Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

Bible Babble in the Book of Genesis - "Yea, hath God said...?"

Bible Babble in the Book of Genesis - Yea, hath God said?- Part One

 

In this study of Genesis we will be comparing different readings and changed meanings found in the modern versions as compared to the King James Bible. My firm belief is that in the English language the only place we can find the true, inspired words of the living God and our Redeemer is the King James Bible.

 

I fully believe the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV etc. are false witnesses to the truth. God can use these modern versions to bring someone to a saving faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, but once the new Christian begins to read, study and compare them with other versions, their faith will be undermined and weakened. They will embrace false doctrine and other erroneous ideas because these pernicious weeds are found in the new perversions.



At one of the Facebook forums a Bible critic and wannabe ?expert? told us there are 66,000 errors in the King James Bible, and the first one is found in Genesis 1:2 where the King James Bible says ?Heaven? where it is clearly a plural (ha shamaim). Should be rendered ?Heavens?.


 

Is he right?  Not at all. And here is why - 

 

If anyone thinks the "New" KJV is just like the old King James Bible except they have changed "thee, Thou, thine and ye" to You, they are in for some big surprises. 

 

The first error is found in the first verse. "In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the earth." Notice it is the heaven - singular. This is the reading of the King James Bible, Wycliffe, 1395, Tyndale 1534 (he translated part of the O.T. before his death),  Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549,  Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Charles Thomson Translation 1808, the Lesser Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version 1885, the Jewish Pub. Society translation of 1917 and Hebrew Publishing Company of 1936, Webster's 1833 translation, Douay 1950, 21st Century KJV 1994, the Bible in Basic English of 1965, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version and the 2011 Names of God Bible - "In the beginning Elohim created HEAVEN and earth."  

 

Other English Bibles that correctly have the singular "HEAVEN" are The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - "In the beginning God created THE HEAVEN and the earth.", The Word of Yah 1993, God's Word Translation 1995, God's First Truth 1999, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003 - "In the beginning God made THE HEAVEN and the earth.", The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 and The Far Above All Translation 2014.


The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "In the beginning God created THE HEAVEN and the earth."

https://archive.org/stream/ancienthebrewlit01yyypuoft#page/n23/mode/2up


The Jewish Virtual Library Complete Tanach 1994 - "IN THE beginning G-d created THE HEAVEN and the earth"

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/bereishit-genesis-chapter-1 


And this online Hebrew Interlinear Bible - "In the beginning created God THE HEAVEN  and the earth."

https://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%201:1

 

Among foreign language translations that also have the singular "HEAVEN" are Luther's 1545 German bible and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "Gott erschafft Himmel und Erde", the Italian Diodati 1649 and Conferenza Episcopale Italiana Version - "Dio creò il cielo e la terra.", the Portuguese O Livro 2000 - "Quando Deus começou criando o firmamento e a Terra", the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez 2004-2010 - " En el principio creó Dios el cielo y la tierra." and the Modern Greek Bible - "?? ???? ???????? ? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ???."

 

However the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Youngs, NET and the Holman Standard have the HEAVENS - plural. There are three heavens mentioned in Scripture. The third heaven is where God and His throne are now. Paul tells us he was caught up to the third heaven, into paradise and heard words not lawful for man to utter - 2 Cor. 12: 2-4. The second heaven is where the sun, moon, stars are physically located and the first heaven is the realm of the clouds, flying birds and wind. 

 

But notice that what God created in verse 1 is the heaven (singular) and the earth. The heaven where the fowl fly, clouds form and winds blow was not created until the second day in verse 8.  "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." You see, in verse one there was only one heaven created by God and it wasn't until the second day that God made the firmament to divide the waters under the firmament from those above it. Thus we have the seas below and the rain clouds above.

 

There are many Hebrew words that end in the letters im that can be either singular or plural, depending on the context.  For example, the word God is Eloyhim #430 and yet it is often translated in ALL Bible versions as either a singular God or as plural gods.  See the singular God in Genesis 1:1, 2 and 3.  And yet the same word is plural - gods - in Genesis 31:30 and 32 "wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?" and "thou findest thy gods".  In Psalm 82 we find the singular God in verses 1 and 8, and yet the plural gods in verses 1 and 6 - "he judgeth among the gods" and "I have said, Ye are gods".

 

The word  "heavens" itself (# 8064) is often translated as a singular "heaven" in the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc.  Here are just a few of the MANY times they all do this: In Genesis 14:19 and 22 God is called the "possessor of HEAVEN and earth". In Genesis 1:8 "God called the firmament HEAVEN." Genesis 19:24 the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah "out of HEAVEN".  In Genesis 21:17 God called to Hagar "out of HEAVEN". In Genesis 22:11 and 15 the angel of the Lord calls to Abharam "out of HEAVEN".  In Genesis 24:3 and 7 God is referred to as "the LORD God of HEAVEN".  and in Genesis 26:4 God tells Isaac "I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars OF HEAVEN."  

 

In Psalms 11:4 "the LORD's throne is in the HEAVEN"; Psalm 14:2 "the LORD looked down from HEAVEN"; Psalm 20:6 "He will hear from his holy HEAVEN"; Psalm 33:13 "The Lord looks from HEAVEN" and Psalm 57:3 "He shall send from HEAVEN."  These are just a few of the many times they all do this.

 

The Hebrew word for face is #6440 pahneem and yet it is often translated in ALL Bible versions as either a singular or a plural.  We see the singular in such verses as Genesis 1:2, 29; 4:5, 6, 14 - "darkness was upon THE FACE of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon THE FACE of the waters" (Gen. 1:2), "and from THY FACE shall I be hid" (6:14) and yet as plural in such places as Genesis 9:23; 18:22 and 30:40 - "and their faces were backward" (Gen. 9:23).

 

The Hebrew word for "WATER" is # 4325 mayim. And yet all bible translations sometimes have it as the plural "waters" and just as many times as the singular "water".  We see in Genesis 1:2 "upon the face of THE WATERS", and yet this same Hebrew word is singular in places like Genesis 18:4 "Let a little WATER be fetched, and wash your feet".  In Genesis 21:14 and 15  Abraham "took bread, and a bottle of WATER" and gave it to Hagar, "and THE WATER was spent".  

 

The Hebrew word for "virginity" is # 1331 b'thoo-leem. It is a masculine plural noun in Hebrew. Yet all the translations correct have it as the singular "virginity" or "a maid".  Leviticus 21:13 "he shall take a wife in HER VIRGINITY."  Deuteronomy 22:14, 17-  "When I came to her, I found her not A MAID". Judges 11:37, 38 - "that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my VIRGINITY"

 

At our Facebook club -King James Bible Debate - a dear sister in the Lord posted the following short article:

 
?Heaven? or ?Heavens? in Genesis 1:1?


Critics charge that ???? (shamayim) is plural and should be translated as ?heavens.? In Hebrew, however, the plural form may identify size rather than number in certain contexts. Such a plural is called a "plural of extension or amplification" (William Rosenau, Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible, p. 111). Even in English, the plural form, "skies," is used to refer to a large expanse in the atmosphere which is technically just one sky (e.g. "The plane took to the skies"). Jewish translations of the Tanakh also translate ???? (shamayim) in Genesis 1:1 as ?heaven.? The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text says, ?heaven.? The 1917 JPS Translation says, ?heaven.? Moreover, just a few verses later in Genesis 1:8 the NASB and ESV translate ???? as ?heaven.? The NIV translates it as ?sky? (singular). The translators of the NASB, ESV, and NIV all agree that ???? can be translated in the singular. Whether the word should be translated in the singular or plural depends on the translator?s assessment of the context. The KJV translators translated ???? in Genesis 1:1 in the singular because the other heaven (the expanse in the sky) was not created until day two (Genesis 1:7-8).  (end of article)

 

The King James Bible is correct in saying In the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth.  The modern versions that say "heavens" are incorrect.

 

Firmament is also another word the NASB and NIV have changed. The firmament is the great arch, vault or expanse over our heads in which earth's atmosphere is placed and in which the sun, moon and stars appear to be placed and their light shines. They physically are in the second heaven, but their light appears in the firmament of heaven. Firmament is not archaic and is the reading of the KJB, Geneva, nkjv, ASV, RSV, 1917, 1936, Douay, Lamsa, and others. The NASB/NIV have expanse, which is OK, and the NRSV has "dome".  

 

 

Dealing with the Bible Agnostics - Jonathan Sarfati and Genesis 1:5 


Jonathan David Sarfati says: ?The NASB is one of the few that translates yom echad in Genesis 1:5 as "one day". Most other English translations erroneously have "the first day", but this would be yom rishon.?


But is he right? Of course not.


The Hebrew word translated in the KJB as ?the FIRST day? is # 259 echad, and the NASB concordance shows that they have translated this word in many different ways, including ?one, first (38 times), a few (3 times), alone, altogether, another, apiece, certain (11 times), each (55 times), once, other (33 times) and same (26 times)


A few of the places where the NASB has ?the FIRST? are Exodus 39:10 the first row, Lev. 23:24 - the first, 2 Chron. 36:22 the first year, Ezra 1:1 = the first year, Ezra 10:16-17 ?the FIRST day? (twice).


Genesis 1:5 KJB - And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE FIRST DAY.


ALSO reading ?the first day? are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew?s Bible 1549, the Bishops? bible 1568, Webster?s Bible 1833, Darby 1890, NKJV 1982, Dan Wallace?s NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2009, The Common English Bible 2011, ESV 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, NIV 2011, Lexham English bible 2012, World English Bible 2012, and Modern English Version 2014.




Genesis 1:21 ?whales?, ?sea-creatures?, ?dragons?  or ?monsters??

Some bible correctors, none of whom will EVER show you a copy of any Bible in any language that they honestly believe is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, criticize the King James Bible for translating the Hebrew word taneem # 8577 as ?whale? here in Genesis 1:21.

It is not all that unusual for a single Hebrew word to have multiple meanings.  For example -

In Psalms 78:25 we read that ?man did eat ANGEL?S food?.  


Yet this single word, #47 ab-beer, is shown in the NASB complete concordance that they have translated this single Hebrew word as ?ANGELS, BULLS, STALLIONS, chief, mighty man, strong, valiant and stubborn-minded.?   The same Hebrew word!  


The NIV Complete Concordance for their 1984 edition tells us that they have translated this same Hebrew word as ?ANGELS, STALLIONS, STEEDS, BULLS, warriors, great, head, strong, valiant men and stubborn-hearted.?


Even the NASB has translated this single Hebrew word # 8577 taneem in such varied ways as ?dragon, monster, sea monster, serpents?

Likewise the NIV has translated this same Hebrew word in such varied ways as ?monster, snake, serpent, creatures of the sea, monster of the deep, and jackal!?

This particular Hebrew word can have many meanings, as it witnessed by a multitude of Bible translations in many languages.

In the KJB and others it is variously translated as ?whale, dragon, a serpent and the sea monsters.?  Context often determines the meaning of the word; things like if we are talking about this animal being on the land or in the sea or rivers.

Multiple Bible translations agree with the KJB?s WHALES in Genesis 1:21.

English translation of the Greek Septuagint.


And God made great whales,


http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm


Online Greek Septuagint.


http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/01_001.htm


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


?? ???? means whales.

This online Hebrew Interlinear - ?God created great WHALES?

https://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%201:21

The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - ?and God created GREAT WHALES?
https://archive.org/stream/ancienthebrewlit01yyypuoft#page/n25/mode/2up



 

Also translating Genesis 1:21 as ?and God created GREAT WHALES? are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew?s bible 1549, the Bishops? bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1602, Webster?s Bible 1833, The Hebrew Publishing Company O.T. 1936, The 21st Century KJV 1994, God?s First Truth 1999, The Message 2002, The Complete Apostle?s Bible 2005,

Foreign Language Bible = WHALES

The Latin Vulgate 382 - ?Creavitque Deus cete grandia?, The Clementine Vulgate, The Italian Diodati 1649 - ?le grandi balene?, Spanish Reina Valera Antogua, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez Bible2010, the French Martin Bible 1744 and the King James Francis bible 2007 - ?les grandes baleines?, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada, and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida bible -?as grandes baleias?,  Martin Luther?s German bible 1545 - ?große Walfische ?,

The Modern Greek Version - ??? ???????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????= the great WHALES

https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Genesis+1%3A21&search_form_type=general&q1=Genesis+1%3A21&s=0&t1=el_gmd&ns=0


 

In Genesis 1:26 we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." 


There is a footnote in the NKJV and NIV "bibles" that says: "ALL THE WILD ANIMALS of the earth" instead of "over all the earth" and that this is the reading of the Syriac. Why would they put that in their footnotes? Who cares what the Syriac says? The scriptures were originally given to us in Hebrew not Syriac. The reason is because the NRSV has incorporated this reading and rejected the Hebrew. The NKJV has some 48 such ridiculous footnotes referring to the readings found in the LXX, Syriac, Samaritan, Vulgate and various traditions - all of which cast doubt upon the inspired text. See for example the footnotes in the nkjv at Exodus 1:5 and 22.


One of the many problems the NIV has is that it rejects the clear Hebrew reading in Genesis 1:26 where we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."  
 
The reading of "OVER ALL THE EARTH" is in all Hebrew texts and is also the reading of the Geneva bible, Douay-Rheims, the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NET, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, the Douay version and even the Message.  
 
However the NIV 2011 edition rejects the Hebrew text that clearly says "OVER ALL THE EARTH" and has "and ALL THE WILD ANIMALS and over all the creatures that move along the ground."  Then it footnotes: "Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac); Masoretic Text "the earth".??

The NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions followed the Hebrew reading and said: ?over the livestock, over ALL THE EARTH, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.?

??BUT the NIV 2011 edition now omits the Hebrew reading of ?ALL THE EARTH? and now reads: ?over the livestock and ALL THE WILD ANIMALS, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.?
 
Well, not even the Syriac reads like the NIV has it nor does the so called LXX nor ANY text at all. They just made it up and then tell us it is the "PROBABLE reading of the original Hebrew text"!!!  

??Lamsa?s 1936 translation of the Syriac says: ?and over the cattle and over ALL THE WILD BEASTS OF THE EARTH, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.?

??The NIV 2011 edition rejected the Hebrew reading. Then it took PART of the reading of the Syriac ?all the wild animals (beasts)? and STILL omitted the words ?of the earth?. And they call this rigamarole the ?science? of textual criticism!?? 


Guess who else has rejected the Hebrew reading here and substituted "ALL THE WILD ANIMALS" instead of "OVER ALL THE EARTH".  You got it. The Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, the Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible.

 

 

In Genesis 1:28 there is a word that is frequently attacked in the KJB. God told Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth, and subdue it." If you bother to look in a dictionary like Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary the first definition of this word is "to fill with persons or animals, to stock. The second definition is to fill again.

 

 Adam was being told to fill or stock the earth with people, not to fill it again. "Replenish" is the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version 1881,  the ASV of 1901, both the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English translations, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium bible. 

 

The modern versions say "to fill" which is fine, but the KJB is not in error. Words have more than one limited meaning. People like to pick out a little word like this in the KJB, and on the basis of their limited understanding, toss out the KJB and embrace instead a false modern perversion that contains errors, false doctrines and omits thousands of God's inspired words. This is the logic of unbelief.

 

In verse 29 the NKJV, NIV and NASB all omit the Hebrew word TREE. It is in the Hebrew # 6086 and reads: " and every tree (same word) in the which is the fruit OF A TREE yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." This second "of a tree" is found in Geneva, ASV, 1917, Youngs and others.

 

For a much more developed article on the word "replenish" see 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/genesis128replenish.htm

 

Finally one serious accomodation to the lie of evolution is found in the NASB throughout this chapter. Evoloutionists or even "Christian evolutionists" think the earth and all its animals were not created in 6 literal 24 hour days. They say the days represent long periods of time, intervals of perhaps millions of years, and are not to be taken as literal 24 hour days. Instead of THE FIRST DAY, THE SECOND DAY etc. the NASB reads ONE DAY, A second day, A third day, etc. thus opening the door for the interpretation that these "days" were in fact long periods of time. See verses 5, 8, 13, 19 and 23 in the NASB and the liberal RSV.

 

Chapter 2

 

In Genesis 2:4 we read: "These are THE GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created."

 

The word here is clearly "generations". It is # 8435, used 39 times and always in the KJB translated as generations. It comes from the verb to give birth to or to be born. It is only used once in reference to the physical creation. All others refer to people giving birth to other people as Gen. 5:1; 6:9; 25:19 "the generations of Adam, of Noah, of Isaac" etc. Generations is the reading of the ASV, Geneva, 1917, 1936 Hebrew-English translations, Douay and others.

 

But the NKJV says: "THIS IS THE HISTORY of the heavens...", while the NIV and NASB say: "This is THE ACCOUNT OF...". The word has nothing to do with a history or an account, but rather states the physical creation was given birth to by God's creative power.

 

The NASB and NIV give us a really stupid reading in verse 5. In the KJB we read: "the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth and every herb of the field BEFORE it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watred the whole face of the ground." This account takes us up to the sixth day, for we read in verse 7: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..." Obviously the plants and herbs had already been created on the third day, and now existed. God made them before they grew up "naturally". Once they were created, their seeds were in them and they then continued to grow naturally.

 

But the NASB and NIV read: "Now no shrub of the field WAS YET in the earth, and no plant of the field HAD YET SPROUTED." This is a flat out contradiction of chapter 1:11-13 which tell us that God had already caused the earth to bring forth grass, herbs and trees on the third day. Notice the NASB/NIV punctuate the sentence differently and come up with a contradiction. The NKJV is good here.

 

Another theological cross reference is lost in verse 7 in the NKJV, NIV and NASB. In the KJB, ASV, Geneva, 1917 Jewish translation and others we read: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living SOUL."

 

The word is "soul" and it ties in with I Corinthians 15:45 were we read even in the NASB and NKJV: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living SOUL." But here in Gen. 2:7 the NIV, NKJV and NASB say: "man became a living BEING" instead of a living SOUL, and the ESV has "man became A LIVING CREATURE."  

 

Genesis 2:5 - Is there a big error in the King James Bible?  

 

There are quite a few "scholars" (none of whom believes that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God) who severely criticize the King James Bible for the way it reads in Genesis 2:5, and tell us that versions like the ASV got it right instead.

 

Genesis 2:5  KJB - And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.



ASV - And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground?


Also reading like the ASV are the NASB, ESV, NET, Holman and NIV -


NIV Genesis 2:5 - ?Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground?


Reading like the KJB are Coverdale 1535, the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Longman Version 1841, Darby 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God?s First Truth 1999, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, and the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2010 (Mebust), The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Lexham English Bible 2012, 


and The Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - ?This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh the God made the earth and the heavens, 2:5 BEFORE any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For Yahweh the God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no mankind to till the ground?



And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - ?And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth?.?


http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%202:5

 

Foreign Language Bibles


Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 = KJB - ?Y toda planta del campo ANTES QUE fuese en la tierra, y toda hierba del campo antes que naciese: porque aun no había el SEÑOR Dios hecho llover sobre la tierra, ni había hombre para que labrase la tierra?  ?antes que? = ?before?

The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 is also correct - ?y toda planta del campo ANTES QUE fuese en la tierra, y toda hierba del campo antes que naciese; porque el SEÑOR Dios aún no había hecho llover sobre la tierra, ni aun había hombre para que labrase la tierra? - ?antes? = before

So also read the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1977 (but they changed it in the 1995 edition, and then went back to the correct reading in the 2011 Reina Valera Contemporánea) and the Reina Valera Gómez bible 2010, 

So also reads the Italian Diodati 1649 - ?e ogni albero ed arboscello della campagna, avanti che ne fosse alcuno in su la terra?  ?avanti che? = ?before that?

And the French Martin bible 1744 - ?Et toutes les plantes des champs, avant qu'il y en eût en la terre, et toutes les herbes des champs, avant qu'elles eussent poussé? - ?avant? = ?before?

And the Modern Greek Bible too - ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????, ???? ???????? ??? ??? ???, ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?????, ???? ??????????  - That little word ????  means ?before?

 

The Explanation of Why the King James Bible is right.


Genesis 1:11-13 tell us that God made the vegetation on the 3rd day before it rained. 


11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.




What made the plants grow was the mist from the earth that watered the whole face of the earth. We read of this in Genesis 2:6 - ?And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.?


I believe v. 5 as it stands in the KJB refers to before the plants and herbs of the field grew NATURALLY out of the earth.


John Gill explains it very well, saying: ?And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth,.... That is, God made it, even he who made the heavens and the earth; for these words depend upon the preceding, and are in close connection with them; signifying that the plants of the field, which were made out of the earth on the third day, were made before any were planted in it, or any seed was sown therein from whence they could proceed, and therefore must be the immediate production of divine power:


and every herb of the field before it grew: those at once sprung up in perfection out of the earth, before there were any that budded forth, and grew up by degrees to perfection, as herbs do now:


for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: so that the production of plants and herbs in their first formation could not be owing to that; since on the third day, when they were made, there was no sun to exhale and draw up the waters into the clouds, in order to be let down again in showers of rain:


and there was not a man to till the ground; who was not created till the sixth day, and therefore could have no concern in the cultivation of the earth, and of the plants and herbs in it; but these were the produce of almighty power, without the use of any means?


John Calvin also explains it in a similar way, saying - ?But although he has before related that the herbs were created on the third day, yet it is not without reason that here again mention is made of them, in order that we may know that they were then produced, preserved, and propagated, in a manner different from that which we perceive at the present day. For herbs and trees are produced from seed; or grafts are taken from another roots or they grow by putting forth shoots: in all this the industry and the hand of man are engaged. But, at that time, the method was different: God clothed the earth, not in the same manner as now, (for there was no seed, no root, no plant, which might germinate,) but each suddenly sprung into existence at the command of God, and by the power of his word. They possessed durable vigor, so that they might stand by the force of their own nature, and not by that quickening influence which is now perceived, not by the help of rain, not by the irrigation or culture of man; but by the vapor with which God watered the earth.?

 

The King James Bible is right, as always.  You just have to think about it and compare scripture with scripture.


 

In Genesis 2:10 we read: "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and bercame into four HEADS."

 

Heads is the reading of the ASV, Geneva, 1917 etc. It literally means head and is used in "it shall bruise thy head" 3:15; "Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head" 47:31; he laid his hand "upon Ephraim's head" 48:14 etc.

 

But the NASB, ESV say RIVERS, which is found in the first part of this verse but it is an entirely different Hebrew word. The NKJV says "riverheads" adding the word river, while the NIV has "headwaters" at least retaining the word "head". I just point this out for those who claim the modern versions are more "literal" than the KJB.  

 

Genesis 2:18 KJB - "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him AN HELP MEET for him."

 

Some Bible correctors, who themselves do not believe that ANY Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek (there is no such animal) is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, have criticized the King James Bible words "an help meet".

 

One such critic ignorantly writes: ?Helpmeet,? loosely translated, means ?wife.? Its origins lie in the King James translation of the Bible, where it appears as two separate words. Flipped into a more modern syntactical order, the verse would read ?meet help.? ?Meet? (also loosely translated) means ?fitting? or ?suitable,? which is how most other translations of the Bible put it.


This non-word has always bothered me. I didn?t resent the word, exactly, but I always felt as if it didn?t fully capture what God meant. The Bible, after all, wasn?t written in King James English. It wasn?t written in English at all. It was written in Greek and Hebrew. And ?helpmeet,? while cute, didn?t seem to encapsulate all that my mother was as a woman, or any of the wonderful women I knew growing up.


Turns out, I was right.


The Hebrew word at the root of the translation ?help? or ?helper? is ezer (pronounced ay-zer). Ezer is a beefy word that shows up 21 times in the Old Testament. It appears twice in the Bible in reference to women, and both times to Eve (Genesis 2:18 and 20)." [End of comments]  

 

First of all, the Bible critic didn't even quote the King James Bible correctly. There are two words there - "help" and "meet", and there are two words in the Hebrew text.  One is ezer, as he points out, and it is # 5828 and the other one he missed is "meet", and it is # 5048.

 

 Ezer means "help". He has no problem with that. But then he tells us that he prefers the words "fitting" or "suitable".  Maybe he is the product of American public school education in the 21st century, but if he is open to a chance to learn something, he might try consulting and English dictionary to find out what the word "meet" means.  Just a friendly suggestion.

 

What he will find is that one of the meanings of the English word "meet" - the adjective, is "suitable, fit, proper" - Oxford English Dictionary.

 

Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary 11th edition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meet


adjective

Definition of MEET

:  precisely adapted to a particular situation, need, or circumstance :  very proper 

 

meet - "fitting, proper" - American Heritage Dictionary

 

Wordsmyth English Dictionary

 

http://www.wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent_l=meet&rid=25665

 

meet - meet

part of speech:

adjective

definition:

proper; suitable.


synonyms:

appropriate, proper, suitable

antonyms:

improper

similar words:

applicable, apposite, apropos, apt, comely, felicitous, fit, fitting, good, happy, right, seemly

related words:

due, just, likely, valid

 

It should be obvious at this point that the expression "an help meet for him" means exactly what our Bible corrector thinks it should mean. Part of his problem is that he doesn't know his own English language.  The other part is that he doesn't actually believe that ANY Bible is the inerrant words of God, so he has made his own mind and personal preferences his "final authority", subject to change at any moment.

 


"I will make him AN HELP MEET for him."

 

And our Bible critic is also wrong in telling us that the expression "an help meet" has its origins in the King James Bible.  Not only does the King James Bible use the expression "an help meet" to describe Eve, the wife of Adam, but so also do the following  Bible translations - the Geneva Bible 1587 - ?I wil make him AN HELPE MEETE for him.?, the Webster Version 1833,  the Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, The Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster Bible 1995 (Larry Pierce), The Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "I will make him a helper MEET for him.", A Conservative Version 2005 - "I will make him A HELP MEET for him.", The Revised Geneva Bible 2009, the English Jubilee Bible 2010 - "a HELP MEET for him.", and the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 (Yerusha Shen) - "an HELP MEET for him." 

 

Or he might try this Online Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament


http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%202:18


H6213

????

I will make

H5828

?? ???

him a help

H5048

??????

meet for him.  

 

 

Many others have pointed out a change in the NKJV in verse 2:18 of which Hillary Clinton would be proud. In the KJB, as well as the ASV, 1917, 1936 translations, the Geneva Bible and others we read: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him AN HELP MEET FOR him." The word meet is not archaic. It means simply "fit, suitable or proper".

 

Eve was to be a suitable helper for Adam. As the rest of the Bible teaches us, a woman is to be subject unto her husband and be his helper, not his lord or even his equal in headship. The NASB and NIV are perfectly acceptable here with "a helper suitable for him", and the ESV is OK with "a helper FIT for him", but the NKJV says: "a helper COMPARABLE TO him" instead of "an help MEET FOR him."

 

Comparable means "equivalent to". If I say a Chevy is comparable to a Ford, I'm saying there really isn't much difference between them; they are equal to each other in function. The NKJV perverts this theological distinction.

 

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

 

The Creation accounts in Genesis chapter One and Genesis chapter Two - Is there a Contradiction?

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/genesis12.htm 

 

 The atheists, Bible skeptics and, unfortunately, many professing "Christian" scholars allege that there are direct contradictions in the creation accounts given in Genesis chapter One and Genesis chapter Two.  And they come right out and tell us that the Bible is not the literal and inerrant words of God because of what they see as "contradictions."  

 

There definitely are significant differences in the events recorded in the two chapters, but I and many others believe there is a very easy and obvious way to resolve these differences.

 

The main differences are #1. In Genesis One the animals are created BEFORE man is created; but in Genesis Two, man is created before the animals. #2. In Genesis One, the fowls are formed on day 5 out of the WATER; and in Genesis Two, the fowls are formed on day 6 out of the GROUND.

 

In Genesis chapter 1 God creates everything, including plants (on the 3rd day v. 13) and the moving creatures and fowl OUT OF THE WATER (1:20-23) on the 5th day. "And God said, Let THE WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven...And the evening and the morning were the FIFTH day."

 

Genesis 1:24-25 records the creation of the cattle, and creeping things and the beasts of the earth on the 6th day, BEFORE He creates Adam.

 

But when we get to Genesis chapter 2, there is a different creation event of the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air, and it is done IN THE GARDEN IN FRONT OF ADAM, before God made Eve from one of Adam's ribs on this same 6th day.

 

Genesis 2:7-25 is a more detailed account of the creation of both Adam and Eve on the sixth day and what took place after He made Adam and before He made Eve on the same day.

 

In Genesis 2 the Lord puts Adam in the garden on the 6th day, right after He creates him. Then right in front of Adam, God forms the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air (not ALL of them all over again, but individuals of each kind) and He does this OUT OF THE GROUND this time, NOT the water, as in the previous chapter on the 5th day.    

 

Genesis 2:19 - "And out of THE GROUND the LORD God FORMED every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." Genesis 2:19 

 

The material God used to make the fowl of heaven is WATER in Genesis 1:20 and here in the garden of Eden the fowls are formed out of THE GROUND. And obviously the 6th day is a different day than the 5th day when the fowl of heaven were created in Genesis 1:20-23.  God then created man (Adam and Eve) on the 6th day. 

 

Now, in Genesis 2:19 it says: "And OUT OF THE GROUND the LORD God FORMED every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; AND BROUGHT THEM TO ADAM to see what he would call them..."  

 

Genesis TWO shows us God creating life right in front of Adam so he would not fall for the lie of Evolution, and that Adam would personally know from his own experience that all forms of animal life are directly formed by his Creator.

 

There is no contradiction at all between Genesis 1 and 2. They are two separate events and different accounts of TWO distinct creation events. It is really pretty simple once you see it.  

 

Here is a 13 minute video where another brother explains this and shows how the King James Bible, (and most bibles out there ever made) and the Hebrew text is right and there are two separate creations on two different days in two different places and for two different purposes.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2fJxpdS148

 

However the NIV makes a lame attempt to promote one of the false explanations of given by some misguided "Christian apologists" who try to get around the difficulty by teaching that God did not perform a second act of creation of the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air on day six. The NIV mistranslates the verb "formed" in Genesis 2:19.

 

The NIVs 1978, 1982 and 2011 editions translate Genesis 2:19 as "Now the LORD God HAD FORMED out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them..." The idea promoted by this erroneous translation is the theory that these were the animals God had created on the previous day five, and not a separate creation event on day six.  So they translated the verb "formed" as "HAD FORMED".

 

However there are two big problems with the NIVs error here. The NIV has now created a very REAL contradiction that cannot be resolved.  The NIV teaches that God "had formed" these animals out of the GROUND, and yet Genesis 1:20 tells us it was out of the WATER.  

 

And the verb "formed" is exactly the same verb and tense used in Genesis 2:7 where even the NIV has "And the LORD God FORMED man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Not even Dan Wallace agrees with the way the NIV has translated this Hebrew verb, and should give you a hint as to how badly they botched it.

 

Among the Bible translations that correctly tell us in Genesis 2:19 that God FORMED these animals on the 6th day and then brought them to Adam to name are the Geneva Bible, Youngs, 1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, Holman, NKJV and the ESV 2001 edition. 

 

However now joining the NIV and telling us that God "HAD FORMED" these animals and then brought them to Adam to name, are the ESV 2007 and 2011 editions, whereas the ESV 2001 said "So out of the GROUND the LORD God FORMED every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them."  

 

The newer editions of the ever changing ESVs now say: "Now out of the ground the LORD God HAD FORMED every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them." This creates a very real contradiction with the Hebrew text and all these other Bibles that tell us that it was out of the waters that God brought forth the fowl of heaven on the 5th day.

 

One other problem the NIV has is that it rejects the clear Hebrew reading in Genesis 1:26 where we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."  

 

The reading of "OVER ALL THE EARTH" is in all Hebrew texts and is also the reading of the Geneva bible, Douay-Rheims, the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NET, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, the Douay version and even the Message.  

 

However the NIV rejects the Hebrew text that clearly says "OVER ALL THE EARTH" and has "and ALL THE WILD ANIMALS and over all the creatures that move along the ground."  Then the NIVs 1978, 1982 and 2011 footnote: "Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac); Masoretic Text "the earth".

 

Well, not even the Syriac reads like the NIV has it nor does the so called LXX nor ANY text at all. They just made it up and then tell us it is the "PROBABLE reading of the original Hebrew text"!!!  

 

Guess who else has rejected the Hebrew reading here and substituted "ALL THE WILD ANIMALS" instead of "OVER ALL THE EARTH".  You got it. The Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, the Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible.

 

If you want to use a "bible" version that rejects the Hebrew readings and replaces it with pure guess work; that creates real and not just apparent contradictions and mistranslates the texts it does follow, then get yourself one of these fake bible versions.  

 

But by God's grace, I will stick with the time tested, complete and inerrant words of God Bible - the King James Holy Bible. 

 

Genesis 3:5 KJB - "then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

 

NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, MEV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT - "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.?

 

Some other wrong translations

 

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2006 got it wrong in a different way. It says: "For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be LIKE ANGELS, knowing good and evil."

 

In this foundational chapter we see the entrance of Satan, the fall of man, its consequences, and a glorious promise of redemption.

 

The first question found in the Bible is asked by the subtil serpent - Yea, hath God said...? Satan questions what exactly it was that God said. The devil's tactics are clearly seen from the very beginning. He both adds to, and takes away from God's inerrant words.

 

Satan adds the word "not" and he takes away "freely" and as a result changes what God had said. When we compare the King James Bible with many modern versions, we see that what Satan promised the woman for disobeying God has also been subtly changed as well.

 

In the King James Bible Satan promises the woman that both she and Adam "shall be as gods". Each of them would be as a god, with a small "g", and in a very real way, this is how the entrance of sin has affected how fallen man sees himself. In our fallen state, each of us becomes our own little god, the center of the universe and think the world revolves around us. By nature we are self centered and selfish.

 

I believe those versions that have Satan telling man "you will be like God" are wrong for several reasons. Satan is a liar from the beginning. "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."  John 8:44  

 

Whatever Satan told the woman was a lie, and it IS a lie that we shall be as gods.  But it is true that we shall be like God.

 

Scripture tells us this in many places. "we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2

 

"As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake, with thy likeness."  Psalm 17:15 "

 

But we all, with open face beholding as in the glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."  

 

2 Corinthians 3:18. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."  If Satan had told the woman that she would be "like God", then this would have been a glorious truth.

 

That is what Satan wants for himself and he will have none his equal. "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."  Isaiah 14:14  But Satan appeals to the pride of man telling them that they will be "as gods".

 

 

"ye shall be as gods"

 

 

Reading as the King James Bible "ye shall be as gods" are Wycliffe 1395, the Great Bible 1540 - ?ye shalbe euen as goddess?, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582 - "ye shall be as Gods",  the Geneva Bible 1587 - "ye shalbe euen as goddess?, the Bill Bible 1671, The Thomson Bible 1808 - "God knew...your eyes would be opened and you would be like gods",  Webster's translation 1833, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "ye shall be as gods",  the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Version, An American Translation 1927, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 - "you shall be like gods",  the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English "you shall be as gods", The Word of Yah 1993, the 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and YE SHALL BE AS GODS, knowing good and evil.", The Apostolic Polyglot Bible Greek 2005 - "??????  ??  ????" = "you shall be Gods",  A Conservative Version 2005, the Complete Apostles' Bible 2005 - "your eyes would be opened, and you would be as gods", the 2009 Public Domain Version, the Bond Slave Version 2009 "you will be like gods", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, the English Jubilee Bible 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, the Lexham English Bible 2012 - "and you both shall be like gods", and The New English Septuagint Translation 2014 - "For God knew that on the day you eat of it, your eyes would be opened, and you would be like gods knowing good and evil.? 


 

and this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%203:5 


 

 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "and ye shall be as gods" are the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond and the French Ostervald 1996 - "et que vous serez comme des dieux", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera of 1602, Reina Valera 1909, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000 and Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - "y seréis como dioses", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "onde sareste come dii", the Finnish Bible 1776 - " ja te tulette niinkuin Jumala", the Russian Synodal Version - "? ?? ??????, ??? ????, ??????? ????? ? ???.", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "és olyanok lésztek mint az Isten" = "ye shall be as gods", the Czeck BKR - " a budete jako bohové",  and the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - "atunci ochii vos?tri vor fi deschis?i s?i vet?i fi ca dumnezei, cunoscând binele s?i ra?ul."  = "your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." and the Modern Greek Bible as well as the so called Greek Septuagint - "???????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???, ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????, ??????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????.", Chinese Union Version Traditional - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 


 

Even Dan Wallace?s NET version sort of got it right, saying: - ?your eyes will open and YOU WILL BE LIKE DIVINE BEINGS who know good and evil.?


 

To be "as gods" is the promise of eastern religions, Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, Mormonism, Reincarnation and the New Age philosophy of the likes of Shirley McClain and now embraced by millions, that each and every "enlightened" man or woman will evolve and eventually become a god.

 

It is also the devil's lie being promoted by The ?little gods? heresy of the Word of Faith preachers like Ken Copeland, Ceflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn.  They have swallowed the devil?s lie.  7 minute video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPoQixUloZk&app=desktop

 

This is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Compare also Ezekiel 28:2 "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I AM A GOD, I sit in the seat of God"

 

In Acts 12:22 we read of Herod who sat on his throne and made an oration to the people, who gave a shout saying, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man." And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."

 

A little further in Acts 14:11 when Paul and Barnabas had done a miracle of healing, the people "lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." The priest of Jupiter also came with sacrifices to offer unto these men who were "gods".

 

Later in Acts 28:6 the barbarous people on the island of Melita, when they say that Paul did not die after being bitten by a snake, they "said that he was a god."

 

We read in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12 of the culmination of Satan's plan when he finally gets a man in place to decieve multitudes before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The falling away from the true faith occurs and "that man of sin is revealed...Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God."

 

This, I believe, is the lie referred to in verse 11 and in Genesis 3:5. For those who receive not the love of the truth "God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe A LIE: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 

 

However when we look at a multitude of modern versions including the NKJV, NIV, NET and NASB this temptation presented by the serpent in the garden has changed. The NKJV, NIV and NASB say: "you will be LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil."

 

There is a big difference between being "like God" and being "as gods". We who are redeemed will in fact be like God in that we are being conformed to the image of His Son, but we will never be "as gods". To be as gods is the false promise of our own deity and this is the ultimate sin of pride and rebellion.

 

Who do you think would want to obscure and hide this connection between the first lie in the Bible and the ultimate triumph of Satan's man presenting himself as God?  

 

Matthew Henry comments on Genesis 3:5 - "He tempts them to seek preferment, as if they were fit to be gods. Satan ruined himself by desiring to be like the Most High, therefore he sought to infect our first parents with the same desire, that he might ruin them too."

 

John Gill - "and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil: as "Elohim", which word is sometimes used of civil magistrates, sometimes of angels, and sometimes of God himself, and of the divine Persons in the Godhead."

 

John Wesley - "You shall be as gods - As Elohim, mighty gods, not only omniscient but omnipotent too".

 

Pagan and false religions are full of "gods" and "goddesses", and Mormonism, New Age Philosophy and other false religions teach that man can become "as gods".

 

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we in him."  1 Corinthians 8:5-6  

 

The King James Bible is right, as always. Accept no substitutes.


 

Genesis 3:15

 

Here in this 7 minute video John Ankerberg and some other ?expert? criticize the King James Bible

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRjZWvHEk_0&app=desktop


 

The great promise of Genesis 3:15 has  been altered in many versions. God speaks to the serpent whom He had just cursed and says: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; IT shall BRUISE thy head, and thou shalt BRUISE his heel."

 

Here we read of two different seeds. There are the children of the devil and the children of God. See Matthew 13:25, 39. Christ sowed good seed in his field. The good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the enemy who is the devil sowed tares and these are the children of the wicked one.

 

In the KJB the seed that will bruise the serpent's head is referred to as IT. Why is this? I believe it is because the seed refers not only to Christ but also to His people who will bruise the head of Satan. Christ is the seed, but we are also in Christ and are the promised seed as well.

 

Compare Galatians 3:16 and 29. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Abraham's seed is both Christ and His people.

 

The clincher is Romans 16:20, but it has been messed up in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT.



In the King James Bible we read: "And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Crist be with you. Amen."

 

The KJB has "bruise" in both Genesis 3:15 and in Romans 16:20, thus tying the two verses together. But the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT have changed "bruise" to "crush" in Romans 16:20 and thus  obscure this connection. 

 

We also read a related promise to the saints of God in Psalm 91:13 "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."

 

We read of the enmity of Satan with the seed of the woman in Revelation 12:17 "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." 

 

In Genesis 3:15 the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Holman, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT, the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 unite in changing the seed being referred to as "IT" to "HE" thus limiting it to only Christ.

 

The Catholic Douay version 1950 and the Work of God's Children Bible 2011 have "SHE shall bruise your head", probably referring to Mary

 

While the New English Bible 1970, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Revised English Bible 1989 and The New Jewish Version 1985 have "THEY shall bruise your head", which would also include the saints of God.

 

Even those who criticize the King James Bible (none of whom believes that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God) will at least admit that the Hebrew text can be translated as "IT."  

 

Tyndale 1534 and Matthew's Bible 1549, God's First Truth 1999, the Jubilee Bible 2010 all say "THAT SEED shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

 

"IT shall bruise thy head"

 

Other Bible transalations that read IT along with the KJB are the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's translation 1833, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885 - ?IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.?, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Bond Slave Version 2012, and The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - ?IT shall crush thy rosh, and thou shalt strike his akev (heel).?.

 

And this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." - http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%203:15

 

The word "it" referring to the seed plural is also found in Genesis 16:10. "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that IT shall not be numbered for multitude." 

 

Isn't is wonderful to know that we are in Christ and are His seed, members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones; and that His victory is also ours because we are in Him and that shortly God will bruise Satan under our feet?

 

John Calvin also understood the passage in this way. He comments: ?But because one stronger than he (Satan) has descended from heaven, who will subdue him, hence it comes to pass that, in the same manner, the whole Church of God, under its Head, will gloriously exult over him. To this the declaration of Paul refers, ?The Lord shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,? (Romans 16:20)  By which words he signifies that the power of bruising Satan is imparted to faithful men, and thus the blessing is the common property of the whole Church?


 

Matthew Poole?s English Annotations on the Holy Bible also saw the same truth, saying: ?and by way of participation, all the members of Christ, all believers and holy men, who are called the children of Christ, Hebrews 2:13,  and of the heavenly Jerusalem, Galatians 4:26. All the members whereof are the seed of this woman; and all these are the implacable enemies of the devil, whom also by Christ?s merit and strength they do overcome.?

 

 

Whedon?s Commentary shares the same view as well. He comments - ?It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.  But this prophecy, given in Paradise before the expulsion of the transgressors, should not be explained exclusively of the personal Messiah. That promised seed comprehends also the redeemed humanity of which he is Head ? that great company who both suffer with him and with him shall also be glorified.  Romans 8:17?So only those who belong to Christ as their great head and leader, are the seed of promise; all others, though born of woman, by espousing the serpent?s cause and doing the lusts of the devil (John 8:44) are of the seed of the serpent, a ?generation of vipers,? (Matthew 23:33) whose end is perdition.? 

 

The Seed, the "IT" in Genesis 3:15,  that shall ultimately bruise the head of Satan is Both the Lord Jesus Christ and all the redeemed who are His Seed together. The victory is ours as well because we are in Him and Scripture clearly promises to every saint of God -  "And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Crist be with you. Amen."  Romans 16:20  

 

This truth is lost in these modern versions.

 

The King James Bible is right, as always, and none of those who criticize and "correct" it will ever show you a copy of any Bible in any language that they honestly believe is now the complete and inerrant words of God.

 

They are all version rummagers and their own authority as they piece together their individual "bible" versions which differ from every body else's.  "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."  Judges 21:25

 

Genesis 3:16 the effects of sin - 

 

Genesis 3:16 - KJB - "Unto the woman he said, I WILL GREATLY MULTIPLY THY SORROW AND THY CONCEPTION; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

 

ESV 2011, NASB 1995 (Jehovah Witness NWT, - "To the woman he said, I will SURELY MULTIPLY YOUR PAIN IN CHILDBEARING; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be FOR your husband, and he shall rule over you."

 

NIV 2011 edition - "To the woman he said, "I WILL MAKE YOUR PAINS IN CHILDBEARING VERY SEVERE; with painful labor you will give birth to children.  Your desire will be FOR your husband, and he will rule over you."  

 

Holman Standard 2003-2009 - "He said to the woman: I will intensify YOUR LABOR PAINS, and you will BEAR CHILDREN in anguish. Your desire will be FOR your husband, yet he will dominate you."


 

The Ever Changing ESVs

Genesis 3:16 KJB - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and THY CONCEPTION; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

ESV 2001, 2007 and 2011 editions - To the woman he said, ?I will surely multiply YOUR PAIN IN CHILDBEARING; in pain you shall bring forth children, Your desire shall be FOR your husband, and he shall rule over you.? 

(I have hard copies of all three of these, and that is how they all read)

ESV 2016 edition - To the woman he said, ?I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband, but he shall rule over you.?

Footnotes:

a Genesis 3:16 Or shall be toward (see 4:7)

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016).

(You can see the ESV 2016 edition - 4th edition in just 16 years - online here)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A16&version=ESV

 

 

 

There are two major problems with many new versions regarding how they have translated this verse. The difference between "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow AND THY CONCEPTION" versus "I will surely multiply your pain IN CHILDBEARING"

 

The second one is the difference between "thy desire shall be TO thy husband" versus "your desire will be FOR your husband.", OR as in the case of the ESV 2016 edition - "your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband." I will take up the first one here.

 

 

The first error in many modern versions has to do with the word "conception". This word obviously has to do with the act of becoming pregnant, not the actual giving of birth which occurs 9 months after conception. The word is found only three times in the Old Testament and it comes from the verb "to conceive" # 2029 hah-rah, as found in Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew his wife; and SHE CONCEIVED, and bare Cain..." and in Genesis 16:4,5 "when she saw that SHE HAD CONCEIVED". 

 

The noun form is found again in Ruth 4:13 where we read:  "the LORD gave her (Ruth) CONCEPTION".  And the third time is in Hosea 9:11 "As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb and from THE CONCEPTION." and here in Gen. 3:16. 

 

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow AND THY CONCEPTION."

 

"I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION"  is the reading found in the Great Bible 1540,  the Geneva Bible 1587 - "I will greatly increase thy sorowes, AND THY CONCEPTIONS.", Webster's translation 1833, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, the Smith Bible 1876,  the Revised Version 1885 -"I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION", the Sharpe Bible 1883, the ASV 1901 - "I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION", Young's 1898 "Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy CONCEPTION", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1936 "I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, the NKJV 1984, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "I will increase your sorrow AND YOUR CONCEPTION", The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green's literal 2005, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the English Jubilee Bible 2010, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "I will greatly multiply thy itzavon ([labor] pain) AND THY CHILDBEARING", The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Hebrew Roots Bible 2015, and the 2014 Natural Israelite Bible - "I will greatly multiply your sorrow AND YOUR CONCEPTION."

 

And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament

 

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%203:16 

 

 

Other Translations that are similar in meaning to the KJB  

 

Wycliffe 1395 (modern spelling) I shall multiply thy wretchedness AND THY CONCEIVINGS"

 

Tyndale 1534 and Matthew's Bible 1549  (modern spelling) - I will surely increase thy sorrow, AND MAKE THEE OFTEN WITH CHILD."

 

Darby's Translation of 1890 has essentially the same meaning with ?I will greatly increase thy travail AND THY PREGNANCY."

 

The Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation has: "?I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY TRAVAIL."

 

God's First Truth 1999 - "And unto the woman he said: I will surely increase your sorrow, AND MAKE YOU OFTEN WITH CHILD."

 

The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Complete Tanach 2004 - "I shall surely increase your sorrow AND YOUR PREGNANCY."

 

Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - "I am increasing grief of you AND PREGNANCY of you"

 

Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - ?I will greatly multiply thy itzavon (labor] pain) AND THY CHILDBEARING.?

 

The Catholic Versions  

 

The previous Douay Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both followed the literal Hebrew text and read as does the King James Bible - "To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy CONCEPTIONS: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children".  

 

But the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 have all changed this to now read: "I will intensify the PANGS OF YOUR CHILDBEARING."

 

However the Catholic versions are not done yet.  Now in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) has come out, and it goes back to the Hebrew reading of - "I will multiply your labors AND YOUR CONCEPTIONS."

 

The NASB, ESV say: "I will greatly multiply your PAIN IN CHILDBIRTH" and the NIV has: "your PAINS IN CHILDBEARING." Childbirth is the time the child is born from the womb, not the 9 months before when it was conceived.

 

Dan Wallace and company's NET version is of interest.  It says: "I will greatly increase your labor pains; WITH PAIN YOU WILL GIVE BIRTH TO CHILDREN.? 

 

HOWEVER, in his footnote he actually says this: (Caps mine) ?HEBREW - "YOUR PAIN AND YOUR CONCEPTION", suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment.?  And then he has this unbelievably DULL and (may I say) STUPID comment - ?Conception,? if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception?. 

 

Dan Wallace and company, because they are Bible correctors and unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in ANY language, become blind to simple truth and completely miss what the passage is actually talking about.  If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.

 

 

I think most of the commentaries have missed the true meaning of this phrase as found in the Hebrew and the KJB; they look at what it says, can't figure it out and so paraphrase it to what they THINK it means rather than what it actually says. Take a look at most commentaries and you will see they change the text of the KJB, correct it one way or another and then tell you what they think it means.

 

I ask you to stop before continuing this article. What does "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow AND THY CONCEPTION" mean? What does the text SAY? It's not that hard to figure out.

 

Let the Bible determine your theology rather than your theology to interpret the Bible. In the previous verse God told the serpent, the devil, that He would put enmity between "thy seed and her seed". Satan has his seed, his children, and he has sown them in this fallen world.

 

Jesus tells us in Matthew 13:25 and 38 that the Son of Man sows His good seed which are the children of the kingdom and the enemy sows his own which are the children of the wicked one. In John 8:44 the Lord Jesus says to the Pharisees: "Ye are of your father the devil."

 

Paul calls Elymas the sorcerer "thou child of the devil" and I John 3:10 and 12 tells us of the children of the devil and that Cain "was of that wicked one, and slew his brother."

 

If Eve had not sinned against God and Adam had not followed her, there would not have been the fall of man. All the seed of future generations would have been a godly seed. But one of the disastrous results of the fall is that Satan can now sow his seed among men. That is why God says I will greatly multiply thy conception.

 

Two families are now being born into this world, the children of God and the children of the devil and the first son conceived and later born to Eve was Cain, a child of the devil. And there have been multitudes born into this world since that fateful day, both children of God and children of the devil.  

 

The King James Bible is always right.  God bless.

 

Genesis 3:16  KJB - "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and they conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; AND THY DESIRE SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND, and he shall rule over thee." 


ESV 2001, 2007 and 2011 editions - To the woman he said, ?I will surely multiply YOUR PAIN IN CHILDBEARING; in pain you shall bring forth children, Your desire shall be FOR your husband, and he shall rule over you.? 

(I have hard copies of all three of these, and that is how they all read)

ESV 2016 edition - To the woman he said, ?I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband, but he shall rule over you.?


  

NKJV - "...YOUR DESIRE SHALL BE FOR YOUR HUSBAND, and he shall rule over you."

 

 

What does "thy desire shall be TO thy husband" mean? There are basically three conflicting views usually presented. Some say that the wife will have a sexual desire towards her husband or more generally a desire FOR a husband. Others say that a woman will desire to lord it over her husband.

 

Finally there is what I believe to be the correct view and that is that the woman's desire will be subject to her husband. Remember when she saw the fruit of the tree was "desired" to make one wise and she took of the fruit? She followed her own desires, wishes and will instead of placing herself under the protection of her husband and the authority of God's word.

 

"Thy desire shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" is reading of the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's Bible 1833, The Bill Bible 1671, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, the Smith Bible 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885, Darby's 1890, the ASV 1901 - "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, both the 1917 JPS - "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.", and 1936 Jewish Publication Society translations, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Bible 1994, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014.

 

The Geneva Bible 1587 says: "thy desire shall be SUBJECT TO thine husband, and he shall rule over thee".

 

Wycliffe 1395 - "and thou schalt be vndur power of the hosebonde, and he schal be lord of thee."

 

Tyndale 1534 and Coverdale 1535 - "And thy lustes shall pertayne vnto thy husbond and he shall rule the."

 

The Boothroyd Bible 1853 - "and TO thy husband SHALL BE THY SUBJECTION, and he shall rule over thee."

 

Brenton translation 1851 says: "and thy submission shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

 

The Lexham English Bible 2012 is correct with - "And to your husband shall be your desire.  And he shall rule over you.?

 

Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 - "and your submission shall be TO your husband, and he shall rule over you."

 

The New Brenton Translation 2012 - "and your SUBMISSION SHALL BE TO YOUR HUSBAND, and he shall rule over you." 

 

The Biblos Bible 2013 -"your desire shall be UNTO your husband, and he shall rule over you."

 

However the NKJV, NASBs, Holman, ESV early editions and NIV unite with the liberal RSV and NRSV and say: "Your desire will be FOR your husband."

 

The Common English Bible (a critical text version) 2012 has "YOU WILL DESIRE your husband, but he will rule over you.?

 

Names of God Bible 2011 (another critical text) - "Yet, YOU WILL LONG FOR your husband, and he will rule you.?

 

The Living Bible 1971 - "yet even so, you shall welcome your husband?s affections, and he shall be your master.?

 

The Voice 2012 - "You will desire your husband; but rather than a companion, He will be the dominant partner.


Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 is interesting in that it is different from them all. It says: "YOU WILL WANT TO CONTROL YOUR HUSBAND, but he will dominate you.?

 

Just a little change, but this change confuses the issue and allows them to read the idea of "desiring to have a husband" into the passage, and does away with the idea of being subject unto her husband.

 

In fact the New English Bible says: "YOUR URGE WILL BE FOR your husband", the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 says: "YOU WILL LEARN FOR your husband" and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 has "YOUR YEARNING WILL BE FOR your husband, and he will dominate you."

 

When you combine this reading of the NKJV with the other one they have changed in Genesis 2:18 from "an help MEET FOR him" to "a helper COMPARABLE TO him" you begin to see the direction these perversions are taking.

 

Genesis 3:16 KJB - ?Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; AND THY DESIRE SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.?

 

NKJV ?To the woman He said: ?I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; YOUR DESIRE SHALL BE FOR YOUR HUSBAND, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU.? 

 

John Gill - ?and thy desire shall be to thy husband, this is to be understood of her being solely at the will and pleasure of her husband; that whatever she desired should be referred to him, whether she should have her desire or not, or the thing she desired; it should be liable to be controlled by his will, which must determine it, and to which she must be subject, as follows: and he shall rule over thee.?


John Calvin on Genesis 3:16 - ?Thy desire shall be unto thy husband," is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, 'Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.' ? Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position.? 

 

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - ?her condition would henceforth be that of humble subjection." 

 

Adam Clarke commentary - ?Thy desire shall be to thy husband -  for thy desire, thy appetite, shall be to thy husband; and he shall rule over thee, though at their creation both were formed with equal rights, and the woman had probably as much right to rule as the man; but subjection to the will of her husband is one part of her curse.? 

 

Matthew Henry - "She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband,  of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands?   

 

The King James Bible is right, as always. 

 

 

Genesis 4 Bible Babel

 

Genesis 4:7 has been interpreted in 5 or 6 different ways that I know of. If you believe the King James Bible is God's inerrant word, (and I certainly do) then stick with the text and don't change it in an attempt to put your particular spin on it as the modern versions have.

 

In chapter 4 both Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the LORD. By faith Abel offered a lamb whose blood was shed, as a type of Christ, who is the only sacrifice which makes us acceptable before a holy God. Cain offered the fruit of the ground, as a type of natural religion based on his own works and hard labour.

 

We read that "the LORD has respect unto Abel and to his offering; But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?" 

 

God says to Cain in 4:7 "If thou doest well, shalt thou not BE ACCEPTED? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. AND UNTO THEE SHALL BE HIS DESIRE, AND THOU SHALT RULE OVER HIM."

 

This is the reading of not only the KJB but also the English Revised Version 1885 - "and unto thee shall be HIS desire, and thou shalt rule over HIM.", Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Smith Bible 1876, Darby's translation 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Mebust Bible 2007,  the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012 and the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "And unto thee [shall be] HIS teshukah (desire), and thou shalt rule over HIM."

 

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be ACCEPTED?" In other words, if Cain brings the correct blood sacrifice, owning himself to be a death deserving sinner, he shall be accepted. We who are true Christians are "accepted in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins" Ephesians 1:6,7. "Accepted" is the reading of all the above versions plus the NIV, NKJV, Youngs, New English Bible and even the RSV.

 

 However the NASB says: "If you do well, will not YOUR COUNTENANCE BE LIFTED UP?" There is no word for "your countenance" in this verse, though it does occur in verses 5 and 6, but not in verse 7 as the NASB has it. The NASB seems to be saying that if Cain does well he will be happy and maybe even proud. 

 

The main problem is in the remainder of the verse. "And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

 

I believe this means that if Cain does not come before God with an acceptable blood sacrifice, as Abel did, then Cain will be overtaken by sin. Abel's desire will be subject to Cain and Cain will rule over Abel. This is brought out by the very next verse. "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

 

Abel desired to go on living as he had been, but Cain ruled over him and took his life - this was the sin that lay at the door. The Hebrew construction is exactly the same as in 3:16 where it is said to Eve: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee", which the new versions have also messed up. 

 

But the NKJV, NIV and NASB say: " And ITS desire is FOR you, but you MUST MASTER IT" thus changing the whole meaning of the verse. Can we "master" sin? Doesn't the Bible teach that we are servants to sin, dead in sins and held captive by its power? Only Christ can set us free from its dominion and this is accomplished by His acceptable sacrifice, not by our own efforts.

 

(This info on Genesis 4:7 was sent to me by another King James Bible believer)

 

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be HIS DESIRE, and thou shalt rule over HIM. (Gen 4:7, KJB)

 

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And ITS DESIRE is for you, but you should rule over IT." (Gen 4:7, NKJV)

 

The King James Version rightly translates the Hebrew text here when it reads, "And unto thee shall be his desire..."

 

The New King James Version mistranslate this verse based on their perception of what the text is saying rather than simply translating what the text actually does say.

 

When we read "his desire" rather than "its desire" we identify the antecedent as Cain's brother Abel rather than as sin (which the translation of "its" implies).

 

The Hebrew for "his desire" is masculine 3rd person. When the New King James Version translate it as "its" they are changing the masculine to a neuter, for which there is no manuscript evidence.

 

The similarity between this verse and the previous chapter where we are told that Eve's desire shall be for her husband (Gen 3:16) is striking. The same word "desire" is used and is second person female.

 

The proper translation of Gen 4:7 is "his" rather than "its," which leads to an interpretation of the order between older and younger brothers, correlating to Gen 3:16 and the order between husband and wife. (end of comments sent to me)

 

The modern perversions give us an interpretation and not a translation. I think they did not know what it meant, and so they put in what they thought it meant rather than what it says.

 

The King James Bible is the only popular version today that always follows the Hebrew Masoretic text in the Old Testament. The NKJV departs a few times, the NASB at least 40 times and the NIV is the worst of the three which clearly departs from the Hebrew some 80 plus times, and they tell you this in their own footnotes.

 

Genesis 4:8 - NIV, LXX - "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD"



KJB - (NKJV, ESV, NASB, Dead Sea Scrolls) "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."  


NIV (NET, Holman Standard 2009, ISV 2014, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985) - "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD."  While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother and killed him."


In verse 8 the NIV does some peculiar things which condemn it as a false bible. After the words "And Cain talked with Abel his brother" the NIV adds these words: "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD", and then the NIV omits the words "and it came to pass" which are in the Hebrew, and in the NKJV and the NASB too. 


The NIV footnote tells us that the words "Let's go out to the field" come from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac, but the Masoretic Text does not have these words. So right here in one verse, and there are many more, the NIV both adds to and takes away from the inspired words of God. 

 

Other modern versions that also add these extra words are the Holman Standard 2009, the Amplified bible 1987, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, ISV 2014, Young's, the Jehovah Witness NWT, and ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible.  


Even though the NIV English version ADDS these extra words "Let's go out to the field", yet the NIV Spanish Version,  La Nueva Versión Internacional 2015 does not.  It reads: "Caín habló con su hermano Abel. Mientras estaban en el campo, Caín atacó a su hermano y lo mató."

 

 

A Bible critic names Jeff Benner also supports this reading and tells us that the Masoretic texts are wrong and that when the Hebrew word translated as "talked" in the King James Bible really should be "SAID" and that it is ALWAYS followed by what the person said, thus proving (in his own mind) that the KJB and many others cannot be right but that something had dropped out of the text and this something is supplied by the Greek Septuagint.


You can see Jeff Benner's totally unfounded criticisms of the KJB in his short video here -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbmLdss5uqQ


Note- Regarding Mr. Benners other fake "errors" like Leviticus 20:10 and Psalms 145:13 see my article here -


http://brandplucked.webs.com/leviticus2010.htm

 

Mr. Benner is wrong, of course. The Hebrew word in question is #559 ah-mar and is variously translated as "to say, to talk, promise, thought, command, to declare, reported, answer, desired, appointed, certified, uttereth and intend".  And there most definitely ARE times when it is used and what the person said is NOT mentioned. See for example Job 8:10 "Shall not they teach thee, and TELL thee, and utter words out of their heart?"; Job 37:20 - "Shall it be told him that I speak? if a man SPEAK, surely he shall be swallowed up."; Esther 2:15 "appointed"; Esther 2:22 "certified"; Jonah 2:10 - "And the LORD SPAKE unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land."

 

If these new versions are so sure the so called LXX is right, then why didn't any of them follow the LXX reading of the previous verse 7, where instead of saying something like the KJB's "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." But the Greek LXX actually says: "Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it?"  (Say What?!)  


Nobody followed this goofy reading in verse 7, yet they latch onto to a few words in verse 8 that are NOT found in any Hebrew manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and obviously not ALL modern versions think these extra words should be added.

 

These extra words "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD." are NOT found in the Hebrew texts, nor in the Dead Sea Scrolls, nor in the NASB 1995, the ESV 2001 - 2011 editions, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, the Updated Bible 2004, the Message 2002, The Mebust Bible 2007, the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010, the Names of God Bible 2011- "Cain talked to his brother Abel. Later, when they were in the fields, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.", the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - "And Kayin talked with Hevel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the sadeh, that Kayin rose up against Hevel his brother, and killed him.", The Voice of 2011, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Modern English Version 2014, and the Tree of Life Version 2015.

 


"and it came to pass"


The NIV concordance tells us that of the 3577 times this verb occurs in the Hebrew  - "and it came to pass" (#216 the NIV has not translated (omitted, taken away) this verb 887 times, or a little more than one of every four times it occurs. It also does it in 6:1. These are verifiable facts, not wild accusations.

 

In verse 10 of this chapter it says: "And HE said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground." Here the NIV placed "the LORD" into the text instead of the Hebrew "he" and as the NASB/NKJV have it. If you look in the NIV concordance, again it will tell you that the word JEHOVAH # 3378 has not been translated 38 times when it does appear in the Hebrew and it has been added (as here) some 52 times when it is not in the Hebrew text! These are just samplings of what the NIV has done to God's word.

 

In verse 15 we read: "And the LORD said unto him, THEREFORE, whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." THEREFORE is the reading of the NASB, NKJV, ASV etc. But the NIV says: " But the LORD said unto him, NOT SO, if anyone kills Cain..." The NIV footnote tells us that the "not so" comes from the Vulgate, Syriac and the LXX, but as the RSV and NRSV footnote tell us "therefore" is the Hebrew reading. With the NIV one never knows if what he is reading are the true words of God or a man made mess. Well, the Bible believer knows it is a real mess.

 

Genesis 6 Bible Babel


Genesis 6:1 "AND IT CAME TO PASS, when men began to multiply on ther FACE of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,". Here, though in the Hebrew, the NASB, NKJV and the NIV translators again felt at liberty to edit some of God's inspired words. The NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass" in this verse and 886 other times as well. The NIV also omits the word FACE, though they did put it in in verse 7. A look at the NIV concordance shows that they have not translated this word for face 121 times when it occurs in the O. T. Hebrew. I'm sure they will be properly rewarded for their endeavors.

 

 

Genesis 6:4 Giants or Nephalim?


Genesis 6:4 KJB  "There were GIANTS in the earth in those days." ESV, NIV, NASB - "The NEPHILIM were on the earth in those days."  ESV footnote - Or giants.  

 

There is no doubt that the Hebrew word used here and in Numbers 13:33 is # 5303 n'phee-leem, but which is the better TRANSLATION, giants or Nephilim?  Many modern versions have merely TRANSLITERATED the word to Nephilim, but what does this communicate? How many people know what a Nephilim is?  Not many. Don't the modern version promoters keep telling us that we need a bible version that is easy to read and understand in modern speech?   And yet the result of the modern versions has been widespread and increasing biblical ignorance and unbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

 

 

The King James Bible and many others as we shall soon see, simply TRANSLATED this Hebrew word into English and told us what the word means, even as the ESV footnote tells us.  So does the New English Bible 1970. The text says Nephilim but their footnote says "Or giants".

 

GIANTS is the reading of  Wycliffe 1395 - "giauntis weren on erthe in tho daies", Coverdale 1835, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1610, Webster's Translation 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, Darby's translation 1890, Douay Version 1950, the Living Bible, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 and the 2014 Natural Israelite Bible - "There were GIANTS on the earth in those days".

 

There are numerous foreign language Bibles that say GIANTS instead of the transliterated Nephilim.  Among these are the Greek Septuagint version - ?? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? =  "there were GIANTS in the earth", Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909-2011 - - "Había GIGANTES en la tierra en aquellos días"", La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB), Dios Habla Hoy 1996, THE NIV Spanish Version La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 "hubo GIGANTES en la tierra.", Palabra de Dios Para Todos 2014, the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 1681 and La Sagrada Biblia em Portugués - "Havia naqueles dias GIGANTES na terra",  the  Latin Vulgate - "GIGANTES autem erant super terram", the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 - "Il y avait en ce temps-là des GEANTS sur la terre", the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "In jenen Tagen waren die Riesen auf der Erde" = "there were GIANTS on the earth", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "In quel tempo i GIGANTI erano in su la terra" and the Tagalog Bible - "Ang mga higante ay nasa lupa ng ma araw na yaon - GIANTS in the earth." 



 

Other Foreign Language Bibles that also read "giants" are  the Czeck Kralicka Bible - "Obrové pak byli na zemi v t?ch dnech" - "there were GIANTS in the earth", the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - "I de dager var kjempene på jorden og likeså siden" = "GIANTS in the earth", the Russian Synodal Version - "? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????????" = "GIANTS in the earth", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "In dié dae was die reuse op die aarde" = "GIANTS in the earth", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Az óriások valának a földön abban az idõben" = "GIANTS in the earth", Swedish Bible 1917 - " levde jättarna på jorden" = "lived GIANTS on the earth", the Albanian Bible - "Kishte gjigantë mbi tokë në ago kohë", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "In die dagen waren er reuzen op de aarde" = "GIANTS in the earth", the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Erau uria?i pe p?mânt în acele zile ?i" = "GIANTS in those days",  the Chinese Union Traditional Bible - ????????? = "there were GIANTS on the earth" and the Modern Greek Bible - "???' ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ???"

 

 

Young's 1898 has a unique translation in Genesis 6:4  and goes off all by itself.  It says "THE FALLEN ONES were in the earth in those days."

 

The New Life Version 1969 says: " VERY LARGE MEN were on the earth in those days"

 

The Voice 2012 has: "A GREAT WARRIOR RACE lived on the earth."


The Bible in Basic English 1961 says: "There were men of great strength and size on the earth in those days".  

 

What would a six year old boy say if he saw a man of great strength and size?  Oh, look, Mommy, there's a Nephilim! or would he be more likely to call him a "giant"? What do you think?

 

The NIV, which supposedly is so easy to read, says Nephilim instead of giants. So does the NASB, ESV, NET. How many high schoolers understand what Nephilim are? Giants are referred to in the KJB 20 times, the NKJV 18, the NASB 7 times and the NIV zero times. Not even when it speaks of Goliath and his sons that were slain by another Israelite, does the NIV call Goliath a giant but rather Rapha - see I Chronicles 20:6.


You can put together the words found in the KJB to make the sentence: "The very sad green giant was hungry" and in the NIV it would be: "The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished." See how much easier to read and in modern speech the NIV is?


In Genesis 6:5 we find a word that is not much liked by the new versions. In keeping with the New Age theology the word imagination is a very positive word, so we don't want to put this word in a negative light. The KJB always uses "imagination" in a negative way, as here. "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every IMAGINATION of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Imagination is the reading of the ASV, Geneva, 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Darby, Youngs and even the RSV. But the NKJV and NASB have "intent" while the NIV has "inclination". The word Imagination is found in the KJB Old Testament 18 times, in the NASB 3, the NIV 4 and the nNKJV only one time.

 

 

Genesis 6:8 KJB - "But Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD."

 

ESV (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "But Noah found FAVOR in the eyes of the LORD."

 

In Genesis 6:8 the word GRACE appears for the first time. It is always important to notice carefully the first time a certain word is used in the Bible. Grace is first used here in Genesis 6:8. 

 

"But Noah found GRACE"


There was nothing different or special about Noah from the others who were so wicked in his days. Noah even got drunk (first time in the Bible) after the flood. His nature was not less sinful than others but he found grace in God's eyes just as we do in Christ.  

 

When God tells Noah in Genesis 7:1 "thee have I seen righteous before me", keep in mind that he FIRST found grace. The same is true of us who are in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour. It is solely by His grace that we are in Him and clothed in His perfect righteousness.

 

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."  1 Corinthians 1:30-31

 

Even when we define grace as UNMERITED favor, we have to add the word "unmerited" to favor because the word favor can carry the implied idea of some basis of merit for this favor. For example, we say "Which team is favored to win the Super Bowl?" and we look at the talent on the team, its record, strengths and weaknesses.

 

Or if we say: You do me a favor and I'll do you a favor. Some degree of merit is involved or some other quality that elicits this favor.

 

 

The NIV, ESV, NET, Holman, NASB and Jehovah Witness NWT lend themselves to this idea of some kind of merit by saying that Noah found FAVOR in the eyes of the LORD.

 

The New English Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 say "Noah WON THE FAVOR of the Lord"

 

The Living bible says that "Noah WAS A PLEASURE TO the Lord".

 

The Common English Bible 2011 (another Critical Text version) says: ?But as for Noah, the Lord APPROVED OF HIM.?

 

The Living Bible 1971 reads: "But Noah WAS A PLEASURE TO the Lord."

 

The Good News Translation 1992 and The Contemporary English Version (Critical Text versions) 1995, ISV 2014 have: ?But the Lord WAS PLEASED WITH Noah.?

 

The Easy English Bible 2010 (another Critical text version) - ?But God WAS HAPPY WITH Noah.?

 

And The Message 2002 actually says: ? But Noah WAS DIFFERENT. GOD LIKED WHAT HE SAW IN NOAH.?

 

Do you see the subtle change in emphasis?

 

The word GRACE occurs in the King James Bible Old Testament 38 times, in the NKJV 20 times, in the NASB 9 times, in the NIV 7 times, and in the ESV and Dan Wallace's NET version only 6 times. This is a change in emphasis, and not for the better.

 

Other comparisons of the number of times a certain word occurs in the Old Testament are highly significant. Truth - in the KJB 118 times, in the NASB 92 (26 fewer), the ESV 44 times, the NIV 2011 edition only 32 times and only 27 times in Dan Wallace's NET version of the Old Testament.

 

Mercy, mercies or merciful in the KJB 288 times, in the ESV 138 times, in the NET version 103 times,  in the NIV 2011 edition 83 times,  and in the NASB only 51 times.   Mercy implies that we do not deserve it. The NIV, ESV, NET and NASB often substitute the words lovingkindness or love instead of mercy. Love is a totally different Hebrew word as it is in English.

 

JEHOVAH as the personal name of the God of redemption occurs in the KJB 7 times, in the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB zero times.

 

Hell is found in the O.T. of the KJB 31 times, in the NKJV 19 times and in the NASB, ESV, NET and NIV zero times.

 

In the whole Bible the word "doctrine" is found in the KJB 56 times, in the NKJV 42 times, in the NASB 14, in the ESV 13 times, in the NIV only 7 times and in Dan Wallace's NET version only 2 times in the entire Bible. Doctrine is something fixed, settled, authoritative and unchanging. The new versions like to substitute the word "teaching" instead. Teaching implies an ongoing, fluid and changing process with no idea of authority attached. 

 

"But Noah found GRACE"

 

 

Versions that read as the KJB are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims bible 1582, the Bill Bible 1671, Webster's bible 1833, the Longman Version 1841, The Lesser Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Smith Bible 1876, the Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, the Douay Version 1950, the Bible in Basic English 1961, The Basic English Bible 1965, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Green's Literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Asser Septuagint 2009, Concordant Literal Version 2009, The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children's Illustrated Bible 2011, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, and The Modern English Version 2014. 

 

Foreign language Bibles that say "Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD" are the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D., the Clementine Vulgate, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina-Valera 1909 - 2011 - "Pero Noé halló GRACIA a los ojos del Señor.", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Ma Noè trovò GRAZIA appo il Signore."Luther?s German Bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - ?Aber Noah fand Gnade vor dem HERRN.?, The French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Second 2007  - ?Mais Noé trouva GRACE devant l'Eternel.?, the Portuguese Almeida 2009 - "Noé, porém, achou GRACA aos olhos do Senhor.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Maar Noach vond GENADE in de ogen des HEEREN.", the Czech Kralicka Bible, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Finnish Bible 1776, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Swedish Bible 1917, the Japanese JKUG Bible,  the Norwegian Det Bibleselskap, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, the Chinese Union Traditional Bible and the Smith & van Dyke's Arabic Bible - ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????.

 

Bible Commentators, like bible versions, often differ from each other about the meaning of passages of Scripture.  But among those I believe got it right are -  

 

John Gill - ?But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. This man and his family were the only exception to the general apostasy; God always reserves some, in the worst of times, for himself; there is a remnant, according to the election of grace; it was but a small one, and that now appeared; and this was owing to the grace of God, and his choice upon that, and not to the merits of the creature.?

 

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - ?And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. - Noah and his family are the only exceptions to this sweeping destruction. It is opposed to works as a source of blessing. Whither grace comes there merit cannot be. Hence, we learn even from the case of Noah that original sin asserts its presence in the whole race of Adam.? 

 

John Calvin - Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord - ??whence, however, did he attain this integrity, but from the preventing grace of God? The commencement, therefore, of this favor was gratuitous mercy. Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world.? 

John Trapp (English Puritan) - "But Noah found grace. Because in covenant with God; who of himself was a child of wrath, and saved by grace only?

Matthew Poole?s Annotations on the Holy Bible - ?which is noted to show that Noah was so far guilty of the common corruption of human nature, that he needed God?s grace and mercy to pardon and preserve him from the common destruction.?

 

Hawker?s Poor Man?s Commentary - ?But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.  Is not Noah, in this instance, a type of the blessed Jesus? And is not the finding of Him the grace and favour here spoken of? Also, to find grace, implies God's gift of grace."

 

Benson?s Commentary of the Old and New Testaments - ?Noah found grace ? ...for although he was by nature corrupt and sinful, he had been renewed in the spirit of his mind, and by repentance and a lively faith, had obtained witness that he was righteous.?  

 

 "But Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD" - The King James Bible is right, as always.


In Genesis 6:12 we read: "And God looked upon the earth, and BEHOLD, it was corrupt; for all FLESH had corrupted his way upon the earth." Again the NIV omits this word BEHOLD. It is a separate word in Hebrew - hinneh- and in the KJB it is always rendered as "behold" or "lo". It is used to draw our attention to something important. The NIV usually changes this to see, listen, here or there - all of which are incorrect. The NKJV and NASB also often do the same thing. The NIV concordance tells us that of the 1,061 times this word occurs in the Hebrew they have not translated it at all 550 times - a little over half the time; they just edited it out. This is so very common with the NIV, to omit literally thousands of God inspired words and to add thousands more which God did not inspire. Yet the NIV is probably the most popular version today. This tells us something highly significant about the spiritual state of early 21st century Christianity.


The NIV has also changed the word flesh to "all people". The NASB also does this many times but not as often as the NIV. Flesh is not a complimentary term. It signifies fallen, weak, sinful and ephemeral man without spiritual strength. If we refer to fallen man as "people" or "men" or "mankind", as the NASB and NIV often do, rather than "flesh", this is much more flattering. But both the Hebrew and the Greek have separate words for flesh and man or people. God used these specific words for a purpose, and the new perversions are altering what God has written, to their own peril. 


Genesis 7


Genesis chapter seven starts off with a great truth which has subtly been altered in the new versions. We read in Genesis 6:8 that Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. There the NIV, ESV and NASB altered grace to favor, so too here the Hebrew text has been altered and the meaning is almost imperceptively changed.


In Genesis 7:1 the KJB, as well as the ASV, Geneva, Darby, Young's, the 1917 Jewish translation and other older Bibles says: "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee HAVE I SEEN RIGHTEOUS BEFORE ME in this generation." There is only one verb in the Hebrew and in the English of the KJB. "Have I seen" is the only verb in the text.

 

This is the positional outworking or results of the grace of God. We are not righteous in our own selves. We are not righteous by our own works, inward purity or our prayer life. We are only righteous in God's sight because we are seen in Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world for His people.

 

So here when God says to Noah, "for thee have I seen righteous before me" He sees Noah as in Christ. Noah himself serves as a type of Christ in that Noah's house (his family) is saved because of the head of the house is seen righteous. So too with us and Christ; He alone is truly righteous and He is our head; we are His body and His house. Hebrews 3:6 "Christ as a son over his own house; whose house we are."


The new versions have subtly changed the meaning. The NKJV says: "because I have seen THAT YOU ARE righteous before me." - thus adding a verb not found in the text and implying that Noah was righteous by his own behavior. The NASB has: "for you ALONE I have seen TO BE righteous before me", adding the word "alone" and an extra verb to the text. The NIV is the worst with "because I have FOUND you righteous." Here the NIV at least does not add an extra verb, but it changes the verb "to see" to "to find" and it omits the Hebrew words "before me", which are in the other versions. God does not "find" us to be righteous but He sees us righteous because we are in Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us on the basis of grace, not of our works.


In verse 3 God tells Noah to take the animals to himself into the ark "to keep SEED alive upon the face of all the earth." SEED is the true reading and is found in the ASV, 1917, Geneva etc. but the NKJV has often changed the word "seed" to "species" as here, or descendants or offspring. There is throughout the Bible what is called a "seed theology". In Galatians 3:16 we read "and to thy seed, which is Christ" yet there the NKJV lists three verses in the footnote found in Genesis 12:7, 13:15 and 24:7, but none of these say "seed" in the NKJV, but of course they do in the KJB. In Genesis 9:9 the NKJV again says "descendants" but it has a footnote which says: "literally seed". In Genesis 7:3 the NASB likewise has OFFSPRING, while the NIV says: THEIR VARIOUS KINDS instead of the correct word seed. This is very frequent in the new versions. You see, they have to change a certain percentage of words in their new bibles in order to get a copyright. No copyright, no money. It is an issue of currency rather than accuracy.


In Genesis 7:7 we read: And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives WITH HIM into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." The words WITH HIM are in the Hebrew text, the ASV, nasb, 1917, Geneva etc., but the NIV and the NKJV have omitted these words.


In verse 11 we read: "and the WINDOWS OF HEAVEN were opened." The word for windows is # 699 and it is found 9 times. It is used of windows both literal and symbolic. In Isaiah 60:8 we read of those that "fly as doves to their windows" and in Ecclesiastes 12:3 we read a poetic picture of old age and poor eyesight "when...those that look out of the windows be darkened." The phrase "the windows of heaven" is also found in II Kings 7:2, 19 and in Malachi 3:10 where God will open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing. The WINDOWS of heaven is the reading of the ASV, 1917 Jewish translation, Geneva, Darby, NKJV, RSV, NRSV and Lamsa, but the NASB says: "FLOODGATES OF THE SKY" even though it has 'windows of heaven' in other places and the NIV has: "floodgates of the heavens" though it twice renders this same word as windows elsewhere.


In Genesis 7:19-20 there is a different meaning found in some modern versions. Theologians differ among themselves as to the exact meaning of the verses, but my intention is to point out that not all bibles have the same meaning. In verse 19 and 20 we read: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the HIGH HILLS that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and THE MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED." This is the reading of the NKJV, the 1936 Jewish translation, the Third Millenium Bible, Webster's 1833 translation and the KJV 21st century version.


The sense seems to be that the high hills were first covered and then the waters rose another 15 cubit and the mountains were then covered. The word for High Hills and mountains is the same, but context determines the meaning. Even the nasb has translated this word as "hill country" 81 times and "hills" 24 times. The NIV has this word as "hill country" 82 times and "hills" 72 times.


The NASB has a ridiculous reading of "all the HIGH MOUNTAINS everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubit higher, and the mountains were covered." Thus the high mountains were covered before the waters rose another 15 cubits to cover the mountains. Say what?

 

The NIV changed the meaning of the verse and says: "all the HIGH MOUNTAINS under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains TO A DEPTH OF MORE THAN 20 feet." Here the NIV adds "to a depth of more than" to the text and teaches that the waters not only covered the mountains but rose to 20 feet above the mountains. So which one is the true word of God?

 

 

Genesis 7:22  KJB - "All in whose nostrils was THE BREATH OF LIFE, of all that was in the dry land, died." Marginal reading - "Hebrew - the breath of the spirit of life".  

 

Some Bible critics raise a big stink about this verse as it stands in the King James Bible (and many others, as we will soon see) and tell us: "See, the KJV is not a word for word, literal translation of this verse and it is therefore in error."  

 

It should first be pointed out that not one of these KJB critics actually believes that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Don't believe me?  Just ask them to show you a copy of that they honestly believe IS the inerrant Bible. They won't do it.

 

Secondly, ALL Bible translations frequently "add" or "omit" hundreds of words to the Hebrew texts. The Hebrew language is not like the English language, or any other language. Sometimes it is elliptical. That is, it omits the subject or the verb or the direct or indirect object, and they need to be supplied in the translation into another language so the sentence makes sense. And at other times it is unnecessarily repetitive or redundant, and it is best to omit this repetition.


The KJB says: "All in whose nostrils was the BREATH OF LIFE, of all that was in the dry land, died."


Then in the margin it says: "Hebrew, the breath of the spirit of life".  

But this is redundant and does not need to be in the translation. Especially since we have the phrase used in this same chapter in verse 15 where it says: ?And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is THE BREATH OF LIFE.?

And in the very beginning in Genesis 2:7 we read: ?And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils THE BREATH OF LIFE; and man became a living soul.?


In Genesis 7:22 the words for spirit (7307) and "breath" (5397) are often used interchangeably and both are at times translated as "breath" or "spirit".


See how this Hebrew interlinear did it.

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%207:22

"the breath, the breath of life"

22
H3605
??
All
H834
????
that
H5397
?????
the breath
H7307
???
the breath

H2416
????
of life,
H639
?????
in whose nostrils
H3605
???
of all
H834
????

H2724
?????
in the dry
H4191
????
died.



This Online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament translates the phrase as ?the breath, the breath of life?

 

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%207:22 


The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - ?all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and of all that was in the dry land, died.?

https://archive.org/stream/ancienthebrewlit01yyypuoft


The New Jewish Bible 1985 - ?All in whose nostrils was the merest breath of life, all that was on dry land, died.?

http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/Index/english-Gen-7

 

We also see this "redundancy" aspect of the Hebrew language in the use of the word "son" #1121 behn.  For example, in Genesis 5:32 we read that "Noah was five hundred years OLD."  Yet the Hebrew text literally says: "Noah was SON of five hundred years."  To translate this phrase literally would not help clarify the meaning, but would only confuse the reader.  

 

In Genesis 7:2 Noah was instructed to "take to thee BY sevens, the male and the female". Yet the literal Hebrew is "take SEVEN, SEVEN, the male and the female"

 

Or in Genesis 15:2 we read: "and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?"  Yet the "literal" Hebrew text says: "and THE SON OF the possession of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?" It would be very wooden and awkward to actually translate the verse this way.

 

In the next verse, Genesis 15:3, we read: "and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir."  Yet the "literal" Hebrew says: "the SON OF my house is my heir."  To translate it literally would only confuse the reader as to whether Abraham yet had a son or not.

 

In Genesis 25:28 we read that "Isaac loved Esau, because he DID EAT OF HIS VENISON." but the strictly literal Hebrew would be "Isaac loved Esau, because VENISON IN HIS MOUTH".

 

In Genesis 25:30 we read of Esau saying to Jacob "Feed me, I pray thee, with that SAME RED POTTAGE", but the "literal" Hebrew would be: "Feed me, I pray thee, with that RED, RED." 

 

In all these examples, neither do versions like the NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. give us a word for word literal translation.  

 

Back to Genesis 7:22 "All in whose nostrils was THE BREATH OF LIFE, of all that was in the dry land died."  

 

Other Bible translations that read like the KJB are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587,  the Bill Bible 1671, the Thomson Bible 1808, the Webster Version 1833, The Lesser O.T. 1835, the Longman Version 1841, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, Darby 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the 1936 Hebrew Publication Society Bible, The New Life Version 1969, The New English Bible 1970, the Revised Standard Version 1971, The New Jewish Version 1985 -"everything that had the merest breath of life died", The NRSV 1989, The Word of Yah 1993, the NASB 1995, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Green's Literal Translation 2005 - "the breath of life",  Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - ?All in whose nostrils was ha ruach chayim ( SPIRIT OF LIFE), of all that was in the dry land, died.?, The New American Bible 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Common English Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, the NIV 2011,  The Common English Bible 2011, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The New English Septuagint Translation 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 - "the breath of life" and the ESV 2016.


Other Translations of Interest  

 

The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969 - "everything that had breath and lived on dry land perished."

 

The ISV (International Standard Version) 2014 simply has "Everything that breathed"

 

The God's Word Translation 1995 and The Names of God Bible 2011 - "every living, breathing creature"

 

The New International Reader's Version 2011 - "Every breathing thing"

 

Conservative Bible 2011 - "and breathed air"

 

The Easy English Bible 2010 - "Everything that was alive on the dry land died."

 

The Translators Bible 2014 - "On the land everything that breathed/every living thing died."  

 

The King James Bible is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation of Genesis 7:22.  It is not in error at all.




Genesis 8


Again we see the NIV omits "And it came to pass at the end of" in chapter 8:6 and 13; it also omits the word SOLE in verse 9 "the dove found no rest for the SOLE of her foot" and again the word BEHOLD in verse 13.


One of the many things that continually annoy me about the new perversions is that so many significant spiritual connections are either lost or obscured. We see an example of this in Genesis 8:21. The judgment of the flood had already past and Noah and his family had been spared by the grace of God. In verse 20 and 21 we read: " And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the alter. And the LORD smelled A SWEET SAVOUR".

 

The sacrifices offered in the Old Testament all point to the only perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 5:2 we read: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a SWEETSMELLING SAVOUR." In the KJB you can see the connection between Noah's sacrifice and that of Christ as being a sweet savour unto God. The reading of sweet savour in Genesis 8:21 is also that of the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the ASV (the predecessor of the NASB), Young's, Darby's, and even the Catholic Douay versions. But the NKJV and NASB have changed this to A SOOTHING aroma, while the NIV has a pleasing aroma. None of these renderings match what they have in Ephesians 5:2 and the connection is lost. The NKJV has "a SOOTHING aroma" here but a sweet smelling aroma in Ephesians. The NASB has soothing here but fragrant in Eph. The NIV has pleasing here but fragrant in Eph. 5:2.


God did not need to be "SOOTHED" as though He were emotionally upset and needed to be calmed down. Noah's act of offering a sacrifice as a sweet savour was an act of devotion and thankfulness to the Lord for having spared him and his family. It was in recognition of the fact that they too had deserved to be judged and condemned along with the rest of mankind, but God had already brought them through the judgment. God did not need to be "soothed" as the nkjv and nasb wrongly imply.


In verse 22 the NKJV is the only bible version I have seen that reverses the word order as it does. All other versions, including the NIV, NASB, NRSV, RSV etc. read: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and SUMMER AND WINTER, and day and night shall not cease." But the NKJV alone says "winter and summer", thus reversing the word order. I guess it is one of the thousands of changes they had to make from the KJB in order to get their copyrights and make money.


Genesis 9, 10, 11 some quick notes


In verse 9:5 the Hebrew, KJB, ASV, 1917 Jewish translation, NKJV, Geneva etc. read; "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the HAND of every beast will I require it, and at the HAND of man; at the HAND of every man's BROTHER will I require the life of man."


The NASB and NIV unite in omitting all three words "hand". In fact a look at the NIV concordance shows that they tell you themselves that they have not translated this word 72 times when it occurs in the Hebrew text. Just a little editorial polishing on their part, I guess.


Also the word "brother", which is the true reading, also found in the NKJV, NASB, ASV, RSV, has been changed to "fellow man" by the NIV, and "human being" in the NRSV. If God wanted to say "man" He has a word for it, but He chose to say "brother" instead. Apparently the NIV committee feels God needs some help in choosing the right word to better express Himself to the modern mind.


In verse 6 "for in the image of God made HE man" the NIV again felt at liberty to say: "for in the image of God has GOD made man" - thus adding the word GOD when it is not in the text. In fact the NIV concordance shows they have added the word "God" (Elohim) 52 times when it is not in the text, and 13 times have omitted it when it is in the Hebrew text. Similarly the word for Jehovah has been added another 52 times by the niv and not translated when in the Hebrew 38 times. Thus with just these two words for God the NIV adds it 104 times when it is not in the text nor expresses a Hebraism and does not translate it when it is in the Hebrew text 51 times. So when you read the NIV you are never really sure if you are reading the words of God or the words of men. Good luck trying to figure it out. Unfortunately today most Christians just really don't care about any of this.

 

 

Genesis 10:11. Who built the city?  Asshur or Nimrod?


In Genesis 10:11 we find another blunder in the NKJV, NIV and NASB. The true reading is: "Out of that land went forth ASSHUR, and builded Nineveh." This is the reading of the KJB, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company O.T., the so called Greek Septuagint, Wycliffe bible 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1587, the Lesser O.T. 1835, Darby 1890, Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Cipriano de Valera of 1602, the Italian Diodati 1649, French Martin, 1744, the French Louis Segond 2007, Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada, the Romanian Fidela bible 2014, the Douay-Rheims, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998,  Jubilee Bible 2010, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011.


The Modern Greek Bible -


?? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ? ??????, ??? ????????? ??? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ???????, ??? ??? ?????,

https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Genesis+10%3A11&search_form_type=general&q1=Genesis+10%3A11&s=0&t1=el_gmd&ns=0

The Greek Septuagint - ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??????


Online Hebrew Interlinear - ?Out of that land went forth ASSHUR and built Nineveh?

https://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%2010:11

The Jewish Virtual Library Tanach 1994 - Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah,

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/bereishit-genesis-chapter-10



The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010 - Out of that land went forth Ashur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rechovot, and Kalach

https://www.messianic-torah-truth-seeker.org/Scriptures/Tenakh/Beresheet/Beresheet10.htm


The Complete Tanach - Commentary by Rashi -

From that land emerged Asshur, and he built Nineveh and Rehoboth ir and Calah.

Commentary by Rashi - ?From that land: Since Asshur saw his sons obeying Nimrod and rebelling against the Omnipresent by building the tower, he departed from their midst. ? [from Gen. Rabbah 37:4]?

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8174/showrashi/true


The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - ?Out of that land went forth ASSHUR and builded Nineveh?

https://archive.org/details/ancienthebrewlit01yyypuoft/page/16

 


 


However the NKJV, ESV NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation,  unite in saying: "From that land HE (referring back to Nimrod) went to ASSYRIA and built Nineveh." Now was it Nimrod or Asshur? They cannot both be the true words of God, can they?


Again in verse 23 we read of the children of Uz and one of them is called MASH. Mash is the reading of the NKJV, NASB, 1917, Geneva etc., but the NIV says his name was MESHEEH. The NIV footnote says this name comes from the Greek but the Hebrew says Mash. 


In 11:7 It says: "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's SPEECH." Though "speech" is found in the Hebrew, the NKJV, NASB and the NIV again decided to edit out this word, as they have done in seven other places according to their own concordance. These are just samplings of the omitted words in the NIV. I will not always point out all the omissions because it takes up too much time and space, but this will give you some idea of the creative editing of God's words which the new versions are employing. I'm sure their efforts will be justly rewarded in the coming Day.


Genesis 12


How many errors in a so called bible version can there be before you finally realize it is a false witness? There are numerous errors in all the modern perversions, yet many Christians doggedly hang onto these rags and continue to try to overthrow the pure words of God as found in English only in the King James Bible.


An example of such an error in the highly touted NASB is found in verse one of Genesis chapter twelve. We read in the KJB: "Now the LORD HAD SAID unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee." Please notice the tense of the verb here where it says the Lord "HAD SAID" unto Abram... God had spoken this commandment unto Abram BEFORE he dwelt in Haran, which is called Charran in the New Testament. In chapter 11:31,32 we were told that Terah, Abram's father took him and Lot and Sarai and went forth from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan "and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there" in Haran where Terah died.


So, when we look at Acts 7:2-4 where Steven is relating the history of Abraham, we read: "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, WHEN he was in Mesopotamia, BEFORE HE DWELT IN CHARRAN, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. THEN came he out of the land of he Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, WHEN his father was dead, He removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell."


This is why we read in Genesis 12:1 in the KJB that God HAD SAID unto Abram "Get thee out of thy country...unto a land that I will shew thee." Abraham was a little slow to immediately obey the LORD and he continually had some problems in the area of believing God and obeying Him perfectly, just like we all do. The reading of "had said" is also found in the NIV (of all places!), the NKJV, ESV, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva, Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Reina Valera, Darby 1890, the KJV 21st Century Version, Green's literal, Jubilee Bible 2010 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

 

But the NASB misses this fact and instead renders Gen. 12:1 as though God just spoke this commandment to Abram instead of some years before the event of his finally entering the promised land. The NASB says: "Now the Lord SAID to Abram, 'Go forth from your country and from your relatives...So Abram went forth." The NASB makes it appear as though God spoke these words to Abram when he was in Haran after his father died instead of years before his father died there. This is an error, and there are many more in this false bible.


We continue to read in verse 4 and 5: "So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN THEY CAME. This last part "and into the land of Canaan they came" is what the Hebrew says, as well as the NKJV, NASB, but the NIV omits the words "Canaan" and "land"; adds the word "there" and says: "and they arrived there."


Genesis 12:6 KJB - "And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto THE PLAIN of Moreh."


Genesis 12:6 NKJV - "Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as THE TEREBINTH TREE of Moreh"

 

NASB, ESV - "Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to THE OAK of Moreh"  

 

NIV - "Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of THE GREAT TREE of Moreh."  

 

Some Bible critics have made a big stink about the difference here and claim the King James Bible is wrong for translating this Hebrew word as "PLAIN" instead of (Pick one) "THE OAK", "THE TEREBINTH TREE", "THE GREAT TREE", or "THE NOBLE VALE" of Douay-Rheims 1610, "the FAMOUS STEEP VALLEY" of the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, or even as Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 has it, "THE TEACHER'S TEREBINTH".


Scholars and Bible translations go back and forth as to which specific word is used here, and it all has to do with the vowel points. Wigram's Englishman's Hebrew Concordance shows that the Hebrew word is #436 ehlohn (and not #437 allohn "OAK" Gen. 35:8; Isaiah 2:13 "the oaks of Bashan") and means "THE PLAIN" as in Genesis 13:18; 14:13 and 18:1 - "the PLAIN of Mamre" and in Deut.11:30 "the PLAINS of Moreh"; Judges 4:11 "the PLAIN of Zaanaim".  

 

The King James Bible translators were well aware of the differences between these two very similar words and of how different translators looked at their respective meanings. The previous versions of Tyndale 1534 and Matthew's Bible 1549 both read "the OAK of Moreh".  However the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587 all read "THE PLAIN of Moreh"  

 

Also reading "the PLAIN of Moreh" are the following Bible translations, among which are some Jewish translations like the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the Complete Tanach 2004 - "THE PLAIN of Moreh" and the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011.

 

Also translating as "THE PLAIN of Moreh" are Webster's 1833 Translation, the Lesser Bible 1853 - "unto the plain of Moreh", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1996 and the Jubilee Bible 2010. 

 

Among Foreign language translations that also saw this word as referring to "THE PLAIN of Moreh" are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera of 1602 - " Y paso? Abram por aquella tierra hasta el lugar de Siche?m, haste LA LLANURA de Moreh",  Reina Valera 1909, 1977, R.V. Gómez 2010 - "hasta el valle de Moreh", the Italian Diodati 1649 " ino alla PIANURA di More.",  the French Martin 1744 - "jusqu'en LA PLAINE de Moré", the Czech BKR Bible -" to jest a? k rovin? More." = "the PLAIN of Moreh" and the Finnish Bible 1776 - "Moren lakeuteen asti." = "the PLAIN of Moreh"  

 

The Jewish Targums read "the PLAIN of Moreh" and Bible commentator Willet explains "the truth is it was both a plain and set with oaks." 


 

The NIV continues to omit "and it came to pass" in verses 12 and 13, "behold" in verse 11, "I pray thee" in verse 13 and the NIV and NASB both omit the words "to look upon" in verse 11. There we read in the KJB, ASV, 1917 Jewish translation, Geneva and even the RSV plus others, where Abram says to his wife: "Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman TO LOOK UPON". The NKJV alters this a little with "I know you are a woman of beautiful countenance" while both the NASB/NIV say: "I know that you are a beautiful woman" thus omitting the words "to look upon" which are found in the Hebrew text.

 

Did Pharaoh Have Sex with Sarah?


Many Modern Versions say Yes.


Genesis 12:19 KJB -  ?Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I MIGHT HAVE TAKEN HER to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.?


ESV (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB ) - ?Why did you say, ?She is my sister,? so that I TOOK HER FOR MY WIFE? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go.?


The obvious difference in meaning is that in the KJB and others (as we shall soon see) Pharoah was ABOUT TO take Sarah as his wife, but in the other versions mentioned Pharoah actually took her for his wife.


Agreeing with the King James Bible are the following Bible versions-


Even though the English NIV version gets it wrong, yet the NIV Spanish version got it right and reads like the KJB.

It says ?Why did you say she was your sister?  I COULD HAVE TAKEN HER AS A WIFE! Come on, take your wife and go!?

Génesis 12:19 Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI)


19 ¿Por qué dijiste que era tu hermana? ¡Yo pude haberla tomado por esposa! ¡Anda, toma a tu esposa y vete!»


Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI)

 

Santa Biblia, NUEVA VERSIÓN INTERNACIONAL® NVI® © 1999, 2015.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+12%3A19&version=NVI


Bereshis 12:19 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) 2011.

 

19 Why saidst thou, She is my achot? So I MIGHT HAVE TAKEN HER TO ME TO WIFE;  now therefore, here is, thy wife, take her, and go!

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+12%3A19&version=OJB


This online Hebrew Interlinear = I might have taken her to me to wife


https://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%2012:19


The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - ?so that I might have taken her to me to wife?


https://archive.org/stream/ancienthebrewlit01yyypuoft#page/20/mode/2up


The Biblos Bible 2013 - ?so that I might have taken her to me as wife?


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/12-19.htm


Also reading ?I might have taken her to me to wife? are the Bishops? bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the Webster bible 1833, the Longman Version 1841, The Revised English bible 1877, the NKJV 1982,  KJV 21st Century 1994, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Jubilee bible 2010, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Work of God?s Children bible 2011, the Modern English Version 2014.


The Koster Scriptures 1998 says: ?And so I WAS GOING TO TAKE HER for my wife.?

http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/


The  Conservative Bible 2010 says: ?Why did you say, 'She is my sister' so that I WOULD BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO TAKE HER INTO MY BED??


The Voice 2012 - ? Why did you say she was only your sister, so that I FELT FREE TO TAKE HER to be one of my wives? Here she is?take your wife, and get out of here!

 

Bible Commentators


John Gill - ?so I might have taken her to me to wife; ignorantly, and without any scruple, supposing her to have been free; and so should have been guilty of taking another man's wife, and of depriving him of her;  for no doubt he had a wife or wives when about to take Sarai for one?

 



Genesis 13, 14


13:1 "And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the SOUTH." This phrase is found several times in the Scriptures as in 12:9 "Abram journeyed, going on still toward the SOUTH." This word is first mentioned in 12:9. It is # 5045 in Strong's and is always rendered as "south" in the KJB. South is also the reading of the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the NKJV, the ASV (predecessor of the nasb), Geneva, Douay and others.

 

However both the NIV and NASB say Abram was going to THE NEGEV, and the ESV has NEGEB. Now that is much clearer than the south, isn't it? The NASB has a footnote that says "south country", even though both it and the NIV have translated this word as Negev 36 times, yet as "south" 70 times each. 


In verse 13:12, after Lot and Abram had to separate from each other because their substance was so great they could not dwell together, we read that Lot "dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent TOWARD Sodom." Lot is a picture of the carnal believer who gradually drifts toward a sinful environment and its results. We usually do not fall into sin all of a sudden but by degrees. The next time we see Lot, he is living in a house inside the city of Sodom. But instead of conveying this idea of a gradual slide towards sin by saying he pitched his tent TOWARD Sodom, the NKJV joins the NASB, ESV in saying: "AS FAR AS Sodom", which would mean he was actually there, while the NIV says: "he pitched his tents near Sodom."


Again, as all through the book of Genesis, instead of correctly saying "seed" of the seed theology, the NKJV, NIV and NASB continually change this word to descendants, offspring, children, lineage, family or people. See verses 15 and 16. Both Jewish translations as well as the ASV and Geneva Bible always translate this word as "seed". 


A subtle but important thought is lost in the new versions in verse 14. There we read that Lot WAS SEPARATED from Abram. This is a passive verb in English and in Hebrew. It is not always necessary to translate a passive as a passive either in Greek or Hebrew, but there is an important distinction here. God is He who acted through circumstances to separate Lot from Abram. Remember God told Abram to leave his kindred as well as his father's house in 12:1. Lot was part of his kindred, and God's purpose was to get Abram alone and make him the spiritual father of all believers. See Romans 4:11 and 12. Abraham was previously living in idolatry Joshua 24:2, but he was chosen Nehemiah 9:7, called Isaiah 51:2 and redeemed Isaiah 29:22, just as we are in Christ. Instead of Lot "was separated" (passive, God did it to him) the NKJV/NASB say Lot "had separated" (active, he did it himself) and the NIV has: "Lot had parted" - thus loosing the idea and the truth that God did this and not Lot himself.


All three modern versions of the NKJV, NIV and NASB blow it in 14:15 There we read in the KJB, 1917 Jewish translation, ASV and others: "And he (Abram, when he was going to rescue Lot who had been taken captive) divided HIMSELF against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is ON THE LEFT HAND OF Damascus." Instead of "he divided HIMSELF" the NKJV/NASB say "his forces" and the NIV "his men" which are unnecessary and not in the text. God knows how to say these words but they are not here. Perhaps more importantly instead of "on the left hand" of Damascus the NKJV, NASB, NIV all say "NORTH of Damascus." The word is mohl # 8040 and is always translated as left or left hand as when Jacob placed his left hand on the head of Manasseh in Genesis 48:13, 14. The word for "north" is a totally different word.


In both 14:19 and 22 there is praise given to the most high God who is called "POSSESSOR of heaven and earth". Possessor is the reading of the NKJV, NASB, ASV, ESV, Geneva and others and it fits the context because God was he who delivered the enemies of Abram into his hand. He not only created the world but He possesses it and actively controls it. The NIV joins the liberal RSV, as it so often does, and calls God the CREATOR of heaven and earth. Creator is a different word than possessor. God is the creator but He is much more than an absent landlord.


Finally for now, in verse 22 we read: "And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I HAVE LIFT UP MINE HAND unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet,...lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich." I have lift up mine hand is the word for word translation here and is the reading of the NKJV, 1917, ASV, ESV, Geneva, Young's and others, but the NASB says: "I HAVE SWORN to the Lord" which is a different word than the literal "to lift up the hand". I mention this in passing because there are those who wrongly affirm the NASB is so literal and accurate. This is falsehood repeated by those who have never actually closely examined the NASB or who are lying.


 The NIV at least translated this phrase correctly but then went on to add some words not found in any text. It says: "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most high, Creator (wrong) of heaven and earth, AND HAVE TAKEN AN OATH, (not in any Hebrew text) that I will accept nothing..." Remember God said not to add to nor take away from His words. No translation can always be nor should it be strictly a wooden word for word rendering in all cases. But what we continually see in the newer versions is a growing reckless regard and frivolous attitude towards what God has been pleased to reveal to us in His inspired words. 

 

Genesis 15:1 KJB - "After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I AM THY SHIELD, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD."

 

ESV (NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "...Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; YOUR REWARD SHALL BE VERY GREAT."


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

 

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

 

The Catholic Connection  

 

The previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both read very similar to the KJB with:  "Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, AND THY REWARD EXCEEDING GREAT."

 

But then the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 read: "Do not be afraid, Abram! I am your shield AND SHALL GIVE YOU A VERY GREAT REWARD."

 

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

 

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

 

 

Do you see the difference? Is should be noted there is no verb in the Hebrew "shall be", yet the NASB and ESV have placed it in the text and not even in italics. In the NASB, ESV it is no longer God Himself who is the exceeding great reward but instead teaches that Abraham's material reward will be very great. 

 

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

 

Nothing else could be added, but the promise that God Himself would be his exceeding great reward. Abraham was to continue his life journey learning more and more of God. This whole promise is lost in versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT and Holman Standard.

 

 


King James Bible Genesis 15:1 - Fear not, Abram: I AM THY SHIELD, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD."

 

Just think of this a moment. God Himself is our shield and our exceeding great reward. In my better moments it is so good to just think about the Person of God Himself. Who He is, what He is like, how great, wise, all powerful, merciful, loving, gracious, faithful and true. He spoke and the worlds were created. He suffered on Calvary's cross, bore my sins, paid for them in full and rose from the dead victorious over all His enemies and He is the Lover of my soul. Isn't He wonderful, that He would receive a wretch like me and make me His own for all eternity? God is our exceeding great reward.

 

That God Himself is our exceeding great reward is the reading of the Coverdale 1535 - "I am thy shylde and thy exceadinge greate rewarde.", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Longman Version 1841, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, the Revised Version of 1885 "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward", the ASV of 1901 " I am thy shield, `and' thy exceeding great reward.", the predecessor of the NASB, which according to the preface of the NASB was such a good translation. It is also the reading of the NKJV, the NIV 1984, the TNIV 2005, Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible, the Hebrew Names Version - "Don't be afraid, Avram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.", Webster's 1833 translation, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.", Douay 1950 (but later Catholic versions changed it to now read like the RSV, NASB), the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium bible 1998, the NIV 2011 - "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward." and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward."  

 

Other Bible versions that read like the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, The World English Bible 2000, The Updated Bible Version 2003, the Context Group Version 2007, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the New Heart English Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011- "I am thy mogen, and thy exceeding great sachar (reward).", The World English Bible 2012, The Modern English Version 2014 - "Do not fear, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.?, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The New International Reader's Version 2014 - "I am your very great reward.", The Tree of Life Version 2015 - "I am your shield, your very great reward." 


Foreign Language Bibles

 

Many foreign language Bible read like the KJB telling us that God Himself is our exceeding great reward, including the Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1865, 1909 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - " No temas, Abram; yo soy tu escudo, y soy tu galardón sobremanera grande." = "Fear not, Abram, I am your shield, AND I AM YOUR EXCEEDINGLY GREAT REWARD.", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Fürchte dich nicht, Abram; ich bin dein Schild und dein sehr großer Lohn." = "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.",  the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 - "Abram, ne crains point, je suis ton bouclier, et ta grande récompense.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada  and the Almeida Corregida E Fiel 1681 - "No temas, Abro, eu sou o teu escudo, o teu grandssimo galardo. and the Modern Hebrew Bible - ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????


 

 

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


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

 


John Calvin comments on Genesis 15:1 -  ?The promise, therefore, that GOD WILL BE Abram?s shield AND HIS EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD , holds the first place; to which is added the exhortation, that, relying upon such a guardian of his safety, and such an author of his felicity, he should not fear. .. IN CALLING HIMSELF HIS ?reward,? He teaches Abram to be satisfied with Himself alone. ..God declares, that HE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT for the perfection of a happy life to the faithful. For the word ?reward? has the force of inheritance, or felicity . Were it deeply engraven on our minds, that in God alone we have the highest and complete perfection of all good things; we should easily fix bounds to those wicked desires by which we are miserably tormented. The meaning then of the passage is this, that we shall be truly happy when God is propitious to us; for he not only pours upon us the abundance of his kindness, but OFFERS HIMSELF TO US, THAT WE MAY ENJOY HIM.  Now what is there more, which men can desire, when they really enjoy God? David knew the force of this promise, when he boasted that he had obtained a goodly lot, because the Lord was his inheritance, (Psalm 16:6.) But since nothing is more difficult than to curb the depraved appetites of the flesh, and since the ingratitude of man is so vile and impious, that God scarcely ever satisfies them; THE LORD CALLS HIMSELF NOT SIMPLY ?a reward,? BUT AN EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD, with which we ought to be more than sufficiently contented.?

 

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Bible - "And thy exceeding great reward - NOT ONLY THY REWARDER, BUT THY REWARD. GOD HIMSELF IS THE FELICITY OF HOLY SOULS;  He is the portion of their inheritance, and their cup."

 

David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible - "God knows how to become the answer to our need. When we need a shield or a reward, He becomes those things for us."

 

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

 

Whedon?s Commentary on the Bible - ?God would be a shield between him and all his foes, AND WOULD BE HIMSELF A REWARD ?GREATE EXCEEDINGLY?, NOT SIMPLY BESTOW REWARDS?  JEHOVAH HIMSELF, THE SELF-EXISTENT, WOULD BE HIS INHERITANCE.? ? Newhall.?


Clearly men like John Calvin, John Gill, John Wesley, Matthew Henry and others saw this verse as teaching the truth found in the King James Bible and many others that God promised to Abraham that He Himself would be both his shield and his exceeding great reward - God Himself is our reward, not the things He gives us.



 

In verse Genesis 15:2 Abram says: "Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the STEWARD of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? This word for STEWARD occurs only once in the O.T. A steward is one who manages another's property or who is in charge of running the household of another. Steward is the reading of the KJB, Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Webster's Bible, Darby, KJV 21, Douay, Spanish and Italian versions. But the NKJV, NIS and NASB all have HEIR instead of steward. The word "heir" occurs for the first time in the verse 3, twice in 4 and again in verse seven, but not in verse 2


In verse 4 God tells Abram: "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own BOWELS shall be thine heir. This word for "bowels" is a specific word both in Hebrew and in Greek that the modern versions have consistently changed. It is still used to mean "the inward or interior parts" as in "the bowels of the earth". The archaic sense is according to Webster "the seat of pity, tenderness or compassion."

 

Bowels is still the reading found in the RV, ASV, the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, Youngs, Webster's Bible and the 1950 Catholic Douay versions. But the NKJV, NIV and NASB have consistently changed this word, though the NASB and NIV still use it 4 times in the O.T. However the NKJV completely omits the word and has instead "some of his offspring" here, "within me" Ps.22:14; "your descendants" Isaiah 48:19, and "my soul, my soul" in Jeremiah 4:19. The NKJV should never have been called the New KJV; it is a very different version than the KJB and the meaning has been changed in hundreds of verses.


Verse 6. "And HE believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Here the NIV alone says "Abram" instead of "he". "Abram" is not in the text. The NIV does the same in verses 8 and 10 adding the word Abram when it is not in any text. The NIV concordance shows they have added the word Abram or Abraham 12 times to the text when it is not there in the Hebrew. Then twice, almost immediately in 16:16 and in 17:1 where the text says "Abram" the NIV removes it and says "him" instead. We have seen this before where the NIV omits Noah, Sarah, God and the LORD when they are there and add them when they are not there. This may make little difference to some, but I wonder what God thinks about it. The NIV also omits 2 of the three times the word "three" occurs in verse 9.


In the making of a covenant, the party making the covenant passes through the midst of the sacrifices. See Jer. 34:18,19. The covenant God made with Abram was made between the Son and the Father. A deep sleep fell upon Abram -v.12. He was asleep when this covenant of grace was made with him. He was a passive recipient just as we are in Christ. It is Christ who passed between the pieces of the divided sacrifices as "a smoking furnace" and a "burning lamp". 


In verse 17 we read: "And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking FURNACE, and a burning LAMP that passed between those pieces. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy SEED have I given this land." Again the NKJV, NIV, and NASB all change the word "seed" to "descendants, offspring, or children" Seed is the reading of the ASV, 1917, Geneva etc.


The word "furnace" speaks of judgment as in Genesis 19:28 where the smoke of Sodom and Gomorrah went up as the smoke of a furnace, and in the N. T. where the angels of God will sever the wicked and cast them into a furnace of fire - Matthew 13:42, 50. The "lamp" represents salvation and the light of the truth in the midst of darkness. In Isaiah 62:1 God speaks of not resting till the salvation of His people goes forth "as a lamp that burneth". Instead of the "furnace" and the "lamp" of the KJB, the NKJV and NASB have "oven" and "torch", while the NIV has "firepot" and "torch". Lots of little connections like these are often obscured or lost in the NKJV etc. 


See Part Two of this Genesis Study here -



https://brandplucked.webs.com/genesis-study-part-two



However the NASB along with the RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard have changed this to now read: "I am a shield to you; YOUR REWARD SHALL BE VERY GREAT." Daniel Wallace's NET bible version also misses the correct meaning with: "I am your shield and THE ONE WHO WILL REWARD YOU IN GREAT ABUNDANCE."



Do you see the difference? Is should be noted there is no verb in the Hebrew "shall be", yet the NASB has placed it in the text and not even in italics. In the NASB it is no longer God Himself who is the exceeding great reward but instead teaches that Abraham's material reward will be very great. 


Consider, what else could God give Abraham? He already was very rich 13:2; he has already been promised the land of Canaan and told that kings would come out of him and that all nations would be blessed in him; his name would be great and God would bless them which bless him and curse the one who cursed him, and God had delivered his enemies into his hand. Nothing else could be added, but the promise that God Himself would be his exceeding great reward. Abraham was to continue his life journey learning more and more of God. This whole promise is lost in versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET and Holman.

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 NIV, ESV, NET, Holman, NASB and Jehovah Witness NWT lend themselves to this idea by saying that Noah found FAVOR in the eyes of the LORD. The New English Bible and the Catholic New Jerusalem say Noah WON THE FAVOR of the Lord" and the Living bible says that "Noah was a pleasure to the Lord". Do you see the subtle change in emphasis? In fact the word grace occurs in the KJB O. T. 38 times, in the NKJV 20 times, in the NASB 9 times and in the NIV only 8 times altogether. This is a change in emphasis, and not for the better.

The NIV, ESV, NET, Holman, NASB and Jehovah Witness NWT lend themselves to this idea by saying that Noah found FAVOR in the eyes of the LORD. The New English Bible and the Catholic New Jerusalem say Noah WON THE FAVOR of the Lord" and the Living bible says that "Noah was a pleasure to the Lord". Do you see the subtle change in emphasis? In fact the word grace occurs in the KJB O. T. 38 times, in the NKJV 20 times, in the NASB 9 times and in the NIV only 8 times altogether. This is a change in emphasis, and not for the better.


Other comparisons of the number of times a certain word occurs in the Old Testament are highly significant. Truth - in the KJB 118 times, in the NASB 92 (26 fewer) and the NIV only 41 times. Mercy, mercies or merciful in the KJB 288 times, in the NASB only 51 times and in the NIV 85. Mercy implies that we do not deserve it. The NIV and NASB often substitute the words lovingkindness or love. Love is a totally different Hebrew word as it is in English.