A typical example of how the NIV continually omits, adds and paraphrases the words of God is found in verse two. In the KJB we read: " And SARAI said unto Abram, BEHOLD NOW, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I PRAY THEE, go in unto my maid; it may be that I MAY OBTAIN CHILDREN by her. And Abram HEARKENED UNTO THE VOICE of Sarai."
Here the NIV omits SARAI, and says "she", omits "behold now", omits "I pray thee" and instead of "that I may obtain children", which is the reading of the NASB, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, the NIV says: "perhaps I CAN BUILD A FAMILY through her." A family consists of a husband, wife and children. Sarai already had a husband, so she needs only the children, not a family. Then the NIV paraphrases the literal "hearkened unto the voice of Sarai" to "agreed to what Sarai said."
In verse five we read: "I have given my maid into THY BOSOM." Bosom is the reading of the 1917 Jewish translation, the Geneva, ASV and others, but the NASB/NIV wrongly translated this word as ARMS, which is a different word (though they both have "bosom" in other places like Exodus 4;6,7 where Moses put his hand into his bosom and took it out and it was leprous. In Exodus 4 the NKJV, NASB correctly have "bosom" but again the NIV has "cloak" there, which is wrong again. Here in Genesis 16:5 the NKJV has "your embrace", though with the correct "bosom" in other places.
The NIV has also done the same thing in the New Testament like in John 1:18 "the only begotton Son, which is in the BOSOM of the Father, he hath declared him" where the NIV says: "who is AT THE Father's SIDE." There is a word for bosom and a different word for side but the NIV continually paraphrases and has little regard for the inspired words of God.
The same unnecessary paraphrasing and omitting are seen in verse nine. We read: "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her HAND." Hand is the Hebrew, the NKJV, 1917, ASV, Geneva etc, but the "more accurate" NASB says: "under her AUTHORITY" while the NIV just omits the word altogether.
Genesis 16:12 KJB - "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."
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.
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), or when they immigrate to foreign lands they tend to live in separate communities, and for the most part they still are in conflict with each other as well as all others. There is a lot of infighting among the Muslims to this day.
"And he shall be A WILD MAN" The "literal" Hebrew texts says "he will be a wild ass a man". The word "wild" is usually translated as "a wild ass", but in Hebrew we have the additional word added "a man". Some versions like the NASB, NIV have "he will be A WILD DONKEY OF A MAN", and the RV, ASV say "he will be a WILD ASS OF A MAN".
Others are stranger still.
The Bible in Basic English 1961 says: "He will be LIKE A MOUNTAIN ASS among men."
Young's is a bit humorous with: "He will be A WILD-ASS MAN."
The Voice 2012 - “ Ishmael, your son, is going to be a wild and rowdy man.”
The Message 2002 has: "He'll be A BUCKING BRONCO OF A MAN."
The 2014 ISV (International Standard Version) is different from them all with: "He'll be A NOMADIC SHEPHERD as a man".
And not to be outdone for novelty, the Jehovah Witness NWT actually says: "he will be A ZEBRA of a man"
However he was not literally an "ass" or a "donkey", and so the King James Bible and many others simply say "He will be A WILD MAN".
"A WILD MAN"
Among those that read like the King James Bible - "a wild man" - are the Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's translation 1833, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Longman Version 1841, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Improved Bible 1913, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Revised Douay-Rheims bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "And he shall be A WILD MAN.", The New Brenton Translation 2012, and The Modern English Version 2014.
The Modern Greek Bible - "και ουτος θελει εισθαι ανθρωπος αγριος·" = "He will be a WILD MAN." The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1909-1995 - "Y él sera HOMRE FIERO.", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996, the Portuguese La Sagrada Biblia and the Almeida Corregida - "E ele ser homem feroz" - "He will be A WILD MAN", and Luther’s German bible 1545 - “Er wird ein wilder Mensch sein” = “He will be A WILD MAN.”
"IN THE PRESENCE OF his brethren"
He shall dwell "IN THE PRESENCE OF" all his brethren is the reading of the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Longman Version 1841, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, RSV, Douay 1950, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, and The Modern English Version 2014.
The New Jewish Version 1985 says: "He will dwell ALONGSIDE OF all his brethren."
Darby 1890 and Young's 1898 say "he will dwell BEFORE THE FACE OF all his brethren."
The Jewish Family Bible 1864 says: "he will dwell IN THE FACE OF all his brethren."
BUT 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 Standard 2009 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".
In Genesis 16:13 we read in the KJB along with the ASV, 1917, 1936, niv, nkjv, Spanish and others: "And she (Hagar) called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, HAVE I ALSO HERE LOOKED AFTER HIM THAT SEETH ME?" In other words, she spoke directly with the angel of the LORD and looked upon God who also saw her in her need. But the NASB says instead: "Have I EVEN REMAINED ALIVE HERE AFTER SEEING HIM?". Did she "look after Him" or "remained alive here"? It is of interest that the liberal RSV reads the same as the NASB but in its footnote it says the Hebrew reads just like the KJB, then along comes the NRSV which reads as the NASB again but this time the footnote says: "meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain". Do you see how the "experts" tell us one thing and then later another? If you go to their schools of higher learning you will come out just as confused as they are.
In Genesis 17:5 the NASB blows it again as it did in 12:1, not comparing Scripture with Scritpture. In the KJB, as well as the NIV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Spanish, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Douay, Youngs and others we read when God speaks to Abram: "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations HAVE I MADE THEE." Notice the tense of the verb here. "I have made thee" as though it were already an accomplished fact. Why is this? Because Romans 4: 17 "As it is written, I HAVE MADE thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."
It is so sure that God says it is already done. We are already seated in the heavenlies in Christ and glorified. That is what the words of God tell us. However, the NASB says: "I WILL MAKE YOU a father of many nations" in Genesis (future tense, as though not yet done) but in Romans it says what is written is "I have made you a father of many nations." Consistently inconsistent.
The NIV continues to add to and take away from the words of God in this chapter. In verse 7 the NIV adds and additional "and the God of" in verse 10 it adds "the covenant you are to keep" and then to balance out the equation somewhat it omits "the flesh of your foreskin" in verses 11, 14, 23, 24 and 25, all of which are in the Hebrew and in the NASB, NKJV etc.
In verse 18 instead of having Abraham say: "O that Ishmael might live BEFORE THEE!" as the NASB, NKJV etc. the NIV says: "If only Ishmael might live UNDER YOUR BLESSING" which is not found in any text at all.
Here again the NIV is up to its usual tricks. In verse 2 "And HE LIFT UP HIS EYES and looked, and, LO, three men stood by him." The NIV changed HE to Abraham, which is not in the text, then it omitted "lift up his eyes" which is in the text, and it omitted the little word "lo".
In verse 3 both the NKJKV and NIV omit one of the two "I pray thee" phrases.
In verse 5 Abraham says to the three men: "And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and COMFORT YE YOUR HEARTS". This is the reading of the ASV, 1917, Geneva, NKJV etc. but the "literal" NASB says "refresh YOURSELVES" and the NIV "be refreshed" both changing the word "hearts".
Again the NIV omits the word Abraham in verse 7 and says "he", and when the text says "he" in verse 10 the NIV adds the words "the LORD", which is not in the text.
In verse 10 God is speaking to Abraham: "And he said, I will certainly return unto thee ACCORDING TO THE TIME OF LIFE, and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son." This is the literal meaning of the words "time" # 6256 as in "and it came to pass at that time", "my times are in thy hand" etc. and "life" # 2416 as in Gen. 1:20 "the moving creature that hath life". According to the time of life is the reading of the NKJV, Geneva, Youngs and others but the NASB and NIV say: "this time NEXT YEAR" instead of "life" while the RSV says: "in the spring". They did the same thing in verse 14.
In verse 19 we read God saying about Abraham: "For I KNOW him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD..." This word "know" is the same one used in Adam knew his wife Gen. 4:1 (where also the NIV, NASB wrongly translated it), and Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." I KNOW him is the reading of the ASV, 1917, Geneva, NKJV, Youngs etc. but both the NIV and NASB say: "I have CHOSEN him". Chosen is a different word and is used in Gen. 6:2 "they took them wives of all which they chose" and 13:11 "then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan."
This same word is used in Amos 3:3 where God says to Israel: "You only HAVE I KNOWN of all the families of the earth: therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities." "Have I known" again is the reading of the 1917, 1936, ASV, nkjv, Geneva, Youngs etc. but the NASB 1972 said "You only HAVE ME" while the NASB 1977 and the NIV say "You only have I CHOSEN", which again is wrong. The NASB keeps changing from one edition to the next and they still can't get it right.
No translation of the Scriptures from the Hebrew or the Greek is always a literal word for word rendering. Neither should nor could it be. Hebrew words lend themselves to a multitude of meanings. Many words, but by no means all, are imprecise, general in scope, and capable of divers meanings. The same Hebrew word can be either "to curse" or "to bless". In English likewise we have "to cleave" which can mean either to divide asunder or to cling to.
A very important point to consider is that Hebrew is an elliptical language. That is it frequently omits the subject or the verb or the direct object of a sentence and they are supplied by inference. English, Spanish and most languages require a clear subject, verb, direct and indirect objects for a sentence to be complete. This is not always the case with Hebrew or Greek.
God is fully capable of translating His inspired words from one language into another. He is the Creator of languages. Usually the more literal translation is the correct one. If the literal rendering makes sense and can accurately be transferred into another language, then it should be used. This is why the KJB, ASV, Geneva, Tyndale, and other older translations read the way they do - they are far more literal than the modern counterparts.
Far too often today, the modern bible versions depart from the more literal translation approach of former years. I believe modern translations are tinged with unbelief and pride, and as a result, God has blinded their minds to the true meaning of hundreds of verses. It is so ridiculous to hear of some who promote the NASB as being more literal than the KJB. Such is not the case at all. The modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, RSV and especially the NIV are increasingly departing from the Hebrew and Greek texts and often miss entirely the true meaning of a passage. We will see more examples of this as we continue this study.
In Genesis 19:1 we read: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and LOT seeing them rose up to meet them."
The word LOT is in the Hebrew twice in this verse and is so translated by the NKJV and NASB, but the NIV has changed the text to HE instead of Lot. As far as I know, all Bible translations, including the KJB, occasionally will supply the name of a person if a context is unclear. But when we get to the NASB, NKJV and especially the NIV these instances of inserting personal names when not there and omitting them when they are there have reached the point of wild editorial recklessness and an unhealthy disregard for the words of the living God.
In the New Testament alone the NIV has added the word Jesus 336 times when it is not in any text nor necessary to the context. This is documented in the NIV concordance for all to see.
In this chapter alone the NIV has changed Lot to he in verse 1, LORD to he in verse 13, HIS to LOT'S in verse 26, GOD to he in verse 29. The NIV has omitted " behold now" in verse 2, "at the door" in v.6; "I pray you" and "good in your eyes" in v. 8; "from behind him" in verse 26 and "And it came to pass" in verse 29. The NIV concordance itself tells us they have not translated literally thousands and thousands of words that are in the Hebrew and Greek texts they used to make the NIV translation and they have added thousands more that are not found in any text at all. In fact the NIV contains almost 64,000 fewer words in it than are found in the King James Bible. This total number of words missing is like taking from the middle of the book of Acts to the end of Revelation and deleting that many words from the Bible. Yet this is the most popular perversion now accepted by much of modern Christendom.
How Many Daughters Did Lot Have - 2 or 4?
NIV, ESV, NASB, NET, Jehovah Witness, Catholic version Blunder
Comparing Genesis 19:8, 14 and 15.
How many daughters did Lot have?
Good Bible trivia question.
According to the KJB, NKJV, Jewish Publication Society Bible of 1917, The Hebrew Publishing Company bible 1936, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, The Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Bible in Basic English 1961,The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Asser Septuagint 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014, the ISV (International Standard Version) 2014, Modern English Version 2014, Lot had at least 4 daughters, two of which were married and two that lived at home with him that were not married.
BUT according to the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, the Jehovah Witness NWT, the Catholic versions Lot only had 2 daughters total and not 4.
In Genesis 19:8 we read of the two daughters of Lot who lived with him at home and were still virgins. Lot tells the wicked men of Sodom - "Behold now, I have two daughters WHICH HAVE NOT KNOWN MAN, let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
But in Genesis 19:14 we read of THE OTHER TWO daughters that Lot had who lived elsewhere and were married. "And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which MARRIED his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law." There are at least 2 married daughters here.
Then we read of the other two daughters in the next verse. "And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, WHICH ARE HERE; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city." Two unmarried daughters still in Lot's house.
But instead of the sons in law which MARRIED his daughters, the NASB, NET, Holman and ESV say: "sons in law who WERE TO MARRY his daughters" and the NIV has: "sons in law WHO WERE PLEDGED TO MARRY his daughters."
The Jehovah Witness New World Translation says: "Lot went out and began to speak to his sons-in-law WHO WERE TO TAKE HIS DAUGHTERS"
The Roman Catholic Douay verse has: "spoke to his sons in law THAT WERE TO HAVE his daughters"
while the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 says: "Lot went off and spoke to HIS FUTURE SONS-IN-LAW WHO WERE TO MARRY his daughters"
How can they be called sons in law if they are not yet married? Wouldn't they be called fiances or men who had asked to marry his daughters instead of sons in law?
So according to the NASB, ESV, NIV, Jehovah Witness NWT and the Catholic versions Lot had only two daughters and according the KJB and many others there were at least 4 daughters of Lot. Two of them died along with their husbands in Sodom while the other two who lived at home and were still virgins escaped to the mountain with their father Lot.
Bible Commentators -
As usual, they are all over the board, but many see Lot as having had FOUR daughters, two that lived at home with him that were virgins, and two who lived elsewhere that were married.
Elliott’s Commentary for English Readers - “The traditional view is that given in our Version, and is confirmed by Genesis 19:15, where the words—“thy two daughters which are here,” Heb., which are found—certainly suggest the idea that Lot had other daughters, besides the two which escaped with him.“
Aben Ezra and Jarchi (two Jewish commentators) - “and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters: according to Aben Ezra, he had two other daughters that perished in Sodom, which he gathers from Genesis 19:15 "which are here," as if he had some elsewhere; and so Jarchi says, he had two daughters married in the city.”
Genesis 20:16 KJB - "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."
Chapter 20 presents us with another clear example of paraphrasing which misses the whole meaning of the passage and results in conflicting versions of nonsense.
Abraham had been told by God that He would give him a son by his wife Sarah. Yet again 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".
I believe God has blinded the modern version editors and they are not able to see the obvious meaning of this passage and that is why they have paraphrased it to mean what they think it is saying rather than what it actually says.
Abimelech is saying to Sarah that the truth is now known by all 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, ESV, and NKJV all miss this point and even contradict each other.
Instead of the KJB's "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."
The ESV has: "IT IS A SIGN OF YOUR INNOCENCE in the eyes of all who are with you, and before everyone YOU ARE VINDICATED."
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/ESV 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 (ESV) or the KJB.
"Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."
Bibles that agree with the Hebrew text and the King James Bible "Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED." are Tyndale 1534 - "beholde he shall be a couerynge to thyne eyes vnto all that ar with the and vnto all men", Coverdale 1535 - "he shall be to thee a covering of the eyes", The Great Bible 1540 - "a couerynge of thyne eyes vnto all that are with the & thus with all was she reproued.”, Matthew's Bible 1549 - " a couering to thyne eyes & vnto al that are wyth thee", the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's Bible 1833, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885 - "for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee", Darby 1890, Young's 1898 - "to thee a covering of eyes, to all who are with thee", Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 - "a covering of the eyes", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1909 - "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 JPS 1917 - "for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee", The Word of Yah 1993, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "to you a covering of the eyes before all who are with you and before all others", Green's Literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “he is to you a covering of the eyes, to all that are]with you, and with all other: thus she was reproved.", the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The English Jubilee Bible 2010, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - "for a covering of the eyes to all who are with you", The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012- “is for you a covering of the eyes to all who are with you. And with all this you are reproved.”, The Biblos Bible 2013 - "he is to you a covering of the eyes, to all that are with you and with all other"
And this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "and he shall be to thee a covering of the eyes, and to all that are with thee, and with all, thus she was reproved."
Geneva Bible notes 1599
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. 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.
John Calvin is right on, saying: - “HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES. Moses, in this place, rather points to the husband; and this best suits the sense. For Sarah is taught that the husband to whom she is joined was as a veil, with which she ought to be covered lest she should be exposed to others…it applies more aptly to married women; because they are veiled, as by the very ordinance of marriage. I therefore thus explain the words, ‘Thou, if thou hadst no husband, wouldst be exposed to many dangers; but now, since God has appointed for thee a guardian of thy modesty, it behoves thee to conceal thyself under that veil. Why then hast thou of thine own accords thrown off this covering?’ This was a just censure; because Sarah, pretending that she was in the power of her husband, had deprived herself of the divine protection. THUS SHE WAS REPROVED. Interpreters distort this clause also. The natural exposition seems to me to be, that the Lord had suffered Sarah to be reproved by a heathen king, that he might the more deeply affect her with a sense of shame. For Moses draws especial attention to the person of the speaker; because it seemed a disgrace that the mother of the faithful should be reprehended by such a master. ”
Matthew Poole’s Annotations on the Bible - “He is to thee a covering of the eyes, i.e. a protection to thee from the wanton eyes and attempts of others, whilst they know thee to be the wife of another man, and he such a one whom they reverence and fear; and therefore thou didst take a very wrong course to disown him, whereby thou didst expose thyself to great danger.”
Matthew Poole’s Annotations on the Bible - “He is to thee a covering of the eyes, i.e. a protection to thee from the wanton eyes and attempts of others, whilst they know thee to be the wife of another man, and he such a one whom they reverence and fear; and therefore thou didst take a very wrong course to disown him, whereby thou didst expose thyself to great danger.”
Matthew Henry and John Wesley both say the same thing -"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, THAT SHE MUST LOOK AT NO OTHER, NOR DESIRE TO BE LOOKED AT BY ANY OTHER. Note, Yoke-fellows must be to each other for a covering of the eyes. The marriage-covenant is a covenant with the eyes, like Job’s, ch. 31:1."
John Gill comments: "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."
Now if you wish to defend the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV as being "reliable versions", go right ahead, but I and thousands of other Bible believers will have no part of it.
The King James Bible is right, as always. Get used to it.
A great prophecy concerning the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ has been destroyed in the modern versions. Abraham had been told by God: "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." This entire historical event forshadowed the Father offering up His Son as the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.
Even the type of the resurrection after three days is found here. Abraham decided in his heart that he would obey God and kill his own son. It was as good as done in Abraham's mind the night before. Then he arose early in the morning of the next day, took his son, clave the wood for the burnt offering and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then we are told in verse 4 "Then ON THE THIRD DAY Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. It was on this third day that the angel of the LORD again called unto Abraham and said "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." So even the type of the resurrection after three days is fulfilled in this passage in Genesis 22. Hebrews 11:19 tells us of Abraham's "accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."
The verse that has been changed in the NKJV, NASB and NIV and alters the full significance of the spiritual type being portrayed, is Gen. 22:8. In the King James Bible we read in verses 7 and 8: "And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God WILL PROVIDE HIMSELF A LAMB for a burnt offering." God will provide HIMSELF a lamb. This is the prophetic type as we are told in verse 14 "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen." What took place in type here with Abraham and his son would be seen at a future time. That time was when the Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, died on Calvary for the sins of His people.
The reading of "God will provide HIMSELF a lamb" is the reading of the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations. They are not even Christians and yet they have it just as it is in the KJB. It is also the reading of the ASV (the predecessor to the nasb), Darby, the Catholic Douay version, the RSV (though later changed in the nrsv), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the modern Hebrew Names Version.
The KJB reading of God will provide himself a lamb teaches that the lamb who in the future would be sacrificed was God himself, not somebody else. Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the trinity, the creator, God manifest in the flesh. However the NKJV and NASB say: "God will provide FOR Himself a lamb" while the NIV has "God himself will provide the lamb." Do you see the change here? No longer can you use the modern versions to prove that Christ is God by referring to Genesis 22:8. The prophesy was not fulfilled here in Genesis 22. Abraham lift up his eyes and saw behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns, and he offered up the ram in the stead of his son. But a ram is not a lamb. The true lamb, who is also God Himself, is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice another great verse which shows that Jesus Christ is God who was sacrificed for his people. In Acts 20:28 the apostle Paul is speaking to the elders of Ephesus and tells them to "feed the church of God which he hath purchased with HIS OWN blood." Imagine that - the blood of God! But even here some of the modern versions try to change this verse as well. The ASV of 1901 as well as the liberal RSV read: "feed the church of the Lord (not God) which he purchased with his own blood" while the nrsv and Jehovah witness bible say: "church of God which he purchased with the blood of his own Son." Do you see how these versions make a distinction between God and his Son or God and the Lord, thus denying that Christ is God and the church was purchased with God's blood?
The Lord Jesus Christ is GOD manifest in the flesh -I Timothy 3:16, but this verse also has been altered in the NASB and NIV (as well as the RSV, NRSV, ESV) to read "He was manifest in the flesh". Everybody has been manifest in the flesh, even you and I. So what? But it makes a huge difference to read that GOD was manifest in the flesh and that God will provide HIMSELF a lamb for a burnt offering.
Genesis 23, 24
Basically I want to point out a significant change in meaning in chapter 24, but I will first briefly mention many words and whole phrases that have been omitted in the NIV, NKJV and NASB.
The NIV omits "these were the years of the life of Sarah" following the LXX in 23:1, though all these words are in the Hebrew text and found in the NASB, NKJV etc. In verse 2 the NIV again changes Sarah to "she", in v. 3 the NIV alone changes "the sons of Heth" to "the Hittites" which is a different word which is found in verse 10.
In verse 4 the NIV omits "out of my sight" and again in verse 8, though found in the NKJV, NASB etc. The NIV concordance shows they have chosen not to translate this word "sight, or eyes" some 36 times.
In verse 5 the NIV omits "saying unto him" and again in verse 14. The NIV concordance shows they have omitted this word "to say" a whopping 878 times when it appears in the Hebrew text. The NASB update of 1995 also omits this expression scores of times both in the Hebrew and in the Greek. In fact the NASB 1995 contains almost 8,000 fewer words in it than the NASB of 1977.
This frequently is a case of not translating Greek and Hebrew words which they previously had translated. The NASB of 1972 also omitted 14 entire verses from the New Testament but then in 1977 they put them back into the text, though in brackets. The 1977 NASB version still omitted whole phrases and verses that were later put back in the 1995 update version. This is the factual confusion of the modern perversions.
All this information can be found in a book by Laurence M. Vance, with each example shown in black and white, titled "Double Jeopardy- The New American Standard Bible Update".
In verse 10 the NIV omits Ephron once. In Genesis 24 the NIV twice changes Abraham to "him" or "he". It also omits the phrase "I pray thee" (3 of every 4 times this word occurs in Hebrew) and again in verse 2 and 12.
Both the NKJV and NIV unite in omitting the word "camels" once in v. 10.
Both the NASB and NIV omit the words "to look upon" in verse 16 "the damsel was very fair TO LOOK UPON." One of the reasons the KJB reads the "old fashioned way" it does is because God Himself wrote His words in this manner. The KJB is simply translating into English the words of God the way He inspired them. The modern versions are editing many of God's words as though they were unnecessary. Whether God approves of their editorializing His words will be revealed in the coming Day of judgment.
The NIV changes Laban to "he" in 24:29, omits "behold" while the NKJV wrongly translates it as "there", though the NASB, 1917, ASV etc. have "behold".
The NKJV, NASB and NIV all omit the little word BOTH in v. 44 "And she said to me, BOTH (#1571) drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels." This word "both" is in the ASV, 1917, Youngs. Darby's, Douay etc.
The NIV changes the literal "turn to THE RIGHT HAND OR TO THE LEFT" to "turn ONE WAY OR ANOTHER" and the NIV again changes the literal "we cannot speak unto thee BAD OR GOOD" to "we can say nothing to you". In verse 51 the NIV omits "behold" and "before thee" and in 52 omits "And it came to pass". The NASB update of 1995 also frequently omits this phrase in both the Hebrew and the Greek, though it was present in the 1977 edition.
In verse 55 we read Rebecca's brother and mother saying to the servant: "Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that SHE shall go". SHE is the reading of the NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV but the NIV says YOU may go, instead of SHE.
In verse 57 the literal "We will call the damsel, and enquire AT HER MOUTH" is the reading of the ASV, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Young's, Darby etc. but the NKJV has "ask her personally", the NIV "ask her about it" and the NASB "consult her wishes" all of which are paraphrases.
The NIV again omits "lifted up his eyes" and "behold" in verse 63 and "her eyes" in verse 64.
Now, we finally get to the main thing I want to address. In Genesis 24: 22,30 and 47 we read that the servant gave an EARRING to Rebecca and put the earring upon her face. In verse 47 we read of the servant of Abraham saying: "and I put THE EARRING UPON HER FACE, and the bracelets upon her hands."
Genesis 24:47 “earring upon her face” or “a nose ring on her nose”?
In the King James Holy Bible we read of the servant of Abraham traveling to a foreign land to find a virgin bride for Abraham’s son Isaac. The servant finds a young woman named Rebecca and he gives her “a golden EARRING and two bracelets for her hands” (24:20) Her brother Laban sees “the EARRING and bracelets upon his sister’s hands” (24:30) and the servant later testifies how the Lord God of his master Abraham had guided him and how he had “put the EARRING UPON HER FACE, and the bracelets upon her hands.” (Genesis 24:47)
"EARRING" is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534 - "And I put the earynge vpon hir face and the bracelettes apon hir hondes.", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "the man toke a golden earynge", Matthew's Bible 1549 - "he toke a golden earing", Bishops' Bible 1568 - "and I put the earring vpon her face", Webster's translation 1833, Brenton's Translation 1851, the Lesser Bible 1853, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 - "and I put on her the earrings" and the 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture.
However versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, RSV, ESV and NET translations tell us that the unnamed servant of Abraham didn’t give Rebeccah an EARRING but rather A NOSE RING to put in her nose.
Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both correct read "EARRING", but the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says: "Then I put this RING THROUGH HER NOSE". But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has now come out and it has gone back to the reading of "EARRINGS". -"And so, I hung the EARRINGS on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands."
The Amplified bible 1987 can't seem to make up its mind, so it gives us BOTH readings, saying: "And I put the EARRING OR NOSE RING on her face and the bracelets on her arms." (Hey, it was one or the other; I just can't remember right now ;-)
NKJV 1982 - “the man took a golden NOSE RING”...”So I put THE NOSE RING ON HER NOSE” - Genesis 24:22,47.
The Hebrew word for “face” (#639 aph) has many meanings and is variously translated by all versions as “face, anger, nostrils, nose, wrath and forehead.” The NKJV has translated this same word as “face” some 20 times, and the NIV, NASB as “face” 19 times.
The Hebrew word translated as “earring” is # 5141 neh-zem, and is used only 17 times and the KJB correctly translates it as “earring” 14 of the 17 times, and as “jewel” three times. It is never translated as “nose ring” in the KJB. The NKJV, NIV, NASB and ESV have translated it as both “earring” and “nose ring”, with the NKJV having “earring” 10 times, the NASB 7 times and the NIV as “earring” 6 times.
You have to admit, there is a difference when your wife or girlfriend wears earrings and when she might chose to wear a nose ring. So, does God’s infallible Book tell us that Rebecca wore an EARRING of gold on her face (***the ear is a part of the face) or “a NOSE RING IN HER NOSE”? If you do not believe in an infallible Bible, then you will never know.
Maybe it was as a couple of other weird versions put it. The English Jubilee bible 2000 says: "Then I put THE PENDANT OVER HER NOSE." or perhaps as the Ancient Roots Translinear Version of 2008 has it saying: “I set THE HOOP OVER HER NOSE, and the bracelets over her hands.” Now, that must have been a sight to see, huh?
***The ears are part of the human face.
American Heritage Dictionary - the face - The surface of the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin and from ear to ear.
Webster’s New World English Dictionary, 4th Edition. the Face - the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin, and from ear to ear; visage; countenance.
The Wordsmyth English Dictionary - the face -the part of the head that extends from the forehead to the chin and from ear to ear.
The UltraLingua English Dictionary - the face - The front of the head from the forehead to the chin and ear to ear
Because we Bible believers do believe that God has in fact given us an infallible Bible in the Authorized King James Holy Bible, we maintain that it was an earring and not a nose ring that Rebecca, the young bride to be, wore on that day.
Other Bible translations that agree with the KJB that it was an earring.
Wycliffe 1395 - “hangide eere ryngis to ourne (to adorn) hir face”
Tyndale 1534 (he translated part of the O.T. before being put to death) - “And I put the earynge vpon hir face”
Coverdale 1535 - “Then layed I the earinge vpon hir face”
The Great Bible (Cranmer) of 1540, and Matthew’s Bible (John Rogers) of 1549 - “And I put the earing vpon hyr face, and the bracelettes vpon hyr handes.”
Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “and I put the earring vpon her face, and the bracelettes vpon her handes.”
Webster’s 1833 translation, and the 1851 Brenton Translation - “and I put the ear-ring upon her face”
The Douay-Rheims - “So I put earrings on her to adorn her face”
Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “and I put the EARRINGS ON HER EARS and the bracelets on her hands.”
The so called Greek Septuagint has - “So I put on her the EARRINGS” (τὰ ἐνώτια) Verses 22, 30, 47.
And the Modern Greek translation reads the same having “I put the earrings on her face” - και περιεθεσα τα ενωτια εις το προσωπον αυτης
The 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version all read like the KJB.
The 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture - “and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.”
The 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - “And so, I hung the earrings on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands.”
This chapter again presents us with many examples of omissions, paraphrases and changed meanings in the modern versions.
In 25:6 we read: "But unto the sons of the concubines, which ABRAHAM had, ABRAHAM give gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, EASTWARD, unto the east country." Abraham occurs twice in this verse, but the NIV has changed one of them to HE and omitted the other. The NASB omits one of the two. The NIV likewise omits the word "eastward" though it is still in the NASB and NKJV.
In verse 7 the KJB, ASV and Jewish 1917 translations give the literal reading of: "And these are THE DAYS OF THE YEARS of Abraham's LIFE which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years." The literal phrase "days of the years" has been altered in the NKJV to "This is THE SUM of the years"; the NASB to: "these are ALL the years" and the NIV to: "ALTOGETHER (thus omitting the verb and the days of the years) Abraham lived 175 years" and it omits the word "life".
People often reply, Well the meaning is the same. Well, frequently it is not the same, but what I am pointing out is God used specific words to reveal Himself to us and what we see in the modern versions is a progressively blatant departure from these words. They edit out literally thousands of God given words and paraphrase them into their own words.
Most of the new versions are based on significantly different Greek texts in the New Testament than what the KJB uses. The NASB, ,NIV, RSV, NRSV and ESV frequently depart from the Hebrew text in the Old Testament and follow the Greek, Syriac, Vulgate and other sources. This is clearly wrong, yet many still defend these perversions.
I am not arguing for a 100% wooden, word for word translation in all cases. This is impossible and the meaning would be lost in some instances. But I am trying to show that the KJB is by far the best translation we have in the English language of what God actually inspired. We would do well to heed what the apostle said in I Corinthians 2:12, 13 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things we speak, NOT IN THE WORDS WHICH MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, BUT WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
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 the 1936 Jewish translation, the nkjv, the Douay, Spanish, KJV 21, Webster's Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and Young's.
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 "HE SETTLED IN DEFIANCE of all his relatives" (notice one is They and the other is 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, find another one you do like. No wonder people scoff at the idea of an inspired Bible. Is God really that confused?
Verse 21 tells us that "Isaac INTREATED the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD WAS INTREATED OF HIM, and Rebekah his wife conceived." Both intreat and was intreated of him are the same Hebrew word. The word means to intreat or to pray, and the second use of this verb, "was intreated of him", is a passive verb in the Hebrew and in the KJB. The versions that match the KJB are the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby's and others. However the NKJV changes this to an active and adds words saying the Lord "granted his plea", the NIV has "answered his prayer" and the NASB "answered him". The KJB is much more accurate.
Genesis 25:27 - "and Jacob was A PLAIN MAN, dwelling in tents."
A fellow King James Bible believer writes: “In a forum I am a member of that concern about different readings in the Bible a guy claimed that the KJV ignored the Hebrew in this verse, but instead followed the LXX. He says that the word "plain" is not in the Hebrew, but rather in the Greek. How do you see this? God bless you”
Another brother wrote me saying: "One of the elders of my church claims the KJV mistranslates Gen 25:27 by referring to Jacob as "plain." He claims the word should be translated “RIGHTEOUS”
I think the point he was trying to make is that Jacob was not a casper milktoast as the Bibles seem to depict him. I am researching this one, but wondered if you have any thoughts here as well. Best regards, Ron."
Hi Guys. Thanks for writing. This is the typical approach taken by the Bible agnostics, Bible correctors and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible. Each one sets up his own mind and personal preferences as his "final authority", subject to change at any moment.
Each one thinks he is smarter and more qualified than the 54 men God used to give us His masterpiece in the King James Bible.
So, they rummage through the lexicons and various readings to give us what they personally think are better ways to translate the Bible. But do any of them actually believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God? Of course not.
In any event, let's take a closer look at what others have done with this single Hebrew word and how others have translated it.
The word in question is # 8535 tahm. It is an adjective and it found 13 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is usually translated as “perfect”, as in Job 1:1 where Job is described as “that man was PERFECT and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.” It is also used in Psalm 37:37 “Mark the PERFECT man”
It can be translated as “UPRIGHT” - “The bloodthirsty hate the UPRIGHT” Proverbs 29:10 and “UNDEFILED” as in the Song of Solomon who describes his love as “my love, my dove, my UNDEFILED.”
The Bible critic is right in that the Greek Septuagint says Jacob was A SIMPLE MAN. But so does Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta. And so do many other English translations as well.
There is a wide variety of ways different Bibles translate this word here in the context of Genesis 25:27, and many of them agree with the sense found in the King James Bible.
Genesis 25:27 - "and Jacob was A PLAIN MAN, dwelling in tents."
As anybody who knows a minimal amount about languages, a single word can have multiple meanings depending on the changing contexts. Even the NASB concordance shows us that they have translated this single word as "blameless, complete, guiltless, integrity, peaceful, and perfect."
The NIV has "blameless, fitted, flawless, innocent, integrity, perfect, quiet, strong, and now "content". You will notice that neither of them has "righteous" as your Bible correcting elder humbly opines.
In Genesis 25:27 we are told that Jacob "was a PLAIN man, dwelling in tents."
“A PLAIN man”, that is ordinary, simple and common, is the reading of the Geneva Bible 1587 - " but Iaakob was a plaine man, and dwelt in tentes.", the Douay-Rheims 1582, Webster’s Bible 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - “Jacob was A PLAIN MAN”, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the English Revised Version 1885 - “Jacob was A PLAIN MAN”, Young’s 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Modern Reader’s Bible 1907, The Improved Bible 1913, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, The Douay Version 1950, the Amplified Bible 1987 - "a PLAIN and quiet man”, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “and Ya'akov (יעקב) was A PLAIN MAN, dwelling in tents.”, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “Jacob was A PLAIN MAN”, the BRG Bible 2012,
Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “and Ya'akov (יעקב) [was] A PLAIN MAN, dwelling in tents.”
The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1909 - “and Jacob was A PLAIN MAN, dwelling in tents.”
The Thomson Bible 1808 - “but Jacob was a man OF PLAIN MANNERS”
Darby's 1890 tells us he was "HOMELY"!!
Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Revised Version 1881 and the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible, God’s First Truth 1999, the Interlinear Hebrew- Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) have "Jacob was A SIMPLE MAN
But the Great Bible 1540, the ASV 1901, the 1917 JPS, the NIV 1978 and 1984 editions, the ESV 2001, New Jerusalem 1985, and the Holman Standard 2003 tell us "Jacob was A QUIET MAN, staying among the tents."
However the NIV 2011 revision now tells us "Jacob WAS CONTENT to stay at home among the tents."
The International Standard Version 2014 says: “but Jacob WAS THE QUIET TYPE WHO TENDED TO STAY INDOORS.”
The New Life Version 1969 - “Jacob was A MAN OF PEACE”
The Modern English Bible 2014 - “Jacob was A CALM MAN”
The NASB says he was a PEACEFUL man
the NKJV 1982 and The New Jewish Version 1985 have "he was a MILD man"
Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 has "a READY MAN"
New English Bible 1970 has "Jacob LED A SETTLED LIFE"
The Natural Israelite Bible says "Jacob was A MILD MAN"
the Jubilee Bible 2010 says "Jacob was AN UPRIGHT MAN"
the Judaica Press Tanach 2004 says "Jacob was AN INNOCENT MAN"
Dan Wallace's NET version says: "Jacob was AN EVEN-TEMPERED MAN"
The Koster Scriptures 1998 - Jacob was A COMPLETE MAN”
The New European Version 2010 - Jacob was A PERFECT MAN”
The Voice 2011 tells us "Jacob grew up to be A CONTEMPLATIVE MAN"
AND THE WINNER IS -
The Conservative Bible 2011 actually says: “Jacob became a MAN OF FLAWLESS SKIN, living in tents.”!!!
Or, in the case of your self appointed "every man thinks he's an expert" Bible Correctors Guild, they can just write their own bible version and be done with it.
As for me, I think I’ll stick to the tried and true King James Bible - “Jacob was a plain man”, and most of God’s people are too.
In Genesis 25:29 we are told that Jacob "sod POTTAGE". POTTAGE is not an archaic word. It means a soup of vegetables with or without meat. We are told that Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils. This was a vegetable soup of lentils without meat. Esau hunted for meat, but Jacob did not and Jacob was making this meal. Pottage is the reading of the 1917, 1936, Geneva, ASV, Youngs and even the RSV plus others.
But the NKJV, NIV and NASB all unite in saying STEW instead of pottage. So what is the difference" Well, stew does contain meat, while pottage of lentils does not. Just a little difference in meaning, but it shows the accuracy of God's word in the KJB.
Finally in this chapter in verses 31 and 33 Jacob says to his brother "Sell me THIS DAY thy birthright" and "Swear to me THIS DAY". Again this is the literal meaning of the words and is the reading of the NKJV, Young's and others, but the NASB and NIV have wrongly rendered "this day" as FIRST instead of "this day." The ASV also has "first" but then in a footnote tells us that the Hebrew reads "to day".
Genesis 26, 27
Again these chapters present us with many omissions and additions, particularly in the NIV, and a few examples of very different meanings. In verse 5 the literal: "Because that Abraham obeyed MY VOICE" is found in the ASV, the NKJV, 1917, Geneva, Young's but the NASB/NIV have changed "my voice" to ME. VOICE is the word in 3:8 where they heard the voice of the LORD God in the garden. God knows how to say voice and He knows how to say me, and He chose "my voice" here and not me.
In 7 both the NASB and NIV omit "she was fair TO LOOK UPON" which is in the ASV, 1917, NKJV etc.
The meaning is changed in verse 8 where we are told that Abimelech looked out at a window and say Isaac SPORTING with Rebekah his wife. Sporting is the reading of the ASV, 1917, Geneva and Young's has "playing". This word means to sport, play, mock or to laugh. Isaac was playing with his wife in such a way that Abimelech knew she was his wife. However the NKJV says Isaack was SHOWING ENDEARMENT TO her. The NASB/NIV have CARRESSING her. The meaning is not the same and the word does not mean this.
In 14 the word POSSESSION occurs twice as found in the ASV, Young's, 1917, NKJV etc. but the NASB omits one of the two and the NIV omits one and changes the other to MUCH. Many of these omissions and changes could be considered minor, and no translation is strictly literal in all cases, but I am showing that the KJB is far more literal and true to the Hebrew texts than any other version that is out there.
In 18 the word "names" is found twice in the Hebrew, and 1917, ASV, Young's, Darby and others in "and he called THEIR NAMES after the NAMES by which his father had called them." However the NKJV, NIV and NASB unite in omitting one of these two words.
In 26 Abimilech came to Isaac with one of his FRIENDS Ahuzzath. This word is found only 8 times and is rendered as friend or companion. Friend is the reading of the NKJV, ASV, Young, Geneva, 1917 etc. but in the NASB he becomes AN ADVISOR, and in the NIV a personal advisor, even though in all other instances the NASB and NIV have rendered this word as a friend or companion.
In 27 the FROM YOU has been omitted by the NIV alone in the phrase "and have sent me away FROM YOU." The NIV likewise changed HE to Isaac in 30.
The NASB omitted ONE TO ANOTHER in 31 where they sware one to another. "One to another" is found in the ASV, 1917, NKJV, Youngs and even in the NIV. The NASB says "they exchanged vows".
In chapter 27 the NIV does its usual thing of omitting the verb "and it came to pass" in verses 1 and 30, as it also did in 26:32. In verses 2, 3, and 4 the NIV changes HE to ISAAC, omits BEHOLD NOW, and I PRAY THEE, and instead of "that MY SOUL may bless thee", as in the NKJV, NASB, the NIV has "that I may give you my blessing." My soul changed to simply "I".
It is of interest that the KJB Old Testament contains the word SOUL 478 times, while that number has been diminished to 255 times in the NASB and the NIV has the word soul only 110 times, yet they are all translating (or not) the same Hebrew word. Other examples of this are in verses 19, 25 and 31 where the word soul has been changed to "I" or "you" in the NASB/NIV.
The NIV omits the word THEM in v. 9 "I will make THEM savory meat" referring back to the two good kids of the goats. THEM is in the Hebrew, the NASB and NKJV. The NIV changed HIS MOTHER to SHE in 14 and both the NASB and NIV omit the literal INTO THE HAND OF her son Jacob, though it is found in the ASV and NKJV.
In v. 30 the NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass", changed Jacob to HIM and omits ISAAC, though found in the NASB, NKJV. In 31 the NIV alone changed HIS FATHER to simply HIM.
In 36 both the NKJV and NIV changed HE to ESAU, though the Hebrew reads "he" and so too the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ASV etc.
The NIV omits the literal LIFTED UP HIS VOICE and wept of verse 38, though in the NASB, NKJV.
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. We read in 39 "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 the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, The Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Bible, the Geneva, Coverdale, Wycliffe, Bishops' bibles, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera, Douay, Darby and Young's. However beginning with the RSV and now continuing with the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman, 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.
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."
For a much more detailed study of Genesis 27:39 see -
The meaning of Genesis 27:40 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."
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?
In 41 the NIV again changes Esau to he, and the NASB/NIV change the literal "said IN HIS HEART" which is the reading of the ASV, 1917, NKJV to "HE said WITHIN HIMSELF". The NIV omits BEHOLD and AS TOUCHING THEE from verse 42, and in 43 changed the literal OBEY MY VOICE to "do what I say" and omitted the word ARISE, which verb it omits 64 times from the Hebrew text, according to their own NIV concordance.
In 44 the NIV changes the literal phrase A FEW DAYS, which is the reading of the NASB, NKJV, ASV, 1917 etc. to A WHILE.
This is the pattern throughout the entire Bible. The NASB and NIV are among the most corrupt perversions of God's words on the market today. The NASB is fast fading from public interest and is being replaced by the NIV, which is even worse than the NASB. This is the state of modern Christianity at the beginning of the 21st century. The falling away from the faith is in full swing.
Genesis 29, 30
For the time being at least, I want to change the format of this study in Genesis. I will show some of the changes made in the translations of the NKJV, NASB and NIV and then concentrate on the most noteworthy changes in meaning.
The NKJV changes the word "Behold", as it often does, in verse 2. "And he looked, and BEHOLD, a well in the field, and LO, there were three flocks of sheep lying by it." These words Behold and Lo are interjections in Hebrew and in English, they are not verbs. The NIV has edited out this word some 550 times in the O.T. The NKJV has frequently mistranslated it as "indeed, there, now, and then" etc. but also correctly translated it as Behold in many other places. Here the NKJV has one correct as Behold but along with the NASB has translated one of them as the verb "and saw". The NIV simply omitted them both.
In verse 23 the NKJV put in JACOB for the Hebrew word HIM and did the same in verse 30 with no footnotes. Then again in 30:29 changed HE to Jacob, but says in the footnote that the Hebrew reads HE. In 30:33 the NKJV changes the literal "it shall come for my hire before THY FACE" to "before ME". Again, as I have said before, I am not arguing for a 100% literal translation, but it is frequently said that the NASB is more literal than the KJB. This is a lie. The KJB is by far a more literal translation than any of the modern versions in common use today.
The NASB changed the literal word BROTHER to RELATIVE, along with the NKJV and NIV in verse 12. "Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother." The Hebrew uses the word brother in a variety of ways, and often does mean a family realtive of any kind. The Hebrew also uses the words Father and Son in the same way, as so and so was the son of David, yet he is many generations removed from David. This is a Hebrew flavor that is consistently retained in the KJB but is frequently lost in the newer versions.
It is better to translate what God literally inspired, that is the word brother, and then explain its use, than it is to change in the text what God actually said. Brother is the reading of the Jewish translations, Young's, the ASV, Geneva Bible etc.
In 30:1 the NASB substitues SHE for the literal "RACHEL envied her sister".
Genesis 30:11 KJB - "And Leah said, A TROOP COMETH; and she called his name Gad."
NASB, NET - "Then Leah said, "HOW FORTUNATE!" So she named him Gad."
ESV, RSV - "And Leah said, “GOOD FORTUNE HAS COME!” so she called his name Gad."
NIV, Holman - " Then Leah said, “WHAT GOOD FORTUNE!” So she named him Gad."
Names of God Bible 2011 - "Leah said, "I'VE BEEN LUCKY!" So she called him Gad [Luck].
There are several problems with these new versions. Some very unbiblical words are being introduced into the modern bibles that are not found at all in the KJB. Words like Destiny, Luck, Fortune, Fortunate, and Fate. These are all pagan concepts and are not found in the King James Bible.
"FORTUNATE" NASB, ESV, NIV - Acts 26:2 - ""In regard to all the things of which I am accused by the Jews, I consider myself FORTUNATE, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today" KJB - HAPPY
ESV - Ecclesiastes 4:2 "And I thought the dead who are already dead more FORTUNATE than the living who are still alive.
ESV, NASB, NIV Isaiah 65:11 - "But you who forsake the Lord, who forget my holy mountain, who set a table for FORTUNE and fill cups of mixed wine for DESTINY." KJB - THAT TROOP - THAT NUMBER.
Destiny in the NIV - 7 times - Psalm 73:17 - "till I entered the sanctuary of God; then I understood their final DESTINY.", Ecclesiastes 7:2 - "for death is the DESTINY of everyone", Ecclesiastes 9:2 -"All share a common DESTINY—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.", Ecclesiastes 9:3 The same DESTINY overtakes all.", Isaiah 65:11, Phillipians 3:19 - "Their DESTINY is destruction, their god is their stomach"
NIV 16 times - Numbers 16:29 "If these men die a natural death and suffer the FATE of all mankind, then the Lord has not sent me.", Esther 7:7, Job 12:5, Job 18:20, Job 20:29 - "Such is the FATE God allots the wicked, the heritage appointed for them by God.”, Job 21:17, Job 27: 13 - "“Here is the FATE God allots to the wicked, the heritage a ruthless man receives from the Almighty", Job 27:14, Psalm 49:3 "This is the FATE of those who trust in themselves", Ecclesiastes 2:14, 15; 3:19 - "Surely the FATE of human beings is like that of the animals; the same FATE awaits them both", Isaiah 14:16 " they ponder your FATE: “Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble", Jeremiah 49:20 and 50:45 - "The young of the flock will be dragged away; their pasture will be appalled at their FATE."
NASB 9 times - Numbers 16:29 ""If these men die the death of all men or if they suffer the FATE of all men, then the LORD has not sent me.", Job 18:20, Ecclesiastes 2:14, 15; 3:19 "For the FATE of the sons of men and the FATE of beasts is the same.", Ecclesiastes 9:2,3, and Luke 13:2 " And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this FATE?"
ESV 5 times - Numbers 16:20, Psalm 81:15 "Those who hate the Lord would cringe toward him, and their FATE would last forever.", Jeremiah 49:20, 50:45 "surely their fold shall be appalled at their FATE." and Lamentations 3:51 "my eyes cause me grief at the FATE of all the daughters of my city."
LUCKY The Message has the word LUCKY in it some 22 times!
Here are just a few of them - Genesis 30:11, 35:4, Deuteronomy 33:29 " LUCKY Israel! Who has it as good as you? A people saved by GOD! ", 1 Kings 10:8; 2 Chronicles 9:7; Psalm 10:6 and 14 "But you know all about it-- the contempt, the abuse. I dare to believe that the luckless will get LUCKY someday in you. You won't let them down: orphans won't be orphans forever.", Psalm 32:1, 2 " Count yourself LUCKY-- GOD holds nothing against you and you're holding nothing back from him.", Psalm 41:2, Proverbs 22:26, Isaiah 7:21, Ecclesiastes 7:26 " A woman can be a bitter pill to swallow, full of seductive scheming and grasping. The LUCKY escape her; the undiscerning get caught.", Ecclesiastes 10:17 "LUCKY the land whose king is mature", Isaiah 7:21, 30:18 "GOD takes the time to do everything right--everything. Those who wait around for him are the LUCKY ones.", Isaiah 7:21, 30:18, Jeremiah 8:2, Zechariah 8:10, 11:5, Malachi 3:15 and Mark 10:49 "Jesus stopped in his tracks. "Call him over." They called him. "It's your LUCKY day! Get up! He's calling you to come!"
Secondly, the Hebrew here is composed of two main words "a troop" - and in the margin of the KJB is tells us that Gad means "a troop, or a company", and the verb "cometh" #935. This verb is used in hundreds of places in the O.T. But neither the NASB nor the NIV or Holman translated the verb at all. The ESV at least put the verb in there, but there is no word for "good" and "troop" is not the same thing as "Fortune".
Other translations that are like the the King James Bible or similar to it are the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Then sayd Leah, A COMPANIE COMMETH: and she called his name, Gad.", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible - "And Leah said, A TROOP COMETH, and she called his name Gad.", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 - "And Leah said, "A troop cometh." And she called his name Gad [that is, A troop or company].", the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the French Martin 1744 - "Et Léa dit : Une troupe est arrivée, c'est pourquoi elle le nomma Gad.", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida E Fiel 1681 - "Ento, disse Lia: Vem uma turba; e chamou o seu nome de Gade."
John Gill comments: "And Leah said, a troop cometh,.... A troop of children, having bore four herself, and now her maid another, and more she expected; or the commander of a troop cometh, one that shall head an army and overcome his enemies; which agrees with the prophecy of Jacob, Genesis 49:19, and she called his name Gad: which signifies a "troop", glorying in the multitude of her children, that she had or hoped to have."
Matthew Henry comments: "Two sons Zilpah bore to Jacob, whom Leah looked upon herself as entitled to, in token of which she called one Gad (Genesis 30:11), promising herself a little troop of children and children are the militia of a family, they fill the quiver, Psalm 127:4,5. "
Adam Clarke comments: "She called his name Gad - This has been variously translated. גד (gad), may signify a troop, an army... which we translate a troop cometh...The Septuagint translate it εν τυχη , with good fortune; the Vulgate, feliciter, happily; but in all this diversity our own translation may appear as probable as any, if not the genuine one."
The Pulpit Commentaries - "The Authorised rendering, supported by the Samaritan, and supposed to accord better with Genesis 49:19, is approved by Calvin, Ainsworth, Bush, and others. And she called his name Gad"
In 30:27 instead of the literal "If I have found favor in thine eyes" , which is the reading of even the NIV and the ASV and the NKJV, the NASB has "IF IT PLEASES YOU" but then in a footnote says it literally reads as does the KJB. And in 30:33 the NASB alters the "before thy face" to "when you come". What is being lost in the newer translations are the Hebraisms and Jewish flavor of the Old Testament. These so called "antiquated" expressions of the KJB are there because it is a Jewish book and the KJB alone retains these Hebrew inspired expressions far more than the modern counterparts.
It gets really old talking about the NIV perversions. The NIV has altered the text so much, that it becomes boringly repetitive to mention them all. In verses 3 and 4 it alone changes the words "they" and "them" to "the shepherds", it adds the word YES, to "We know him" in v. 5. Changes the literal "Lo, it is high DAY" to "the SUN is still high" in v. 7.
Then the NIV goes on to omit "his mother's brother", changes the literal "of Laban his mother's brother" to simply "HIS UNCLE" omitting the words Laban, mother and brother, and changes JACOB to HE all in verse 10.
The NIV omits "lifted up his voice" in 11, and in 13 changes He to JACOB, and then LABAN to HE. The NIV does this type of thing literally hundreds of times where when God gives us a specific name the NIV makes it he, she or him etc. and when God says He, She or Her, the NIV gives us a specific name. For more instances of this see 29:15, 23, 25, 28, 30, and in Chapter 30 verses 1, 2, 5, 22 where the NIV puts He instead of the word GOD, and 29.
In verse 14 Laban says to Jacob "Surely thou art my BONE and MY FLESH". The NIV alone changed this to "my FLESH AND BLOOD." This may sound modern, but it is not what God inspired here. The words are clearly BONE AND FLESH, not flesh and blood.
In 30:2 Jacob says: Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee THE FRUIT OF THE WOMB." The niv changed this to "from having children" and in verse 3 the literal "she shall bear UPON MY KNEES" to "bear children for me". The word is knee as in "every knee shall bow" Isaiah 45:23.
Some very unbiblical words are being introduced into the modern bibles that are not found at all in the KJB. Words like Destiny, Fortune, Fortunate, and Fate. These are all pagan concepts and are not found in the KJB. In 30:11 when Leah bears Gad she says: "A TROOP COMETH". This is the reading of the 1936 Jewish translation, the NKJV, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's Bible and Young's.
However the NIV says: "WHAT GOOD FORTUNE" and the NASB "HOW FORTUNATE". The NIV introduces the words Destiny and Destined 20 times, Fortune or Fortunate 23 times, and Fate 13 times. Look in their concordance. The NASB likewise has Destiny or Destined 8 times, Fate 8 times and Fortune or Fortunate 21 times. And the NKJV introduces Fate twice and Destiny once and destined twice.
Another significant change in meaning is found in 29:17 where Leah is described in this manner. "Leah was TENDER eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured." Tender eyed would mean she has soft, caring, compassionate eyes. This is the reading of the ASV, Darby, Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish translation, and Young's translation.
However the NKJV says her eyes were delicate. I have heard of delicate hands or fingers or a delicate disposition, but not "delicate eyes". The NIV, RSV and NASB are far worse and they say "her eyes WERE WEAK". WEAK eyes? You mean, she needed glasses? Is that it? The NRSV says her eyes were "lovely". Yet the same NASB has translated this exact word as "tender" 4 times and the NIV 5 times.
One last change in meaning to be noted here is in verses 29:31, 33 where it says "the LORD saw that Leah was HATED." The word is clearly "hated" as in Gen. 37:5, 8 "they hated him yet the more"; "the image which the Lord thy God hateth", "I hate them with perfect hatred" etc. Hated is the reading of the 1917 Jewish translation, the ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Darbys, and even the RSV of 1952, but the NKJV, NIV and NASB all unite in saying she was NOT LOVED. There is a difference between not loving something and hating it.
Genesis 30:27 KJB, NKJV - And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I HAVE LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.”
ESV, NIV, NET, (NASB - divined), Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Modern English Version 2014, modern Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 -
“But Laban said to him, “If I have found favor in your sight, I HAVE LEARNED BY DIVINATION that the Lord has blessed me because of you.”
The Living Bible 1971 - “for A FORTUNE-TELLER THAT I CONSULTED told me that the many blessings I’ve been enjoying are all because of your being here.”
Updated bible version 2004 - “for I HAVE USED MAGIC and found that Yahweh has blessed me for your sake.”
The Catholic Versions
The previous Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay 1950 both read like the KJB with “I have LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE that the Lord hath blessed thee.”
But the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 now read like the ESV, NIV, NASB and say: “I have learned BY DIVINATION”
Other versions. Dan Wallace’s NET version says “I have learned by DIVINATION that the Lord has blessed me on account of you.” But he then footnotes - “Or perhaps, “I have grown rich and the Lord has blessed me.” Then he refers to the New English Bible 1971.
I have a copy of the NEB and that is basically what it says. It reads: “I have become prosperous and the LORD has blessed me for your sake.” Nothing about “divination” or even “experience”.
The Amplified bible 1987 covers all the bases and says: “for I have LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE FROM THE OMENS IN DIVINATION that the Lord has favored me with blessings on your account.”
JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 - “I have observed the signs, and the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake.”
Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, God’s First Truth 1999 - “for I SUPPOSE THAT the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.”
Young’s literal 1898 - “I have OBSERVED DILIGENTLY THAT…”
The New Life Version1969 - “I HAVE LEARNED THAT the Lord has brought good to me because of you."
Easy to Read Version 2001 and the International Children’s Bible 2015 - “I KNOW the Lord has blessed me because of you.”
Individual words, both in Hebrew and English and all languages can have multiple different meanings depending on the context.
"I HAVE LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE..."
Agreeing with the sense of the King James Bible are Wycliffe’s Bible 1395 - “Y haue lerned bi EXPERIENCE that God blesside me for thee.”, Coverdale 1535 “I perceive that…”, The Bishops’ bible 1568 “I have PROVED that the Lord blessed me”, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “I have perceived that…”, Webster’s Bible 1833 - “I have learned by experience”, the Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Lesser Bible 1853 - “I have learned by experience that…”, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862 - “I have learned by experience”, the Sharpe Bible 1883 - “I have learned for certain that…”, Darby 1890 - “I have discovered that…”, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “I have proven by experience”, the NKJV 1982, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “I HAVE LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE…”, The Word of Yah 1993 - “I have learned by experience that…”, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “I have DILIGENTLY WATCHED that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, A Conservative Version 2005, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, the Jubilee Bible 2010 - “I have learned by experience…”, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “I have LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE that YHWH (יהוה) has blessed me for your sake.”, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “I have LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE that…”
The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010
“I have learned by experience that YHWH (יהוה) has blessed me for your sake.”
The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907
“I have learned by experience that the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake.”
And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "I have learned BY EXPERIENCE..."
Foreign Language Bibles
The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 all read like the KJB - “HE EXPERIMENTADO que Jehová me ha bendecido por tu causa.” = “I HAVE EXPERIENCED that Jehovah has blessed me for your sake.”
Spanish Jubilee Bible 2010 - “Y Labán le respondió: Halle yo ahora gracia en tus ojos, HE EXPERIMENTADO que el SEÑOR me ha bendecido por tu causa.” = “I have EXPERIENCED that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”
The French Martin Bible 1744 has - “j'ai reconnu que l'Eternel m'a béni à cause de toi.” = “I RECOGNIZED that the Lord has blessed me because of you.”
The French Louis Second 2007 says “J'ai appris que l'Eternel m'avait béni à cause de toi.” = “I have LEARNED that…”
The Portuguese Almeida Corrigenda 2009 reads like the KJB with “TENHO EXPERIMENTADO que o Senhor me abençoou por amor de ti.” = “I HAVE EXPERIENCED that…”
The Italian Diodati 1649 has: “Io ho veduto che il Signore mi ha benedetto per cagion tua.” = “I HAVE SEEN THAT the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”
Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Laban sprach zu ihm: Laß mich Gnade vor deinen Augen finden. Ich spüre, daß mich der HERR segnet um deinetwillen." = "I FEEL THAT the Lord will bless me for thy sake."
The Czech Kralicka Bible - " skutku jsem poznal, že požehnal mi Hospodin pro tebe." = "I KNOW that the Lord has blessed me for your sake"
The Russian Synodal Bible - "я примечаю, что за тебя Господь благословил меня." = "I HAVE NOTICED that the Lord has blessed me for your sake."
Veren’s Contemporary Bulgarian Bible 2009 - “защото разбрах, че ГОСПОД ме е благословил заради теб.” = “I REALIZE THAT the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”
The Finnish Bible 1776 - “ minä ymmärrän, että Herra on siunannut minun sinun tähtes.” = “I UNDERSTAND that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”
The Modern Greek Bible also reads like the KJB - “εγνωρισα εκ πειρας, οτι ο Κυριος με ευλογησεν εξ αιτιας σου.” = “I have KNOWN BY EXPERIENCE that the Lord has blessed me for your sake."
Genesis 30:27 - the Bible Commentators
Bible commentators, like bible versions, are often all over the board. What one affirms, another just as adamantly denies. But here are a few to consider -
John Calvin explains the two views - “Moreover, as the word נחש (nachash,) among the Hebrews, means to know by auguries or by divination, some interpreters imagine that Laban, having been instructed in magic arts, found that the presence of Jacob was useful and profitable to him. Others, however, expound the words more simply, as meaning that HE HAD PROVED IT TO BE SO BY EXPERIMENT."
Adam Clarke Commentary - “I have learned by experience - נחשתי nichashti, from נחש nachash, to view attentively, to observe, to pry into. I have diligently considered the whole of thy conduct, and marked the increase of my property, and find that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.”
John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible - “for I have learned by experience; by the observations made in the fourteen years past”
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “He had found, from long observation, that the blessing of heaven rested on Jacob, and that his stock had wonderfully increased under Jacob's management.”
Matthew Henry - “I have learned by experience that the Lord has blessed me for thy sake. Observe, 1. Laban's learning: I have learned by experience. Note, There is many a profitable good lesson to be learned by experience. We are very unapt scholars if we have not learned by experience the evil of sin, the treachery of our own hearts, the vanity of the world, the goodness of God, the gains of godliness, and the like.”
The NKJV - 30:1 "And HE heard the words of Laban's sons..." The NKJV along with the NIV and NASB change He to Jacob. Jacob is not in the Hebrew text. The ASV, Geneva Bible, 1917 etc. read as the KJB. In this same verse the first use of the word GLORY is found in "and of that which was our father's hath he gotten all this GLORY." The word means glory or honor and is used in Ex. 11:7 "ye shall see the glory of the LORD" and in Ps. 24 "the king of glory shall come in".
The NKJV joins the NASB/NIV in rendering this word as WEALTH. Glory involves a lot more than just wealth, and wealth is a different word in Hebrew and English. This same word is used in Gen. 45:13 where Joseph tells his brothers "ye shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt". It was not just that he was rich but had attained a position of power. In 45:13 the NKJV got it right, but not in 30:1.
Again some of the Hebrew flavor is lost in the NKJV in verse 21 where it joins the NIV in changing the phrase that Jacob "rose up, and passed over the river, and SET HIS FACE toward the mount Gilead." "Set his face" is the literal Hebrew and the reading of the NASB, 1917, Geneva, ASV etc. but the NKJV/NIV say he "HEADED toward the mountains of Gilead."
The NKJV, along with the NIV/NASB is in error in verse 25 when we compare it with verse 54. The KJB and the 1917 Jewish translation, the ASV, Geneva and others read: "Now Jacob had pitched his tent in THE MOUNT (singular) and Laban with his brethren pitched in the MOUNT of Gilead."
The NKJV, NIV and NASB all say: "in the MOUNTAINS (plural) and in the mountainS of Gilead." Yet when we read verse 54 Jacob and Laban are in the same place and "Then Jacob offered sacrifice upon THE MOUNT, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread and tarried all night IN THE MOUNT." Only one mountain - not many. Mount Gilead. The NASB/NKJV here read mountain twice, while the NIV has mountain and for the second word "mountain" substitutes the word "there".
The NKJV unites with the NASB and NIV in omitting the word HAND in v. 29 where Laban says to Jacob: "It is in the power of MY HAND to do you hurt." In fact, the NIV concordance shows the NIV has not translated this word 78 times when it occurs in the Hebrew text.
Again, the NKJV mistranslates the interjection BEHOLD as HERE IS twice in verse 51 "And Laban said to Jacob, Behold, this heap, and Behold this pillar, which I have cast up betwixt ME and THEE." Also the NKJV follows the NIV again and reverses the order of the words "me and thee" to "you and me".
So far I have found 4 places where the NKJV reverses the Hebrew word order in this manner. See 16:5; 31:44 and 51; and 37:10. This is a minor thing, but as I go through the NKJV and mark every departure from the KJB I believe the estimates are correct that the NKJV differs from the KJB in at least 100,000 words, and that is not counting the "thee, ye, thou" and the verb endings of "eth". The NKJV should never have carried the name of New King James Version. The N really stands for NOT KJB. It is a false bible and contains numerous theological and translational errors.
The NASB puts Jacob for HE in 31:1 and along with the NIV alters the literal and easy to understand phrase in verses 2 and 5. In the KJB and the ASV, Geneva, 1917, NKJV etc. we read Jacob speaking concerning Laban: "I see your father's COUNTENANCE, that it is not toward me as before."
The NASB and NIV say: "I see your father's ATTITUDE..." yet the NASB footnote says Literally - face. The word countenance, which simply means face, is not archaic and it is often found in the NASB, NKJV and is even in the NIV.
The NIV does its usual thing of changing proper names to he, him or she, and changes she, he or him to proper names in verses 1, 35, 36, 46, 54 and 55. The NIV also omits "the words of" in verse 1, the NIV concordance shows they have not translated this word for WORD 48 times when found in the Hebrew text, "thine eyes" in 12, one of the 36 times it omits this word EYES, omits ROSE UP in 17 and 55, OF HIS GETTING in 18, changes the literal WITH THE SWORD to in WAR in v. 26, omits HAND in verses 29 and 39, STOLEN in 39 and a whole scattering of the word BEHOLD.
A significant change of meaning is found in the NKJV, NASB and NIV in verse 28 where a "man" wrestled with Jacob till the breaking of the day and changed his name from Jacob to Israel. In 28 we read: "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for AS A PRINCE HAST THOU POWER with God and with men, and hast prevailed." This is the meaning found in the 1936 Jewish translation, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, Webster's translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century. The name Israel is composed of two words - God and to rule or have power (like a prince). In fact the name Sarah comes from the same word used in "as a prince hast thou power" and her name means princess.
The NKJV joins the NIV in saying: "YOU HAVE STRUGGLED with God and with men" while the NASB says: "you have STRIVEN with God." The modern versions focus on Jacob resisting God while the KJB shows God's grace in empowering Jacob to prevail to receive a blessing in spite of his own weakness and sin.
Genesis 31:34 - "the camel's FURNITURE"
In Genesis 31:34 we read: "Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's FURNITURE, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not."
This particular Hebrew word is only used a few times, but is has a wide variety of totally different meaning. It is # 3733 kar, and it translated as "furniture", lambs, pastures, large pastures, rams, and even as "captains".
Some Bible critics have complained about the KJB's use of the word "furniture" instead of things like "saddle" or "saddlebag" or "packs" or "cushion" (The New Jewish Version 1985).
But there is nothing wrong or inaccurate about the King James Bible. We just have to look up the meaning of the word "furniture".
The word furniture itself has several meanings. It can mean "the movable things in a room, like a sofa, chairs, tables, beds, etc.". But it also can refer to "the necessary equipment of a machine, ship, trade, etc." And the more archaic meaning of "furniture" is "all articles necessary to equip a man and horse, as armor, harness, etc." Webster's New World Dictionary.
Wiktionary furniture - 2. "The harness, trappings, etc. of a horse, hawk or other animal."
American Heritage Dictionary - furniture - (archaic) - "Necessary equipment, as for a saddle horse or sailing ship."
Collins English Dictionary - "the full armor, trappings, etc. for a man and horse."
Actually the KJB was the first English Protestant Bible to use the word "furniture" here in Genesis 31:34. Previous English bibles like Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 and the Bishops' bible 1568 read "the camel's STRAW", while the Geneva bible 1587 had "the camel's LITTER." So this was a deliberate change made by the KJB translators.
Not only does the KJB say "the camel's FURNITURE" but so too do The Douay-Rheims 1582, The Bill Bible 1671, The Thomson Translation 1808, The Webster Bible 1833, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the English Revised Version 1885, Young's literal 1898, the American Douay-Rheims version 1899, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "the camel's FURNITURE", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, The Douay Version 1950, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Work of God's Children bible 2011, and The Bond Slave Version 2012.
The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010 -
“Now Rachel (רחל) had taken the images, and put them in the camel's FURNITURE, and sat upon them.”
The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “the camel’s FURNITURE”
And this online Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - "the camel's FURNITURE"
Genesis 33, 34
The NKJV: The NKJV does this type of thing quite frequently, but not near as often as the NIV. In verse 8 the KJB and the Hebrew read "And HE said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met?" The NKJV, along with the NIV says: ESAU, with no italics, though it is not in the text or the NASB. The NKJV does the same thing in verses 12 where it joins the NASB and NIV in again changing the Hebrew HE to ESAU, with no italics, and in 13 the NKJV along with the NIV changes HE to JACOB.
The NKJV again joins the NASB, NIV, RSV in changing the meaning of verse 18. In the KJB we read: "And Jacob came TO SHALEM, A CITY OF SHECHEM, which is in the land of Canaan...and pitched his tent before the city." Shechem was the name of the son of Hamor (verse 19 and the whole next chapter tells us of how Shechem lay with Dinah their sister and wanted to marry her.) In the KJB and in the 1936 Jewish translation, Young's, Douay, the ASV and Darby footnotes, and even the LXX Shalem is a city that belongs to Shechem.
We further read in 34:20 and 24 of Hamor and his son Shechem going to the gate of THEIR city, and unto Hamor and Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of HIS city.
However, the NKJV, NIV, NASB have not translated Shalem as the name of a city but rather have rendered it as "safely". Thus we read in the NKJV: "Then Jacob came SAFELY to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan.."
In 34:22 the NKJV joins the NIV in omitting two words found in the Hebrew text, the 1917, Youngs, Geneva and even the NASB. "Only herein will the men consent UNTO US for to dwell with us, to be one people..."
The NASB: In verse 33:6 the NASB joins the NIV in omitting the word THEY in "Then the handmaidens came near, THEY and their children, and they bowed themselves." This "they" is in the Hebrew, the NKJV and the ASV plus others.
In 34:3 we read of Shechem regarding Dinah the literal KJB, ASV, Young's, Geneva, 1917, and nkjv: "And HIS SOUL CLAVE unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel. and spake kindly unto THE DAMSEL." Here the NASB paraphrases as: "And HE WAS DEEPLY ATTRACTED to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly TO HER." The word is damsel, or girl, but not "her".
In 34:30 we read of Jacob saying: "and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me." "I" is the reading of the Jewish translations, the NKJV, Geneva, Youngs etc. but the NASB says: "MY MEN being few in number" while the niv says: "WE are few in number".
The NIV as usual changes definite names to he, she, him or her, and changes he, she, him or her to a definite name in verses 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, and in 34: 7 and 18. The NIV omits "lifted up his eyes" in verse 1, changes the literal "FELL on his neck" to "threw his arms around his neck" in v. 4, omits "eyes" in 5, "they" in 6, "name" in 17.
In chapter 34 the NIV changes the literal DAUGHTER to "sister" though it does note in the footnote the Hebrew says "daughter", omits "unto us" and "circumcised" in v. 22, and in v. 26 where we read: "And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with THE EDGE OF the sword" the NIV, along with the liberal RSV, omits all 34 times this Hebrew expression occurs, which is found in the NASB, NKJV and the Jewish translations.
Genesis 35, 36, 37
Tne NKJV: In both verses 4 and 8 we read of an OAK tree where Jacob hid the strange gods and earrings of his children, and another OAK under which Deborah Rebekah's nurse was buried after she died. OAK is the reading of even the nasb, niv, Geneva, Young's, the ASV and the RSV. However the NKJV tells us in both verses of the TEREBINTH tree.
In verse 11 there is a quite common word which all the new versions have frequently mistranslated. The word is LOINS. Even though the NIV, NKJV and NASB still contain the word "loins" in other places, they very often have mistranslated it. The word loins has two meanings. One is the area on both sides of the spine between the ribs and the hipbones, and the other is the genital and pubic area of the human body.
In verse 11 we read of God telling Jacob: "be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy LOINS. LOINS is the reading of the Jewish translations, Youngs, the ASV, Geneva Bible and others, but the NKJV and NIV say BODY, which is a different word and the NASB says: "FROM YOU".
The NKJV has often mistranslated or paraphrased this expression. In Exodus 1:5 we read "All the the SOULS THAT CAME OUT OF THE LOINS of Jacob were seventy SOULS." But the NKJV reads: "All THOSE (instead of the literal souls) WHO WERE DESCENDANTS of Jacob were seventy PERSONS." Then in a footnote the NKJV tells us the literal Hebrew is "who came from the loins of".
In Job 31:20 we read Job saying: "If his LOINS have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep;", but the NKJV joins the NIV in mistranslating this word as HEART. The NKJV footnote tells us the word is literally LOINS, and even the NASB has loins here.
Genesis 37:3 "a coat of many colors"
One Bible critic wrote us in our Facebook forum King James Bible Debate saying: "Anyone who tells you that the King James Version is 100% accurate is not telling the truth. Joseph's coat was LONG SLEEVED in the Hebrew version but the King James version said it was multicolored. The great thing out of that is that we have Joseph and the Techi-coloured dream coat musical!!!" (End of bible critics 'deep thoughts')
As for Genesis 37:3 as it stands in the King James Bible - "he made him a coat of many colors" - it is really silly and superficial to claim there is an error here in the KJB. Versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV and NET versions, all of which disagree with the KJB reading, all tell us in their footnotes: "The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain."
So, not even the scholars behind these corrupt Vatican Versions know what the Hebrew expression means. They just changed it from the KJB reading so they can be different and get a copyright for their work.
There are many Bible translations in multiple languages that translate it just as it stands in the King James Bible. We will get to those in a moment. But first, let's look at the wild variety of ways some versions have translated what this piece of clothing was that Jacob gave to his favorite son Joseph.
Darby 1890 - "A VEST of many colors" Youngs 1898 "A LONG coat" RSV - "a LONG ROBE WITH SLEEVES" NIV 1984 edition - "a RICHLY ORNAMENTED ROBE." NIV 2011 edition - "AN ORNATE ROBE", J.P. Green's - "a LONG COAT REACHING TO HIS FEET." The 2011 Common English Bible says: "Jacob made for him a LONG ROBE." and then it Footnotes: "Hebrew uncertain." Dan Wallace's NET version has - "and he made A SPECIAL TUNIC for him."
The only one so far in this list that says what our Bible critic says it should be is the Liberal RSV with its "a long robe with sleeves." I did find another one like this. It's called the Lexham English Bible. It came out in 2012 and says: "And he made a robe with long sleeves[a] for him." But then it Footnotes OR "of many colors".
Agreeing with the King James Bible are the following - Wycliffe 1395 - "and he made to Joseph a cote of many colors.", Tyndale 1834 - "and he made him a coote of many coloures.", Coverdale 1535 - "and he made him a cote of many coloures.", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1582, Webster's Bible 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901 - "and he made him a coat of many colors.", the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917, 1936 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2010.
The Jewish Virtual Library Complete Tanach 1994 - "he made him A COAT OF MANY COLORS"
The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "he made him A COAT OF MANY COLOURS"
Several others give a very similar meaning - the NKJV has "a tunic of many colors", NASB he made him a varicolored tunic", Douay and New Life Version 1969 "a long coat of many colors." The 2012 Natural Israelite Bible has "he made him a tunic of many colors." and two of the latest to come down the pike are the Holman Standard and the ESVs 2001-2011 which have" a robe of many colors".
Foreign language translations that read just like the KJB's "a coat of many colors" are the so called Greek Septuagint, and the Modern Greek Bible - "και εκαμεν εις αυτον χιτωνα ποικιλοχρωμον.", Luther's German Bible 1545 - " und machte ihm einen bunten Rock." = "he made him a coat of many colors", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 y le hizo una ropa de diversos colores.", the French Ostervald 1996 - "et il lui fit une robe de diverses couleurs.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and Almeida Corregida - "e fez-lhe uma túnica de várias cores.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "e gli fece una giubba vergata." = "he made him a coat of many colors.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling - "en hij maakte hem een veelvervigen rok." = "he made him a coat of many colors.", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "en hy het vir hom 'n lang rok met moue gemaak." = "he made him a coat of many colors." and the Czeck BKR Bible - "A udělal mu sukni proměnných barev."
The Hebrew words to describe Joseph's coat of many colors is used on 5 times. We find it here 3 times in Genesis 37:3, 23 and 32. And again in 2 Samuel 13:18 and 19 where Tamar, one of king David's daughters, also wore "A GARMENT OF DIVERSE COLORS."
So when some bible corrector like this tells you in no uncertain terms that the King James Bible is in error, just realize that none of these Bible Critics actually believes that ANY Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God, and most of them have no clue what they are talking about.
In Job 38:3 and 40:7 the LORD tells Job "GIRD UP THY LOINS NOW like a man" and this is also the reading of the NASB, but the NKJV again joins the NIV with "now prepare yourself like a man." In Psalms 66:11 instead of the KJB's "thou laidest affliction upon our LOINS" the NKJV/NIV say "our BACKS", though the NASB properly has loins. In Proverbs 31:17 the "she girdeth her LOINS with strength" the NKJV says she girds HERSELF with strength.
I am merely pointing out that the NKJV is a very poor translation compared to the KJB. There are hundreds of such examples throughout the NKJV. Don't be deceived into thinking it is just like the KJB but without the thee and ye. The NKJV is a perversion and a false witness.
Mules or Hot Springs?
In Genesis 36:24 we read of a man called Anah "that found THE MULES in the wilderness." Mules is the reading of the 1936 Jewish translation, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1998 reads "mules" (los mulos en el desierto), the Italian Diodati, the Third Millenium Bible, Webster's 1833 translation and even the New English Bible of 1970. The NRSV, and several other modern bible versions tells us in a footnote that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain or obscure. But the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV, ESV in saying Anah found THE HOT SPRINGS instead of the mules. The NIV gives this informative footnote: "the Vulgate and Syriac say he discovered water, but the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Now, I am not much of an expert in biology but I'm pretty sure there is a difference between a mule and a hot tub.
The NKJV frequently mistranslates the little word BEHOLD. Often it does say behold, but many times it changes behold to THERE 37:7, INDEED v. 7, THIS TIME v. 9, THERE HE WAS v. 15, INDEED again in verse 29 and other times it renders the word behold as SUDDENLY or some other word. The NIV usually just omits the word altogether, in fact some 550 times the NIV just doesn't translate it at all and they tell you this in their own concordance.
The NKJV also makes 37:32 into a question, though the KJB, NIV and NASB all have it as a statement. The NKJV is not the same as the KJB and should be soundly rejected as a perversion by any true Bible believer.
The NASB joins the NIV in omitting the words "from THE FACE OF Esau" in verses 1 and 7, and 36:6 though "the face of" is found in the NKJV, ASV etc. I am merely pointing out again that the NASB is not the great "formal equivalent" translation that it boasts to be. I have scores of such examples where the KJB is far more accurate in retaining these Hebrew expressions of the inspired texts.
The NASB joins the NKJV and NIV in changing Joseph to HIM in 37:28. Joseph is found three times in this single verse and in the Jewish translations, the KJB, the ASV, Geneva, Young's etc, but the NKJV, NASB only twice while the NIV has it only once.
The NIV does its usual thing of changing proper names to he, him or she in 35:5 where it changes the literal "after THE SONS OF JACOB" to "after THEM", "his NAME" to "him" 35:10, HE to GOD in v. 14. In fact the word Elohim which means God is not translated 13 times when it appears in the Hebrew texts used by the niv and 52 times the niv adds the word GOD when it is not in the Hebrew. They tell you this in their own concordance. The NIV changes HE to Joseph in 37:14 and JOSEPH to HIM in v. 23 and omits the word UPON HIS LOINS in v. 34.
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Genesis 38, 39, 40
The NKJV has a lot of problems translating the word SEED. The word is clearly seed referring to both seed of plants and seed of men. In 38:8, 9 the word seed occurs three times as in the raise up seed to thy brother, he knew that the seed should not be his, and lest that he should give seed to his brother. Seed is the reading of the Jewish translations, the ASV, Youngs, Geneva and others, but the NKJV says HEIR in all three. The word heir is a different word in both Hebrew and English. The NASB/NIV say offspring.
In verse 16 the NKJV omits the words "GO TO, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee." Go to is the reading of the ASV, Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Youngs but the NKJV just omits this expression. Even the NASB has it as "Here now" and the NIV as "Come now".
In 18 Tamar requests of Judah a pledge of his signet and BRACELETS and his staff, but the NKJV says CORD instead of bracelets.
The NKJV omits the word BEHOLD in v. 24 and changes behold to UNEXPECTEDLY in 38:29, and to THERE in 40:16, SUDDENLY in 41:5, INDEED in 41:7, 29, IN FACT in 42:13 and HERE in 44:16 though behold is in the NASB, Youngs etc. The NIV simply omits it altogether.
In 39:1 the NKJV unites with the NIV and NASB in omitting the phrase where Joseph was sold and Potiphar "bought him OF THE HANDS OF the Ishmeelites. "Of the hands of" is found in the Hebrew and in the Jewish translations, the ASV, Geneva, Youngs etc.
In 39:7 the KJB uses the literal Hebrew expression in saying that the wife of Potipher "CAST HER EYES UPON Joseph." Here even the liberal RSV and NRSV, along with the ASV, Geneva, Darby etc. agree with the KJB. The NKJV says she "cast LONGING eyes on Joseph" (adding the word "longing") while the NASB says LOOKED WITH DESIRE and the NIV TOOK NOTICE OF.
I merely point out here that the KJB retains the Hebraisms of the inspired text while the modern versions lose them.
In 39:23 the NKJV joins the NIV/NASB in changing "under HIS hand" to "under JOSEPH'S hand". The word Joseph is not in the text here.
In 40:3 there is a subtle change in meaning where the KJB is more accurate than the NKJV, NIV and NASB. The verse tells us that Joseph was in prison where he was BOUND. Bound is the reading of the ASV, the Jewish translations, the Geneva Bible and others. Bound means he was tied up or chained in some way. The NKJV and NIV say he was merely "confined" while the NASB says he was "imprisoned". There is a difference between being confined only and being bound.
Psalms 105:17,18 tell us: "He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant: Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron." Clearly Joseph was not just confined but BOUND as the KJB accurately tells us.
The KJB and NKJV tell us that Tamar disguised herself as an HARLOT, and sat IN AN OPEN PLACE, which is by the way to Timnath. Harlot is the reading of the Jewish translations, the ASV etc. but in the NASB/NIV the harlot becomes a "shrine" or "temple prostitute" and she is now sitting AT THE ENTRANCE TO ENAIM (or its gateway) which is on the road to Timnath.
The NASB continues to drop out more and more verbs as it goes through it's revisions. The verb "And it came to pass" of 39:10 and 19 was in the 1972 and 1977 editions, but in the 1995 it just disappears like in the NIV.
The NASB along with the NIV continues to lose more Hebraisms such as 39:14 where the wife of Potiphar says the literal: "I CRIED WITH A LOUD VOICE" There are three separate words here "I cried" "with a loud" and "voice" and is the reading of the ASV, NKJV, Jewish translations etc., but in the NIV/NASB this becomes merely "I screamed".
The NKJV continues to change the literal readings found in the KJB. The NKJV changes BEHOLD to SUDDENLY in 41:5 and 22; to INDEED in 29, adds "of the produce" to v. 34 "take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years"; changes "lay up corn under the HAND of Pharoah" to AUTHORITY; changes "without THEE shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" to "without YOUR CONSENT".
In 41:47 "the earth brought forth by HANDFULS" has been changed in the NKJV to match the NASB/NIV with ABUNDANTLY. The word "handfuls" is #7062, used only four times, and yet the NKJV, NASB and NIV all translate the other three instances of this word as "handfuls". Needless change; change only for changes sake. Handfuls is the reading of the ASV, Young's, Darby's and others.
There are literally hundreds of such changes made in the NKJV that are totally unnecessary. The NKJV progressively follows the NIV and NASB in paraphrasing rather than translating what God has said.
In 43:11 Jacob tells his sons to take down to Egypt a present of a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, NUTS and almonds. Nuts is the reading of the ASV, the Jewish translations, Geneva, Yound, Green, the Spanish, yet seemingly just for changes sake the NKJV, NIV and NASB all say PISTACCIO NUTS.
The main things I want to point out in the remainder of Genesis are the changed meanings found in the NASB/NIV and particularly the passages of Hebrew Scripture that the NIV has rejected and instead followed the Syriac or the Greek instead of the Hebrew.
In 41:16 Joseph interprets Pharoah's dream and tells him: "God shall give Pharoah an answer of PEACE." This is the reading of the NKJV, ASV, Young's, Darby, the Jewish translations and others. The Hebrew word here is Shalom, which we all know means peace. However the NASB says: "a FAVORABLE answer", and the NIV has "an answer HE DESIRES".
Why did call this an answer of PEACE? Because it would put Pharoah's mind at peace as to the interpretation. We saw in verse 8 that Pharoah's spirit was troubled at the dream and he could find no answer from his own wise men till Joseph appeared before him. The KJB is far more accurate than these modern imposters.
In 42:9, 12 Joseph accuses his brethren of being spies and says they have come to see the NAKEDNESS of the land. The land was naked because 45:6 tells us there was no plowing or harvest in the land of Egypt for 7 years. Nakedness is the same word used of Noah who was drunk in his tent and his two sons covered his nakedness. It is also the reading of the NKJV, ASV, the Jewish translations and Young's.
The NASB, however, says "the UNDEFENDED PARTS of the land" and the NIV has "the UNPROTECTED PARTS".
Genesis 47:21- KJB "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof."
ESV - "As for the people, HE MADE SERVANTS OF THEM, from one end of Egypt to the other." Footnote: "Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate; Hebrew - he removed them to the cities.
NIV says: "JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE".
Following the Hebrew texts and agreeing with the reading "HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES" are Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Lesser Bible 1853, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003, Hebrew Names Version 2014, the Jewish JPS 1917, New Life Version 1969, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 1993, the NASB 1995, The Complete Tanach, International Standard Version 2014, Jubilee Bible 2010, Common English Bible 2011 (a critical text version), Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 (critical text), Lexham English Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "he removed them to cities".
Other English Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and say "HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES" instead of the ESVs "HE MADE SERVANTS OF THEM" are God's First Truth 1999, Green's Literal 2005, the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES", Conservative Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014.
and the Modern Greek Bible -
and the Modern Hebrew Bible -
NIV - "And JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE from one end of Egypt..." The NIV footnote says this comes from the Samaritan and the LXX, but that the Hebrew says: "he removed them to the cities".
This false reading taken from the so called LXX is also that of the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV, New Living Translation 2013, Message 2002, The Voice 2012 and the NET version 2006 put out by Daniel Wallace and company.
The Catholic Versions
It is also the reading found in the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985, though the earlier Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the KJB and followed the Hebrew texts.
Dan Wallace footnotes that he thinks the Hebrew reading of "he removed them to cities" makes no sense in the context. Well, bible agnostics like Daniel Wallace are entitled to their humble opinions, but I and millions of other Bible believers maintain that God did not make a mistake and the Hebrew Scriptures are right.
John Gill comments on this verse: "And as for the people, he removed them?From the places where they dwelt, that it might appear they had no more property there, and might forget it, and be more willing to pay rent elsewhere; and their posterity hereafter could have no notion of its being theirs, or plead prescription; and besides, by such a removal and separation of the inhabitants of cities, some to one place, and some to another, sedition and mutiny might be prevented: he had them to cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt, even unto the other end thereof; according to the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, those that dwelt in provinces, or in country towns and villages, he removed to cities, and those that dwelt in cities he removed into provinces, and placed them at the utmost distance from their former habitations, for the reasons before given."
Adam Clarke also agrees with the Hebrew and KJB reading and says it would be easier to feed the people where the corn was being stored, that is, in the cities, and to then have some others out working the fields. The KJB is right and the fake bible versions are wrong for rejecting the Hebrew texts and following some fanciful Samaritan Pentateuch or the alleged Septuagint.
Pulpit Commentary - "Verse 21. - And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES - -NOT enslaved them, converted them into serfs and bondmen to Pharaoh (LXX., Vulgate), but simply transferred them, that throughout the land they were moved into the nearest cities, as a considerate and even merciful arrangement for the more efficiently supplying them with food (Calvin, Keil, Lange, Wordsworth, Speaker's Commentary)."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - "as for the people, he removed them to cities" obviously for the convenience of the country people, who were doing nothing, to the cities where the corn stores were situated."
The King James Bible is always right. Don't settle for an inferior substitute.
In this same chapter the NIV again departs from the Hebrew text and mistakenly follows the Greek Septuagint. In verse 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, the NASB, NKJV, Young, Darby and even the liberal RSV and NRSV. 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 departed from the clear Hebrew text in Genesis 4:8 and 15; Genesis 47:21, 31 and in Genesis 49:10 and 26.
There are several verses in chapter 49 that have been altered in the modern versions and they have a completely different meaning than that of the KJB.
In 49:6 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 in the KJB "for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."
Genesis 49:6 KJB - "in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL." Wycliffe 1395, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster's Bible 1833, 1936 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Torah Transliteration Scripture 2008, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Bible, the 2000 Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, the Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1602 - "y en su voluntad arrancaron muro.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "spianato il muro.", the Modern Greek Bible - "εν τω πεισματι αυτων κατηδαφισαν τειχος.", the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998 = KJB.
However 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 have 3 or 4 different meanings, and if traced back to its root, as many as 9 or 10 different meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word. We believe He has done this in the KJB.
The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen" is false. 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. The KJB is right, as always.
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 have they 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 KJB, NKJV, NASB, ASV, Spanish Bibles and most versions out there except the NIV, RSV and NRSV. The word Shiloh occurs only once in the Bible and it comes from the verb meaning to be tranquil or to be at peace.
The NIV, along with the RSV and NRSV, says: "UNTIL HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS", and the perverted ESV has: "UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM" 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.
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 puffed up and deluded 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.
These people are liars, folks. Many of the notes in the NIV tell you clearly what the Hebrew says, yet they follow these other sources.
In 49:12 the KJB along with the Jewish translations, the ASV, Geneva Bible, Young's, Darby and even the RSV say: "His eyes shall be RED WITH wine, and his teeth WHITE WITH milk."
The NKJV and NIV say: "His eyes shall be DARKER THAN wine, and his teeth WHITER THAN milk." while the NASB has: "his eyes shall be DULL FROM wine".
The NIV has a unique reading in 49:21. The KJB, as well as the 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 and NRSV, ESV and 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 ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Youngs, Darby, the 1936 Jewish translation 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 ASV, Young's, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, and ancestors is in the NKJV and NASB, which conveys the same meaning. And 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.