaguez quite la sed."


Simply put, "to add drunkenness to thirst" means to sin. Thirst is a legitimate need, but drunkenness is a sin.


John Gill comments: "to add drunkenness to thirst; as a thirsty man to quench his thirst drinks, and adds to that, or drinks yet more and more until he is drunken; so a man inclined to idolatry, that has a secret desire after it, thirsts after such stolen or forbidden waters, and drinks of them, adds thereunto, drinks again and again until he is drunk with the wine of fornication, or idolatry, as it is called (Revelation 17:2)


Adam Clarke remarks: "to add drunkenness to thirst - A proverbial expression denoting the utmost indulgence in all sensual gratifications."


The phrase "to add drunkenness to thirst" consists of three Hebrew words. "To add" is used in Isaiah 29:1 "Add ye year to year..."; Isaiah 30:1 "...that they may add sin to sin"; and Numbers 32:14 "to augment yet the fierce anger of the LORD".


The word drunkenness comes from the verb meaning "to make drunk, to water, or to satiate". It is used in Jeremiah 46:10 "made drunk with their blood", and in Lamentations 3:15 "he hath made me drunken".


The word "thirst" is found 9 times and is always translated as thirst or thirsty. It is found in such verses as Psalm 107:5 "hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted"; Proverbs 25:21 "if he be thristy, give him water"; Isaiah 44:3 "I will pour water upon him that is thristy", and in Isaiah 55:1 "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters."


However in the NKJV we read "AS THOUGH THE DRUNKARD COULD BE INCLUDED WITH THE SOBER"


RSV, ESV say: "This WOULD LEAD TO THE SWEEPING AWAY OF MOIST AND DRY ALIKE."


The NASB says: "IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE WATERED LAND WITH THE DRY"


The NASB reads like the ASV of 1901, but at least the ASV has a footnote that reads: "Or, TO ADD DRUNKENNESS TO THIRST."


Dan Wallace and company's NET version is similar to the NASB, saying: "I will have peace though I continue to walk with a stubborn spirit." THIS WILL DESTROY THE WATERED GROUND WITH THE PARCHED."

  

He then footnotes: "The word "ground" is implied. The exact meaning of the phrase is uncertain although it appears to be figurative."


Well, now it really IS uncertain.


The NIV and Holman Standard say: "THIS WILL BRING DISASTER ON THE WATERED LAND AS WELL AS THE DRY."


Green's Modern KJV and Darby's translation say: "though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, TO SNATCH AWAY THE DRUNKEN WITH THE THIRSTY." (Say what?!)


The Bible in Basic English 1960 says: "If such a man, hearing the words of this oath, takes comfort in the thought that he will have peace even if he goes on in the pride of his heart, TAKING WHATEVER CHANCE MAY GIVE HIM."


Young's translation says: "though in the stubbornness of my heart I go on, IN ORDER TO END THE FULNESS WITH THE THIRST."


(Huh? What did he just say?)

 

The New English Bible 1970  has "I will follow the promptings of my stubborn heart", but THIS WILL BRING EVERYTHING TO RUIN."


The Douay-Rheims has: "I shall have peace, and will walk on in the naughtiness of my heart: AND THE DRUNKEN MAY CONSUME THE THIRSTY."


The Greek Septuagint is total nonsense saying: "And it shall be if one shall hear the words of this curse, and shall flatter himself in his heart, saying, May holy things happen to me, for I will walk in the error of my heart, LEST THE SINNER DESTROY THE GUILTINESS WITH HIM."


The 1998 Complete Jewish Bible has a totally different meaning with: "though I will stubbornly keep doing whatever I feel like doing; so that I, although "dry," [sinful,] will be added to the "watered" [righteous].'


The Judaica Press Tanach 2004 reads: "saying, "I will have peace, even if I follow my heart's desires," IN ORDER TO ADD THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE UNINTENTIONAL SINS OF THIS MAN TO THAT OF HIS INTENTIONAL SINS."

 

Aren't you glad we have what James White calls "an abundance of riches" with all these multiple versions so we can find out what God REALLY said? 

 

Instead of the endless Bible Babble Buffet versions so popular today, get yourself a copy of God's complete and inerrant Book, the King James Holy Bible, and you will find rest for your souls.

 

Deuteronomy 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and ROSE UP from Seir unto THEM; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came WITH ten thousands of saints; FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM."


The multitude of conflicting, multiple-choice, Let's go to the Original Languages, Do It Yourself Scholars really strut their stuff in this verse.


First of all, the phrase "the LORD...ROSE UP from Seir UNTO THEM" is the reading of the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Webster's, Darby, Young's, Hebrew Names Version 2014, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millennium Bible 1998

.

Beginning with the RSV and now in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, it now reads: "The Lord DAWNED ON them from Seir."


More importantly, the part that reads "FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM" is found in Tyndale 1630, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the NKJV 1982, Green's MKJV, Webster's 1833, Third Millennium Bible, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) and 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Darby, the Judaica Press Tanach - "from His right hand was a fiery Law for them", the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 - "Y vino de entre diez millares de santos,  Con la ley de fuego a su mano derecha.", the Portuguese Almeida - "ã sua direita havia para eles o fogo da lei.", the French Martin of 1744 and the Louis Segond of 2007 - "de sa main droite, envoyé le feu de la loi."


I was actually quite surprised to see that Dan Wallace's NET version is really quite close to the meaning found in the King James Bible, because usually if there is anything wacky, then Dan Wallace will go with it. But his NET version reads basically the same with: "He appeared in splendor from Mount Paran, and came forth with ten thousand holy ones. With his right hand he gave a fiery law to them."


John Wesley comments: "A fiery law - The law is called fiery, because it is of a fiery nature purging and searching and inflaming, to signify that fiery wrath which it inflicteth upon sinners for the violation of it, and principally because it was delivered out of the midst of the fire."


Compare Deuteronomy 4:11-12 and 5:26. "And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven...and the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice." "For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?"


Now let's see what the noted scholars of today, all of whom have gone to seminary and consulted "the original languages", have done with this passage.


Instead of "FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM" we read:

The RSV 1952, and ESV 2001 - " dawned from Seir upon US; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he came FROM the ten thousands of holy ones, WITH FLAMING FIRE AT HIS RIGHT HAND."


In this verse the RSV, NRSV, and ESV all change the Hebrew reading of "unto THEM" to "upon US" and then footnote that the word "us" comes from the Syriac, the LXX and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew texts read "them".


The 1989 New RSV - " With him were myriads of holy ones; AT HIS RIGHT HAND, A HOST OF HIS OWN."


NIV- "The LORD came from Sinai and DAWNED OVER them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones FROM THE SOUTH, FROM HIS MOUNTAIN SLOPES." (That's right, this is what it says in place of "from his right hand went a fiery law for them".) 



However the NIV Spanish edition of 1999 (Nueva Versión Internacional) and the NIV Portuguese editions have a completely different meaning even from the NIV English version and it says: "y llegó desde Meribá Cades con rayos de luz en su diestra." which means "He came from Meriba Cades (Say what?) with rays of light in his right hand." Yep, that's pretty close, right?


NASB - "The LORD came from Sinai, and DAWNED ON them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came FROM THE MIDST OF (not with?) ten thousand holy ones, AT HIS RIGHT HAND THERE WAS FLASHING LIGHTNING FOR THEM."


The Bible in Basic English 1960 says: "coming from Meribath Kadesh: from his right hand went flames of fire: HIS WRATH MADE WASTE THE PEOPLES."


This is similar to the Catholic versions that just keep getting weirder and weirder. The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the King James Bible saying: "he hath appeared from mount Pharan, and with him thousands of saints. In his right hand a fiery law."  


However, believe it or not, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible actually reads: "He shone forth from Mount Paran and advanced from Meribath-kadesh, WHILE AT HIS RIGHT HAND A FIRE BLAZED FORTH AND HIS WRATH DEVASTATED THE NATIONS."  


Then the 1985 Catholic New Jerusalem came out and it says: "...from Mount Paran came forth, FOR THEM HE CAME, AFTER THE MUSTERING AT KADESH, FROM HIS ZENITH AS FAR AS THE FOOTHILLS." I am not kidding you or making this stuff up. That is actually how these "bibles" read.

 

The New English Bible 1970 - "He showed himself from Mount Paran, and with him were MYRIADS OF HOLY ONES STREAMING ALONG AT HIS RIGHT HAND."

 

Common English Bible of 2011. One of the latest critical text versions to come down the pike is what they call The Common English Version of 2011, and so you can see where "the science of textual criticism" is making great strides in our understanding of the Scriptures (NOT), here is how this latest mess reads: "from Paran Mountain he beamed down. Thousands of holy ones were with him, HIS WARRIORS WERE NEXT TO HIM, READY."  Pretty close to "from His right hand went a fiery law", huh?


Young's translation - "Jehovah from Sinai hath come, And hath risen from Seir for them; He hath shone from mount Paran, And hath come with myriads of holy ones; At HIS RIGHT HAND ARE SPRINGS FOR THEM."


The Greek Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta are of no help at all in this verse. They both give conflicting readings as well. The Greek Septuagint reads: "The Lord has hasted out of Mount Pharan with the ten thousands OF CADES, on his right hand WERE HIS ANGELS WITH HIM."


Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta has: "he came with ten thousands of saints AT HIS RIGHT HAND. YEA, HE SUPPLIED THEIR NEEDS: he also made them to be beloved BY THE NATIONS."


Was it a "fiery law", "flashing lightning", "he supplied their needs", "his angels with him", "tongues of fire", "streams", "a host of his own", or "from the south"? Who really cares? They all mean the same thing, right? 


As Professor James White says, "If we compare all the bible versions together, we arrive at a better understanding of what is really being said." Don't you agree?


Deuteronomy 32:43 "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people"


In the King James Bible we read: "Rejoice, O YE NATIONS, WITH his people; for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people."


This is the reading of the Hebrew Masoretic texts, the Jewish translations of 1936, the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and many others. The Holman Standard changes the meaning a bit with: "Rejoice, you nations, OVER His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants."

However when we get to the RSV, NRSV, and ESV things change a great deal.


The Revised Standard Version (RSV) of 1958 says: "PRAISE HIS PEOPLE, O YOU NATIONS; for he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and makes expiation for the land of his people."


The New RSV of 1989 says: "PRAISE, O HEAVENS, HIS PEOPLE, WORSHIP HIM, ALL YOU GODS For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM, and cleanse the land for his people."


Notice the NRSV changed the RSV's "O ye nations" to "O heavens", and it added the phrase "He will repay those who hate him".


Then the next revision of the revision of the revision, called the English Standard Version (ESV) of 2001 has: "REJOICE WITH HIM, O HEAVENS, BOW DOWN TO HIM, ALL GODS, for he avenges the blood of his CHILDREN (not servants) and takes vengeance on his adversaries. HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM and cleanses his people's land."

  

The ESV footnote tells us that changing the word "servants" to "children" comes from one Dead Sea Scroll and the Greek Septuagint, but the Hebrew Masoretic text says "servants" and so do the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.


The ESV also changes "Rejoice...with HIS PEOPLE" to "rejoice WITH HIM", even though the previous RSV and NRSV had "his people".


And the ESV again changes "O ye nations" to "O Heavens", and adds "bow down to him, all gods" and "he repays those who hate him".


Where do all these extra words and changes found in the NRSV, ESV and also the New English bible of 1970 come from? The added portions are: "Bow down to him, all gods" and "he repays those who hate him". Some of them change "O ye nations" to "O heavens", and the ESV changes "servants" to "children", and "his people" to "him".


The Holman Standard generally reads in this verse (though not in hundreds of others) as does the King James Bible. It tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew text reads as does the King James Bible, but that the Greek LXX has a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew Masoretic texts saying: "Rejoice, you heavens, along with Him, and let all the sons of God worship Him; rejoice, you nations, with His people, and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in Him." (Actually, the Holman footnote is a bit mixed up. The LXX copy I have reverses "sons of God" and "angels of God", but, then again, not all LXX copies are the same.)


It also tells us that a Dead Sea Scroll reads: "Rejoice, you heavens, along with Him, and let all the angels worship Him."


So where did the three different readings of the RSV, NRSV and ESV come from? Well, it looks like they just made them up, doesn't it? None of the three followed the Hebrew Masoretic texts and each one took different parts from some Greek Septuagint readings and parts of one Dead Sea Scroll manuscript which differs in scores of places from the traditional Hebrew texts. And none of the three Revisions agrees with the others! Isn't modern scholarship a kick in the head?


In Deut. 33:25, "As thy days, so shall thy STRENGTH be." 


No matter what difficulties we may encounter, God will give us the strength to bear them and go on. The NIV, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, Geneva, Youngs, and Spanish all agree with the KJB reading. 


However the NASB says: "And according to your days, so shall YOUR LEISURELY WALK be." Did God ever promise us a leisurely walk? Not if you've read the rest of the Bible, He didn't.



 

For many examples of the Bible Babble Buffet versions in action, see this comparative study here -

 

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

 

Joshua 9:4 KJB, speaking of the inhabitants of Gibeon who deceived Joshua and the Israelites into making a league with them - "They did work wilily, AND WENT AND MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles, old, and rent, and bound up"  

 

ESV - "They on their part acted with cunning and went and MADE READY PROVISIONS and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wine-skins, worn-out and torn and mended."  (No notes)

 

Holman Standard 2009 - "they acted deceptively. THEY GATHERED PROVISIONS [a] and took worn-out sacks on their donkeys and old wineskins, cracked and mended."

Footnotes: [a] - Joshua 9:4 Some Hb mss, LXX, Syr, Vg; other Hb mss read They went disguised as ambassadors


NASB 1995 - "they also acted craftily AND SET OUT AS ENVOYS, and took worn-out sacks on their donkeys, and wineskins worn-out and torn and [b] mended"

 

Footnote - literally "tied up" (Note: thus the KJB's "and bound", which is what the Hebrew text says) 

 

NIV 2011 edition - "they resorted to a ruse: THEY WENT AS A DELEGATION  whose donkeys were loaded with worn-out sacks and old wineskins, cracked and mended."


Footnotes:  Joshua 9:4 Most Hebrew manuscripts; some Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac (see also Septuagint) They prepared provisions.


Common English Bible 2011 (a critical text version) - "they acted cleverly. THEY SET OUT PRETENDING TO BE MESSENGERS. [a] They took worn-out sacks for their donkeys and worn-out wineskins that were split and mended."

Footnotes:  Joshua 9:4 Heb uncertain 

 

NKJV 1982 - "they worked craftily, and went AND PRETENDED TO BE AMBASSADORS. And they took old sacks on their donkeys, old wineskins torn and mended"

  

Here is a case where even the modern Vatican Versions disagree among themselves.  The NASB, Common English Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice 2011 and NIV (all five are Critical text versions) and the NKJV side with the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text which reads ?MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS."

 

But the ESV and Holman (both Critical text versions) reject the traditional text and say "and MADE READY PROVISIONS." 

 

The Holman Standard tells us they got this reading from the so called Greek Septuagint.  The ESV doesn't even have a note telling why they changed the Hebrew text.


Well, there are a few things you should know about this so called Greek Septuagint.  It DOES say "AND MADE PROVISION" in verse 9:4 instead of the traditional Hebrew text "AND MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS." 


But it also says "they carried the old sacks ON THEIR SHOULDERS" instead of the Hebrew "took old sacks UPON THEIR ASSES".

  

And the LXX also starts off with Joshua 9 verses one and two, but then it inserts verses 30 through 35 from the previous chapter, and then picks up again with verses three and four and the following verses to the end of the chapter.  So the Hebrew text has 27 verses in this chapter, but the LXX has 33 verses. 

 

As for Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, it too reads "They worked subtly, AND PREPARED PROVISIONS", but at least they laid the old sacks "upon their asses", unlike the LXX.

  

The Catholic Connection


The Catholic versions, following the Latin Vulgate all basically say the same thing - Douay-Rheims 1610 - "Cunningly devising TOOK FOR THEMSELVES PROVISIONS, laying old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles rent and sewed up again"  This includes the St. Joseph New American bible 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "TOOK FOR THEMSELVES PROVISIONS".

  

Following these Catholic versions are Dan Wallace and company's NET version (big surprise), the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV, ISV 2014 and the Holman Standard. 

 

Agreeing with the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic text and the King James Bible are Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "went and made them selues embassadours", the Geneva Bible 1582- "for they went, and feigned themselves ambassadors", Young's literal 1898 - "and go, and feign to be ambassadors", the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917 - "and went and MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS", Living Bible 1971 - "they sent ambassadors to Joshua", the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the NASB 1995, NIV 2011, the 2004 Jewish Tanach - ?and they went, and disguised as ambassadors?, The Conservative Bible 2011 - "went and made as if they had been ambassadors", the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Jubilee Bible 2010 - "made as if they had been ambassadors", the New European Version 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Names of God Bible 2011 (another critical text version), Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS", the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "and went and made as if they had been ambassadors", and the Voice 2012 (another critical text version), the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the World English Bible 2012, the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, and the 2014 Natural Israelite Bible - "and went and pretended to be ambassadors."


The Modern English Version 2014 just omits the phrase altogether and says: "they acted craftily, and took old sacks on their donkeys, and old wineskins, torn and mended"


So, once again it comes down to the Traditional text of the Reformation bibles and the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, or the Vatican Versions, that don't even agree among themselves.


"If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man's belief in the Bible." 

Voltaire - French philosopher and former unbeliever. (He now knows better)


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."  Luke 8:8   


 


1 Samuel 2:25 "the judge" or "God"?

 

James White, who is his own authority and has NO inerrant Bible to believe in himself or to show to anybody else, ignorantly criticizes the King James Bible in this passage of Scripture, telling us on page 106 of his book The King James Only Controversy,  "In 1 Samuel 2:25 all Hebrew manuscripts read "GOD"; whereas the KJV reads "THE JUDGE", without capitalization. Do you suppose this is a New Age denial that God will judge sinners?"

 

My Response:

 

First of all, James White is woefully ignorant of how the Hebrew language works and that Hebrew words themselves often have multiple meanings.

 

The Hebrew word in question here is #430 eloh-heem and it has several meanings, not only in the KJB but in many other bible translations as well.

 

The KJB has translated it as "God, gods, mighty, great, exceeding, the angels and judges."

 

In fact, the KJB translates this word as "JUDGES" some 4 times.  We see this in places like Exodus 21:6 "shall bring him unto THE JUDGES"; Exodus 22:8 "shall be brought unto the JUDGES", Exodus 22:9 "both parties shall come before the JUDGES" and in 1 Samuel 2:25.  

 

Even the Jewish translations tell us that the word used here refers to the judges that were ordained by God to inform and execute the judgments of God in civil society.

 

The NKJV translates this same word as THE JUDGES in Exodus 21:6 and in 22:8-9 as well.  The NIV has translated it as THE JUDGES 3 times as well as the Holman Standard, Dan Wallace?s NET version,  and the NASB as JUDGES 3 TIMES and once as RULER.

 

Not only does the King James Bible read "If one man sin against another, THE JUDGE shall judge him: but if a man sin against THE LORD, who shall intreat for him?"  but so too do the following Bible translations -

 

Coverdale 1535 ,The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's bible 1549 (the days man), the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Lesser O.T. 1835, The Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the KJV 21st Century 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998,  the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, and The Biblos Bible 2013.


Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "If one man sin against another, THE JUDGE shall judge him: but if a man sin against YHWH (יהוה), who shall intreat for him?"


https://www.messianic-torah-truth-seeker.org/Scriptures/Tenakh/Shemuel-Alef/1st-Shemuel02.htm

 

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2005 - "If a man will sin to man, THE JUDGE will judge him." 


http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15831


The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907- "If a man sin against another, THE JUDGE shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall intreat for him?"


https://archive.org/details/ancienthebrewlit02yyy5uoft/page/6/mode/2up

 

And this online Hebrew Interlinear - "shall judge THE JUDGE"


http://studybible.info/IHOT/1%20Samuel%202:25

 

Foreign Language Bible = the JUDGE shall judge him"

 

So too read Luther's German bible 1545 - "Wenn jemand wider einen Menschen sündiget, so kann's der Richter schlichten.", the French Martin bible 1744 - "Si un homme a péché contre un autre homme, le Juge en jugera;", the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, and Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1977, 1995 - "Si pecare el hombre contra el hombre, los jueces le juzgarán;", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "Se un uomo pecca contro ad un altro uomo, Iddio lo giudica;", The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Pecando homem contra homem, os juízes o julgarão" and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - "Daca' un om pa'ca'tuies'te împotriva altuia, judeca'torul îl va judeca" 

 


1 Samuel 8:16 "goodliest young men" (Hebrew) or "best of your cattle" (LXX)

In the Hebrew text and in the King James Bible we read of Samuel describing the manner of king that would reign over them in their rebellion against God.  Part of this description is found in verse 16 where Samuel tells them: "And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and YOUR GOODLIEST YOUNG MEN, and your asses, and put them to his work."

So read the Hebrew texts as well as the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation - "and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.", the Complete Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "And he will take your menservants and your maidservants, and your goodly young men and your asses, and put them to his work.", Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB 1611, NKJV 1982, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950, World English Bible, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Holman Standard 2003, ESV 2001, NASB 1995, the 2012 Lexham English Bible, the 2012 Knox Bible, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004,  the KJV 21st Century Version and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible 1998.

However the NIV 1984 and 2011 edition reads: "Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your CATTLE (F27) and donkeys he will take for his own use."  Then it footnotes that "cattle" comes from the Septuagint but the Hebrew text reads "young men".  

Not only does the NIV reject the clear Hebrew reading here but so do the liberal RSV, NRSV, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Life Bible 1969, the New Living Translation 1996, the New Century Version 1991, the Amplified bible 1987, the Revised English Bible 1989, Dan Wallace's NET version (with NO footnotes!) and the 2011 Common English Bible.

The hypocrisy and inconsistency of the NIV and all these other modern versions that have rejected the clear Hebrew reading of "best young men" and have replaced it with the so called Greek Septuagint reading of "cattle" is that the Septuagint also has several other false readings in this very same chapter that they have NOT followed.

 For instance, in verse 12 the Hebrew text and all the English translations followed the Hebrew text that says: "And he will appoint him captains over THOUSANDS, and captains over FIFTIES".  However the Septuagint copy reads "captains of HUNDREDS and captains of THOUSANDS". Yet nobody followed the LXX reading here.  

Again in verse 16 the so called Septuagint ADDS the words "and he will take a tenth of them for his work." Then it again says, as does the Hebrew in verse 17 "And he will take a tenth of your sheep..."  But the LXX ADDS all those words to verse 16 as well, yet nobody followed the LXX there.

 Again in verse 17 the Hebrew text and all these bible versions say: "He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants."  But the so called Greek Septuagint again ADDS the words: "because ye have chosen yourselves a king." to verse 17 and repeats them again in verse 18 as does the Hebrew.  So why didn't the NIV, Dan Wallace and all these other modern versions be consistent and include the extra words found in verses 16, 17 and change the numbers in verse 12?  Go figure!

 

The Catholic/Jehovah Witness Connection. 

 

Again, the Catholic versions are in their usual disarray. It seems a lot of these new Vatican Versions have the same type of problems.  The older Douay Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the Hebrew text and the King James Bible with "your goodliest young men" instead of "your cattle", but the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 also rejected the Hebrew reading and followed the LXX saying "your goodly CATTLE".

 

BUT now the latest Catholic version of 2009, called the Catholic Public Domain Version, has gone back to the Hebrew reading - "Then, too, he will take your servants, and handmaids, and YOUR BEST YOUNG MEN, and your donkeys, and he will set them to his work."

  

Likewise the Jehovah Witness New World Translation has rejected the Hebrew text of "YOUR YOUNG MEN" and has replaced it with the so called LXX reading of "and YOUR BEST HERDS".

 

This is much like we see in the liberal RSV and the NRSV (both of which read "cattle") and the now  the revised ESV once again has gone back to the Hebrew reading of "the best of your young men."  The new Bible Babble Buffet versions are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

Get yourself the Authorized King James Holy Bible and you will never go wrong.



1 Samuel 9:25 When Saul went to Samuel and he was anointed king of Israel we read: "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE."


So read the Hebrew texts, and even the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard and Dan Wallace's NET version.


However the RSV, ESV NRSV, New English Bible 1970 and the 1989 Revised English Version say: "And when they came down from the high place into the city, A BED WAS SPREAD FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE LAY DOWN TO SLEEP."


Then in a footnote the ESV tells us this reading comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads like the KJB, NASB, NIV, NET and NKJV. The meaning is not at all the same. 

The Catholic Versions like the Douay-Rheims, the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 also read this way.  The Douay-Rheims of 1610 says: "And they went down from the high place into the town, and he spoke with Saul upon the top of the house: AND HE PREPARED A BED FOR SAUL on the top of the house, AND HE SLEPT."


One of the latest critical text versions to come down the pike is the 2011 Common English Bible. It says in verse 9:25 - " When they came back from the shrine to the town, A BED WAS MADE FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE SLEPT."

 

Then they footnote that this reading comes from the LXX but that the Hebrew text reads as does the KJB - "LXX; MT He (Samuel?) talked with Saul on the roof. Then they got up early." The 1989 Revised English Version also changes the Hebrew text and adds these extra words too.


 Eugene Peterson's the Message of 2002 does the same thing. It likewise omits the Hebrew "Samuel communed with Saul upon the top of the house" and instead substitutes the so called Greek LXX and reads: "Afterward they went down from the shrine into the city. A BED WAS PREPARED FOR SAUL ON THE BREEZE COOLED ROOF OF SAMUEL'S HOUSE."


 The RSV, ESV also change the Hebrew texts in verse 24 where the Hebrew says: "Behold that which is left! set it before thee, and eat: for unto this time hath it been kept for thee since I said, I HAVE INVITED THE PEOPLE."


But the LXX has a completely different reading and says: "Behold that which is left; set it before thee, and eat; FOR IT IS SET FOR THEE FOR A TESTIMONY IN PREFERENCE TO THE OTHERS; TAKE OF IT; and Saul ate with Samuel on that day."

 
However the RSV and ESV do not follow either the Hebrew text nor the LXX but instead say: "Eat, because it was kept for you until the hour appointed, THAT YOU MIGHT EAT WITH THE GUESTS."

  

Then in a footnote the ESV informs us that the Hebrew says "I have invited the people", just as the King James Bible has it. Even the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible stick with the Hebrew reading of "I have invited the people".

 

This reading found in the ESV comes neither from the Hebrew nor the LXX; they just made it up. Not even the Catholic versions read this way but say "when I invited the people." (Douay-Rheims)


Then just two verses later in 1 Samuel 10:1 the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, New English Bible 1970, Revised English bible 1989, NET, the Message and the Common English bible of 2011 add a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew texts nor in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard, Geneva Bible nor any Jewish translation like the 1917 JPS, Complete Jewish Bible, Orthodox Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Tanach, etc.

The KJB, as well as the NASB, NIV, says: "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?"


 BUT, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011, NET, Revised English bible 1989 Common English Bible and the Message say: "Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL? AND YOU SHALL REIGN OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD AND YOU WILL SAVE THEM FROM THE HAND OF THEIR SURROUNDING ENEMIES. AND THIS SHALL BE THE SIGN TO YOU THAT THE LORD HAS ANOINTED YOU TO BE PRINCE OVER his heritage." 


And once again we see that it is the Catholic bible versions like the Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bibles  and the Greek Septuagint that all add these 40 to 42 extra words.


The New Jerusalem footnotes that all these extra words come from the Greek Septuagint but that the Hebrew text does not contain them. 


Here also Dan Wallace's NET version adds all these extra words too and then footnotes: "The MT reads simply "Is it not that the Lord has anointed you over his inheritance for a leader?" The translation (NET) follows the LXX." 


Wallace comes up with the lame explanation that a scribe's eye accidentally skipped over all these words and that the LXX supposedly restores these lost words to the Hebrew text.  Why does Dan Wallace and company follow the so called Greek Septuagint in 1 Samuel 10:1 but not in 1 Samuel 9:25?  Or why do all of them still stick with the Hebrew number of THIRTY men in verse 22 and not go with the Septuagint's SEVENTY in verse 22?


All these 43 extra words in capital letters in 1 Samuel 10:1 (see above) are not found in the Hebrew texts, but they are brought in from the Septuagint version which is wildly different than the Hebrew texts in hundreds and hundreds of passages.

 
If these contradictory modern versions wish to follow the so called Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, then why did none of them follow the Greek reading found in this same chapter in verse 22?  The Hebrew text tells us "And Samuel took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlour, and made them sit in the chiefest place among them that were bidden, which were about THIRTY persons."


However the LXX tells us: "and set them there a place among the chief of those that were called, about SEVENTY men." 


The Bible is supposed to be a historically true narrative of events that actually took place and there is a significant difference between 30 and 70. Why did none of these modern versions follow the LXX reading in verse 22? It's anybody's guess, but the bible agnostics like to call this lame-brained witches brew of theirs "the science of textual criticism".


 

1 Samuel 13:21 "Yet THEY HAD A FILE for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads."


There is much confusion and a wide variety of way the various Bible versions have translated this verse.  The reason I bring it up is because at one of the Bible clubs I belong to an NIV user posted it as an example of an indisputable "error" in the King James Bible.


The NIV and some other perhaps surprising modern versions, like the NKJV, have a very different translation in this verse.  The NIV reads: "THE PRICE WAS TWO THIRDS OF A SHEKEL for sharpening plowshares and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads."


Then they have a footnote that (mistakenly) says: "Hebrew pim; that is, about 1/4 ounce (about 8 grams)."  Why do I say mistakenly?  Because the meaning of the Hebrew in this verse is not at all so cut and dried as the NIV editors want you to think it is.  


For instance, the King James Bible has a marginal note that says: "Hebrew - a file with mouths." The RSV also reads similarly to the NIV with: "AND THE CHARGE WAS A PIM for the plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the goads."  But then their footnote says: "The Hebrew of this verse is obscure."


The NKJV also reads very differently than the King James Bible.  It basically goes along with the liberal RSV and reads: "AND THE CHARGE FOR A SHARPENING WAS A PIM for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads." Then the NKJV has a footnote that reads like the NIV saying that a pim is "About two-thirds shekel weight."


Other versions that read like the NIV are the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman Standard.  However as we shall soon see, this interpretation of the meaning of the verse is a fairly recent development and one that is not at all shared by many other Bible translators.


The Hebrew expression translated as "file" in the King James Bible and many others is a combination of two words.  That is why the KJB margin says "Hebrew - file of mouths."


  One word is used only once in all the Old Testament and the other one is quite common.  The common word is "peh" and is generally translated (or often the translation is omitted as being superfluous) as mouth, commandment, word, according to, hole, edge or parts.  The NIV concordance shows that they have not translated this word at all ten times, and have given it over 60 very different meanings including "jaws, edge, fruit, collar, neck, face, number, double-edged, hunger, share and taste".  


The NIV only translated it as "two-thirds" just once, and that is here in 1 Samuel 13:21.  So for them to dogmatically affirm, as does the NKJV as well, that the Hebrew says "two-thirds of a shekel" is more than a little presumptuous.  Even Daniel Wallace notes that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.


Bible commentators are often at odds with each other as well when it comes to what they think this verse means.


Adam Clarke  says in his commentary: "Yet they had a file - The Hebrew petsirah, from patsar, to rub hard, is translated very differently by the versions and by critics. Our translation may be as likely as any: they permitted them the use of files, (I believe the word means grindstone,) to restore the blunted edges of their tridents axes, and goads."


John Gill sticks to the sense found in the King James Bible saying: "Those that would not go to the Philistines kept files by them to sharpen those several instruments with upon occasion... when the mouths, or edges, of the mattocks, coulter were dull or "blunt" and so needed sharpening."


Jamieson, Fausset and Brown agree with the KJB reading as well - ?Yet they had a file--as a kind of privilege, for the purpose of sharpening sundry smaller utensils of husbandry.?


Agreeing with the King James Bible translation of "YET THEY HAD A FILE for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads." are the following Bible translations: the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1560-1602, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Hebrew Names Version, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach "And there was a file for the mattocks...",  Young's "literal", the World English Bible, the Bible in Basic English 1960, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Spanish Reina Valera Gomez, the Portuguese Almeida, and the 1649 Italian Diodati.


It should be obvious that this is by no means an error in the King James Bible. To see this verse developed a bit more, go to the article here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1sam1321fileorpim.htm

 

 

1 Samuel 20:40 - When "artillery" isn't what you think it is.


"And Jonathan gave his ARTILLERY unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them into the city."


I have run into some Bible mockers (none of whom actually believes that ANY Bible in ANY language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God) who scoff at the King James Bible and its "archaic" language. 


They tell us that the English word "artillery" is totally wrong here in the King James Bible and that it really should be something like "weapons" (ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV) or "equipment"(Holman, NET, ISV)  or "arms" (Douay-Rheims) or "his gear" (The New Jewish Version 1985, Concordant Version 2012) or "quiver and bow" (The Message) or "bow and arrows"(Wycliffe, Geneva bible, Easy to Read Version)


The word "artillery" is used only one time in the King James Bible and that is here in 1 Samuel 20:40.


Yet if they were willing to actually look up the word "artillery" in a good English dictionary they just might learn something about their own language.


The English word "artillery" is not only used to describe cannons, howitzers or missile launchers, though that is the more modern meaning of the word that most people think of when they hear it.  It is also used in a more generalized sense of - 



The American Heritage Dictionary - 


4. Weapons, such as catapults, arbalests, and other early devices, used for discharging missiles. (missiles in the sense of anything that is thrown or shot as an arrow, a bullet or a spear.)


The Online Plain Text English Dictionary


The second definition given is (n.) Munitions of war; implements for warfare, as slings, bows, and arrows.


Webster's 1828 Dictionary -  Artillery 


1.  In a general sense, offensive weapons of war. Hence it was formerly used for bows and arrows.



Webster's 1913 English Dictionary - Artillery


1. Munitions of war; implements for warfare, as slings, bows and arrows.


And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad. - 1 Samuel xx.40.



Not only is the word "artillery" found in the King James Bible to describe the bow and arrows Jonathan used in warfare, but it is also found in the following Bible translations - The Bill Bible 1671, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010 - "And Yonatan gave his ARTILLERY unto his lad", The Bond Slave Version 2012 and The Biblos Bible 2013 - "And gave Jonathan his ARTILLERY unto boy his and said to him, Go, carry to the city [them]."


And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "Gave And Jonathan his artillery unto the lad"


http://studybible.info/IHOT/1%20Samuel%2020:40



1 Samuel 27:10 "Whither HAVE YE MADE A ROAD to day?"



"And Achish said, Whither HAVE YE MADE A ROAD to day? And David said, Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites."


The expression "to make a road" is admittedly not a very common or modern expression, but with a little study, it is not that hard to explain.  It is found only one time in the entire English Bible called the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


Webster's 1913 Dictionary gives as one of the obsolete definitions of "to make a road" as "an armed expedition; a hostile incursion"


The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines the term as "An inroad; incursion of an enemy."


Obviously a road is a way or a path into an area, and the phrase simply means that David and his men made their way into the territory of their enemies and invaded their land.  


The immediate context indicates what this phrase means.  In verse 27:8 we are told that "David and his men went up and invaded the Geshurites"; 27:9 "And David smote the land."


The Hebrew verb used here has a wide range of meanings including "to put off, to rush, to run upon, to invade, to spread themselves abroad, to strip, to spoil, to flay and to make a road."


The expression "to make a road" does not refer to building a highway, but rather to invade or make a raid.


Here are several ways various bible versions have translated it.


ASV, RV - "Against whom have ye made a raid to-day? And David said, Against the SOUTH of Judah, and against the SOUTH of the Jerahmeelites, and against the SOUTH of the Kenites."


NIV, NASB, ESV - "Where did you go raiding today?" David would say, "Against the NEGEV of Judah" or "Against the NEGEV of Jerahmeel" or "Against the NEGEV of the Kenites." 



NKJV - "Where have you made a raid today?" And David would say, "Against THE SOUTHERN AREA of Judah, or against THE SOUTHERN AREA of the Jerahmeelites, or against THE SOUTHERN AREA of the Kenites."


Webster's 1833 translation - "And Achish said, WHITHER HAVE YE MADE A ROAD TO-DAY? And David said, Against the SOUTH of Judah..."


Youngs translation - "And Achish saith, `WHITHER HAVE YE PUSHED to-day?' and David saith, `Against the SOUTH of Judah..."


The Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible - "And Achis saide: Where HAVE YOU BEEN ROVING this day? And Dauid answered: Against the south of Iuda..."


The Lesser Old Testament 1853, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862 - "Whither have ye made an inroad today?"




"Whither have ye made a road to day?"  


Also reading this way are the following Bible translations - The Bill Bible 1671, The Webster Bible 1833, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "Whither have ye made a road to-day?", The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012 - "Where have you made a road to day?" and The Biblos Bible 2013 - "Where have you made a road today?"


The King James reading of "Whither have ye made a road to day?" makes sense when we just think about it.


The main thing to realize is that we believe God has given us His complete, inspired and 100% true words in the King James Bible. ALL other bible versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman etc. are in fact the new Vatican Versions which follow the wrong and ever changing critical texts in the New Testament and OFTEN reject the clear Hebrew readings in the Old.  


Nobody believes or defends any of them as being the infallible words of the living God, and this is simply because they are not.


See my article on The Old Fashioned Language of the King James Bible -

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


And Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are the new Vatican Versions -


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


All of grace, believing The Book,


Will Kinney


 

 

 

2 Samuel 5:21 "burned the idols" or "carried them away?"

 

2 Samuel 5:21 - David had recently become king of all Israel and the Philistines came up with a great army to attack him and the people of Israel. David enquires of the LORD and God tells him to go out against them and that He would doubtless deliver the Philistines into his hand.

 

David and the children of Israel defeat the armies of their enemies and in 2 Samuel 5:21 we read that the Philistines had left their idols behind. "And there they left their images, and David and his men BURNED them."  

 

But the NKJV and many modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman tell us that David and his men "CARRIED THEM AWAY" with them instead of burning them.

 

2 Samuel 5:21 NKJV 1982 - "And they left their images there, and David and his men CARRIED THEM AWAY."  

 

Yet the parallel account given in 1 Chronicles 14:12 when the Philistines went to make war with David and the children of Israel in the valley of Rephaim, we read: "And when they had left their gods there, David gave a commandment, and they were BURNED WITH FIRE."


The Hebrew word in question in 2 Samuel 5:21 (burned vs. carried away), #5375 nah-sah, has many meanings including "accept, arise, burn, forgive, bring, set up, lift up, went, bear, regard, respect, carry away, fetch, and to pardon."  Often the correct meaning of a word is to be found in the context and by comparing parallel verses in other books, as we have here.  

 

Even the NASB variously translates this single word as "accept, bear, become proud, bring, carry, contain, continued, count, desire, direct, ease, endure, forgive, exalt, fetch, forget, found, grant, have, high, honor, incur, laid, lifted, load, lofty, longing, looked, make, married, obtain, offer, pardon, partial, pick, promote, put, raise, receive, regard, released, respected, rise, sets, shield-bearer, show partiality, sing, spare, sworn, take, towers, upheaved, wear, went on, withhold, wore and worked."  

 

The NIV has even more meanings for this one word, among which are "to carry, bear, forgive, bring, endure, spread, married, offer, pay, rise up, spare, wear, armed, begin, borne fruit, casts, clothed with, disdainful, guilty, have respect for, helped, high, incur, let shine, made, moved, pardon, provide, relish, rebel, ridicule, share, sing, snatch up, suffer for, toil, wail, and wore."

 

 

"David and his men BURNED THEM."

 

2 Samuel 5:21 - Agreeing with the King James Bible that David and his men BURNED the images of the false gods instead of "carrying them away" are the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "they left their images, and Dauid and his men BURNT THEM.", Websters 1833, Lesser Old Testament 1853, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "and David and his men BURNED them.", The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, Wycliffe Update 2001 - "And they left their idols there, which David and his men BURNED TO ASHES.", the Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - "And they forsook there their images, and David and his men BURNED them.", The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, English Jubilee Bible 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "and BURNED THEM.", and the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "BURNED THEM."  

 

Foreign language bibles that tell us David and his men BURNED the images are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, 2011 - "David y sus hombres los QUEMARON", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "David aber und seine Männer huben sie auf." = David and his men BURNED it,  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "en David en zijn mannen namen ze op." = BURNED THEM.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

All Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation unite in telling us that David and his men "CARRIED THEM AWAY."

 

Other Versions that got this wrong in 2 Samuel 5:21 and tell us that David and his men "CARRIED THEM AWAY" instead of burning them are Coverdale, Great Bible, Darby, Young's "David and his men LIFT THEM UP", JPS 1917, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, Green's literal, ISV, Dan Wallace NET version 2006 - "and David and his men PICKED THEM UP."

 

Some Bible Commentators on 2 Samuel 5:21

 

John Gill comments - "and David and his men burnt them: that is, his men burnt them at his command, 1 Chronicles 14:12; agreeably to the law of God, that so no profit might be made of them, Deuteronomy 7:5"

 

Jameson, Fausset and Brown's Critical Commentary of the Whole Bible - "And there they left their images, and David and his men BURNED them.  There they left their images - probably their lares or household deities, which they had brought into the field to fight for them. These were burnt, as ordained By law (Deuteronomy 7:5)."

 

Matthew Poole?s Commentary - "David BURNED them, as God had commanded, Deuteronomy 7:5."

 

Matthew Henry Commentary - "David and his men converted to their own use the rest of the plunder, BUT THE IMAGES THEY BURNT, AS GOD HAD APPOINTED (Deu. 7:5): "YOU SHALL BURN THEIR GRAVEN IMAGES WITH FIRE", in token of your detestation of idolatry, and lest they should be a snare." Bishop Patrick well observes here that when the ark fell into the Philistines' hands it consumed them, but, when these images fell into the hands of Israel, they could not save themselves from being consumed." 

 

 

 

2 Samuel 19:24 beard or mustache?

BEARD


Kin James Bible - "And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his BEARD, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came again in peace."

Also reading "trimmed his BEARD" are the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, ASV of 1901, JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), Darby 1890, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Hebrew Names Bible, Douay 1950, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the New English Bible 1970, The Living Bible 1971, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the Revised English Bible 1989, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, the Message 2002, the Context Group Version 2007, The New European Version 2010, the Common English Bible of 2011, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "nor trimmed HIS BEARD", The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - "nor trimmed HIS BEARD", the World English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012 and the International Children's Bible 2015 - "had not cut his BEARD".

Foreign language bibles that also read "BEARD" are the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991 and the Nuova Riveduta of 2006 - "né spuntata la barba", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, 2011 - "no se había lavado los pies, ni se había cortado
LA BARBA", Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond, and the French Ostervald 1996 - "ni fait SA BARBE", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel of 1681, the A Biblia em Portugués, the O Livro of 2000, AND the NIV Portuguese editon of 2000 called the Nova Versão Internacional - "nem aparado a BARBA", Luther's German bible 1545 as well as the German Schlachter bible of 2000 and the Romanian Cornilescu bible .-"m tinha feito A BARBA."

 

and the Modern Greek translation -  beard.

 

MOUSTACHE

NKJV - "Now Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king. And he had not cared for his feet, nor trimmed his MUSTACHE..."  

Also reading "trimmed his MUSTACHE" are the NASB, NIV, Holman Standard and Dan Wallace's NET version.

Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 - ?He had not cared for his feet OR HANDS, he had not trimmed his MOUSTACHE or washed his clothes...?  Footnote ?or hands? from Greek; Hebrew omits.


Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "He had not washed his feet nor trimmed his MOUSTACHE... (No "hands" in this one)

Among the Catholic versions the usual differences appear. The Douay Rheims bible of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 say "neither trimmed his BEARD", but the St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem differ from each other ("or hands?" in one, but not the other) but both have "moustache".

  

But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to "neither trimmed his BEARD".

 

The Jehovah Witness New World Translation says "nor had he attended to HIS MUSTACHE"

 

LXX - "He had not dressed his feet, NOR PARED HIS NAILS, nor shaved himself, neither had he washed his garments..."

UPPER LIP?

Young's - "and he prepared not his feet, NOR DID HE PREPARE HIS UPPER LIP, yea, his garments he washed not..."

It should be obvious that there is a difference between trimming your BEARD or just your MUSTACHE, and Young translation is just plain goofy.  All Jewish men in Old Testament times had full beards and a man always trims his entire beard, not just his mustache.  The King James Bible is always right.  Accept no substitutes.

 

 

1 Kings 18:27 - Bible agnostics tell us "We need to learn Hebrew to find out what God really said." 


So, let's put their theory to the test, OK? Let's see what those who have "gone to the Hebrew" have come up with.


1 Kings 18:27 - the scene is Elijah confronting the 450 false prophets of Baal, and the God that answers by fire will be known to be the true God. 


1 Kings 18:27 King James Bible - "And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either HE IS TALKING, OR HE IS PURSUING, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked."


 

"or OCCUPIED IN FOLLOWING HIS ENEMIES" - Great Bible 1540,  Bishops? bible 1568


2004 Judaica Press Tanach - "And it was at noon that Elijah scoffed at them, and he said, "Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. Perhaps he is talking OR HE IS PURSUING  [enemies] or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken."  

 

Commentary by Rashi - "or he is overtaking and pursuing his enemies in war."


World English Bible 2012 - "At noon, Elijah mocked them, and said, 'Cry aloud; for he is a god. Either he is deep in thought, OR HE HAS GONE SOMEWHERE, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he sleeps and must be awakened."



Holman Standard 2009 - "He said, 'Shout loudly, for he's a god! Maybe he's thinking it over; MAYBE HE HAS WANDERED AWAY;  or maybe he's on the road. Perhaps hes sleeping and will wake up!"


Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950 - "And when it was now noon, Elias jested at them, saying: Cry with a louder voice: for he is a god; and perhaps he is talking, OR IS IN AN INN, or on a journey; or perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked."



NASB 1995 - "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied OR GONE ASIDE, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened."


"or GONE ASIDE" - RV 1881, ASV 1901, Darby 1890


NIV 2011 - "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, OR BUSY, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened."



The Message 2002 - "Call a little louder. he is a god, after all. Maybe he's off meditating somewhere or other, OR MAYBE HE'S GOTTEN INVOLVED IN A PROJECT, or maybe he's on vacation. You don't suppose he's overslept, do you, and needs to be waked up?" 


NET 2006 - "At noon Elijah mocked them, Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, OR PERHAPS HE STEPPED OUT FOR A MOMENT or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping and needs to be awakened."


NKJV 1982 - "Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, OR HE IS BUSY, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened."


"or HE IS BUSY" - Greek Septuagint, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985


RSV 1971 - "And at noon Eli?jah mocked them, saying, Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is musing, OR HE HAS GONE ASIDE, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."



NRSV 1989- "At noon Elijah mocked them, saying, Cry aloud! Surely he is a god; either he is meditating, OR HE HAS WANDERED AWAY, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."


ESV 2001-2011 - "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or HE IS RELIEVING HIMSELF, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."

 

Jehovah Witness NWT - "for he is a god; for he must be concerned with a matter, AND HE HAS EXCREMENT AND HAS TO GO TO THE PRIVY.  Or maybe he is asleep, and ought to wake up!"



The Voice 2012 - "The one to whom you cry out certainly must be a god! Perhaps he is daydreaming OR NAPPING or away from his heavenly throne. Perhaps he is in a deep sleep, and you must wake him up. Shout louder!"



Living Bible 1971  "Perhaps he is TALKING TO SOMEONE, OR IS SITTING ON THE TOILET, or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!"


New Living Translation 2013 - "Perhaps he is DAYDREAMING, OR IS RELIEVING HIMSELF. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and need to be wakened!"


Complete Jewish bible 1998 (David Stern) - "Maybe he's daydreaming, OR HE'S ON THE POTTY, or he's away on a trip. Maybe he's asleep, and you have to wake him up."  

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible are the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Longman Version 1841, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Mebust Bible 2007, The Judaica Press Tanach 2005, The 2005 Revised Geneva bible - "or is pursuing his enemies", The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010,The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013 - "or he is pursuing". 

 

And this online Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - "or he is pursuing"

 

http://studybible.info/IHOT/1%20Kings%2018:27


Yep, if we could only learn Hebrew then we would know for certain what God REALLY said, right?


John 1:42 - ?A stone?, ?Peter? or ?Rock??

At one of our Facebook forums a very ignorant Bible critic posted: ?Jesus gave the PARTICULAR name as stone ONLY in the KJV that was founded because the POPE opposed him in his marriage offer. The true meaning we see in Paul calling Peter ONLY as Cephas which means ROCK.?

Well, our illustrious Bible critic is wrong on several counts. He is wrong about the meaning of the word petros; He is wrong in saying that ONLY the KJB translates this word as ?stone?, and he is totally wrong in his reference of the marriage of king James and the Pope. He has confused king James with Henry the VIII. Other than these minor details, he is right on;-)

Let?s take a closer look

John 1:42 KJB - ? And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE.? - ??????


?? ??????? ????? ? ??????????? ??????

ESV (NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims) - ?He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ?You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas? (which means PETER).?

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 Holman Standard 2009 - ?and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, ?You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas? (which means ?ROCK?).

New Life Version 1969 Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002 - ??You are Simon, John?s son?but you shall be called Peter, THE ROCK!?


The Greek word ?????? is only this one time translated as ?a stone? in John 1:42. All other times it means Peter. But the word for A ROCK is not this word. It is a slightly different Greek word petra - ?????. And this word petra IS translated as ROCK some 16 times in the New Testament.

It is used in such places as ?built his house upon A ROCK? (Matthew 7:24), ?upon this ROCK I will build my church? (Matthew 16:18), ?As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and ROCK of offense: and whosoever believeth ON HIM shall not be ashamed.? (Romans 9:33), ?they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them; and that ROCK was Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Petra - ????? - is a large Rock and it refers to Christ or the foundation of a building, while PetrOs is a small rock or a stone, and refers to the apostle Peter.

The Lexicons

Liddell and Scott?s Greek-English Lexicon 1887 page 557 tells us that this word Petros - ??????- means: ?a piece of rock, A STONE while the word ????? means A ROCK.

Likewise the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957 on page 660 informs us that the word petra means ?ROCK? and that the other word petros means ?a STONE?.

Notice that in Matthew 16 when the Lord asks the disciples Who He is and Peter responds ?Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.? that Jesus tells him that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father in heaven did. And then He says: ?And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros = a small rock, a stone), and upon THIS ROCK (not ?you?, but ?this rock? petra - a large rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.?

Christ Himself is the Rock; not Peter. ?For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST.? 1 Corinthians 3:11

A STONE

Agreeing with the King James Bible where Jesus tells Cephas his name means A STONE are Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew?s Bible 1549, the Bishops? Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa?s translation of the Syriac 1933, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God?s First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle?s Bible 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009 and the Jubilee Bible 2010.

The Pickering N.T. 2005 also says: ?You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas? (which is translated ?Stone?).6 ? and then he footnotes: ?petros is Greek for ?stone? (a small object, as opposed to a 'rock'). The name ?Peter? is a transliteration into English of petros, but since ?peter? does not mean ?stone? in English, to put ?Peter? in verse 42 misses the point. ?

The Modern Literal New Testament of 2014 goes even further and says: ?You are Simon, the Son of Jonah, you will be called Cephas, which is by translation, A PEBBLE.?

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

John 1:42 - ?A stone?, ?Peter? or ?Rock??

At one of our Facebook forums a very ignorant Bible critic posted: ?Jesus gave the PARTICULAR name as stone ONLY in the KJV that was founded because the POPE opposed him in his marriage offer. The true meaning we see in Paul calling Peter ONLY as Cephas which means ROCK.?

Well, our illustrious Bible critic is wrong on several counts. He is wrong about the meaning of the word petros; He is wrong in saying that ONLY the KJB translates this word as ?stone?, and he is totally wrong in his reference of the marriage of king James and the Pope. He has confused king James with Henry the VIII. Other than these minor details, he is right on;-)

Let?s take a closer look

John 1:42 KJB - ? And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE.? - ??????


?? ??????? ????? ? ??????????? ??????

ESV (NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims) - ?He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ?You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas? (which means PETER).?

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 Holman Standard 2009 - ?and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, ?You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas? (which means ?ROCK?).

New Life Version 1969 Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002 - ??You are Simon, John?s son?but you shall be called Peter, THE ROCK!?


The Greek word ?????? is only this one time translated as ?a stone? in John 1:42. All other times it means Peter. But the word for A ROCK is not this word. It is a slightly different Greek word petra - ?????. And this word petra IS translated as ROCK some 16 times in the New Testament.

It is used in such places as ?built his house upon A ROCK? (Matthew 7:24), ?upon this ROCK I will build my church? (Matthew 16:18), ?As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and ROCK of offense: and whosoever believeth ON HIM shall not be ashamed.? (Romans 9:33), ?they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them; and that ROCK was Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Petra - ????? - is a large Rock and it refers to Christ or the foundation of a building, while PetrOs is a small rock or a stone, and refers to the apostle Peter.

The Lexicons

Liddell and Scott?s Greek-English Lexicon 1887 page 557 tells us that this word Petros - ??????- means: ?a piece of rock, A STONE while the word ????? means A ROCK.

Likewise the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957 on page 660 informs us that the word petra means ?ROCK? and that the other word petros means ?a STONE?.

Notice that in Matthew 16 when the Lord asks the disciples Who He is and Peter responds ?Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.? that Jesus tells him that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father in heaven did. And then He says: ?And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros = a small rock, a stone), and upon THIS ROCK (not ?you?, but ?this rock? petra - a large rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.?

Christ Himself is the Rock; not Peter. ?For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST.? 1 Corinthians 3:11

A STONE

Agreeing with the King James Bible where Jesus tells Cephas his name means A STONE are Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew?s Bible 1549, the Bishops? Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa?s translation of the Syriac 1933, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God?s First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle?s Bible 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009 and the Jubilee Bible 2010.

The Pickering N.T. 2005 also says: ?You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas? (which is translated ?Stone?).6 ? and then he footnotes: ?petros is Greek for ?stone? (a small object, as opposed to a 'rock'). The name ?Peter? is a transliteration into English of petros, but since ?peter? does not mean ?stone? in English, to put ?Peter? in verse 42 misses the point. ?

The Modern Literal New Testament of 2014 goes even further and says: ?You are Simon, the Son of Jonah, you will be called Cephas, which is by translation, A PEBBLE.?

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