Another King James Bible Believer


Jeff Benner - Bible Critic with NO Infallible Bible

Jeff Benner- Bible Critic with NO Infallible Bible to believe in

Jeff Benner is another self appointed Bible critic who couldn't show you a complete, inspired and infallible Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek to save his life.

I have seen a few of his videos in which he claims there are errors in the King James Bible, and the man simply does not know what he is talking about.

There are 4 or 5 primary errors he thinks he's found in the King James Bible, at least in his videos I have seen so far.  The first BIG ERROR Mr. Benner supposedly found in the King James Bible is in Leviticus 20:10 and here our Bible critic really shines forth in all his blundering 'Every Man For Himself' mentality.

Here is his video he calls "Errors in the KJV"

The verse reads: "And the man that commiteth adultery with another man's wife, EVEN HE THAT COMMITEH ADULTERY WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WIFE, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Here our Bible critic tells us that even the Hebrew Masorretic text itself is wrong for duplicating the phrase "even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife". He tells us that undoubtedly some scribe accidentally copied the same lines twice and that the second phrase shouldn't be there.

Yet the whole verse as it reads in the King James Bible is what IS found in the Hebrew Masorretic texts and in the Geneva Bible, the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible,  the Revised Version, ASV 1901, the Holman Standard 2003, NASB 1995, NKJV 1982, Youngs, the Hebrew Names Bible, the Common English Bible 2011 and the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011.

The ESV, NET and NIV omit the second phrase, but then the ESV and Dan Wallace's NET version inform us in a footnote that it IS found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  They just took it upon themselves to "edit" the inspired Text.

Mr. Benner thinks it shouldn't be there because HE wouldn't have written it that way, but Mr. Benner is not God and it is obvious that many other Bible scholars disagree with Mr. Benner's private opinion and personal preferences.

Though Mr. Benner does not mention this particular example, here is another one of a very similar nature.

Ezekiel 16:6 - "And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; YEA, I SAID UNTO THEE WHEN THOU WAST IN THY BLOOD, LIVE."

Another example of the "science" of textual criticism in action - 

Ezekiel 16:6 The NIV, along with the TNIV, The Message, the RSV, NRSV, New English Bible 1970, Common English bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 and Lexham English Bible omit "YEA, I SAID UNTO THEE WHEN THOU WAST IN THY BLOOD, LIVE".

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The early Douay-Rheims bible of 1610 as well as the Douay of 1950 both included the words.  But then the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omitted these words. Oh, but wait!  Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it put the words back in the text!

All these words are found in most Hebrew manuscripts and in the Jewish bibles like the Jewish Publication Society 1917, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach and the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011.  They are also found in Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1587, Darby, Youngs, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, NASB 1995, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003 and the ESV 2001-2011. Notice that the previous RSV and NRSV omitted them, but then they were "scientifically" put back in the ESV. 

Even Dan Wallace's NET version includes the words, but in typical Bible agnostic fashion he footnotes: "The translation reflects the Hebrew text, which repeats the statement, perhaps for emphasis. However, a few medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the Old Greek, and the Syriac do not include the repetition. The statement could have been accidentally repeated or the second occurrence could have been accidentally omitted. Based on the available evidence it is difficult to know which is more likely."

Among foreign language Bible all these words are found in the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, the Spanish Reina Valera 1995, R.V. Gómez 2010, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond and the French Ostervald 1996, Luther's German bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000, the Portuguese Almeida and A Sagrada Biblia em Portugués, and in the Modern Greek Bible - "Και οτε διεβην απο πλησιον σου και σε ειδον κυλιομενην εν τω αιματι σου, ειπα προς σε ευρισκομενην εν τω αιματι σου, Ζηθι· ναι, ειπα προς σε ευρισκομενην εν τω αιματι σου, Ζηθι.

The NIV footnote informs us that a few Hebrew mss. and the LXX and Syriac omit these words, but they are found in most Hebrew texts. If the NIV wanted to follow the Syriac, then why didn't they follow it when in the very next verse  (Ezekiel 16:7) where the KJB and most translations say something like : "...and thou hast increased and waxen great AND ART COME TO EXCELLENT ORNAMENTS" (Geneva, RV, ASV), but the Syriac says "...and you have increased and grown great;THEN YOU WENT INTO THE CITIES."? 

So, what does the NIV do here?  Well, the 1984 NIV says: "You grew up and developed and BECAME THE MOST BEAUTIFUL OF JEWELS." But the 2011 NIV now changed this to - "You grew and developed and ENTERED PUBERTY."  Isn't modern scholarship a Wonder to behold; you are always Wondering what they will come up with next.

Mr. Benner also refers to what he thinks is another error in  Genesis 1:1 where the KJB and many others say "In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the earth."  He says the word should be "HEAVENS" plural, not singular.

He is wrong and you can see why he is wrong here in my Genesis study -

Mr. Benner again claims there is another error in ALL the Hebrew Masoretic texts in Genesis 4:8 where the NIV and a few others ADD words that were supposedly spoken by Cain to his brother Abel saying "Let's go out into the field", which are taken from the so called Greek Septuagint.

Genesis 4:8 - NIV, LXX - "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD"
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.  In fact, 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  Genesis 6:1. These are verifiable facts, not wild accusations.

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 2003, the Amplified bible 1987, Dan Wallace's NET version and ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible.
Our Bible Critic, 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.
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 Updated Bible 2004, the Message 2002, 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." or The Voice of 2011.
For additional information on the so called Greek Septuagint see "NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint" -

Or the much shorter and to the point "Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness - Judges 16:13; 1 Samuel 14:41;  2 Samuel 13:21, 34 and 2 Samuel 14:30 examples"

Another "error" Jeff Benner mentions in his short video is found in Deuteronomy 32:8 where some of the modern versions again "correct" the Hebrew Masoretic texts with some reading taken allegedly from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Septuagint.

Deuteronomy 32:8 - "the children of ISRAEL" OR "the SONS OF GOD"?

Deuteronomy 32:8 KJB - "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."

Deuteronomy 32:8 ESV - "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD." Footnote: Compare Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text - sons of Israel."

Other modern bible versions that reject the Hebrew Masoretic text here and say "the sons OF GOD" rather than "the children OF ISRAEL" are the liberal RSV (which was the first bible version to follow this erroneous reading), while the later NRSV of 1989 said "according to the number of THE GODS", Dan Wallace's NET version (sort of), the critical text Common English bible 2011 "based on the number of THE GODS", The Voice 2012 and the ISV.

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both followed the Hebrew Masoretic texts and said "the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL." but then the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph  New American Bible of 1970 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible both read - "the CHILDREN OF GOD".  Oh, but wait!  Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to the Hebrew reading of "according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL."!

The Jesuits behind the Counter-Reformation are not concerned about the true readings of the Bible at all. They just want to sow confusion and disbelief in what they disparagingly refer to as 'The Paper Pope of Protestantism' (the Infallible Bible, or Sola Scriptura) so that folks will have to look somewhere else other than The Bible for their "Final Authority"

Dan Wallace and company's goofy NET version actually says: "he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of THE HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY."

This is similar to the equally ridiculous The Message of 2002 that says: "within boundaries under the care of DIVINE GUARDIANS." And the New Living Translation says: "according to the number in HIS HEAVENLY COURT."

The good Doktor Wallace then footnotes that the Masoretic text reads "sons of ISRAEL", and the Greek LXX reads "ANGELS of God" but that the DSS "fragment" reads "sons of GOD"; but being the 'Every Man For Himself Bible Critic' that he is, he decided to paraphrase it as "the HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY".  This is how these guys operate, folks.

First of all it should be noted that the so called Greek Septuagint does NOT read "sons of GOD" as these modern version footnotes imply, but rather it reads "according to the number of the ANGELS OF GOD" - ἀγγέλων θεοῦ

Secondly, what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at this point is a very chopped up text with numerous missing words in just this verse alone. Even Dan Wallace refers to it as "a Qumran fragment".  The copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Abegg, Flint & Ulrich shows in brackets what is missing.  The only parts found here would read: "When...their inherit...he separated...the children of GOD."  That's it!  And from this scrap of manuscript alone some modern versions have now rejected the time tested Hebrew Masoretic text and changed it.

The reading of "according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL" is the reading found in all Hebrew Masoretic texts as well as the Syriac Peshitta -"according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL", ALL Jewish translations like the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the Hebrew Names Version, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and the Judaica Press Tanach - "according to the number of THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."
It is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568,  the Geneva Bible 1587, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Youngs, Darby, Amplified Bible 1987, God's Word Translation 1995, the NASB 1995,  NIV 1984, 2011 editions!, the Holman Standard 2003, the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 and the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011.

See many more examples of this type of thing in the Bible Babble Buffet Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB where they often reject the Hebrew readings, but not always in the same places and none of them agrees all the way through with the others.
Keep in mind that there is not a single Bible (66 books in a single volume) in ANY language that Mr. Benner and men like him believe IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God.

Does Mr. Benner think the Hebrew texts are infallible? Of course not. He himself says they have lots of errors in them and he admits to not  being sure about where all of them might be.  The Dead Sea Scrolls perhaps or the so called Greek Septuagint?  Not a chance.

 He is a typical Bible Rummager who picks and chooses at random variant readings that can be found in a variety of contradictory  manuscripts and versions that he personally thinks might be right, but he doesn't believe that any of these - the Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the various Greek Septuagint versions and certainly NO English Bible - are the infallible words of God, and he will even tell you this himself.

Men like Mr. Benner have set up their own mind as their final authority, subject to change at any moment, and they have NO infallible Bible to believe in themselves or to recommend to anyone else.

Another "error" Mr. Benner thinks he has found in the KJB and many others is found in Psalm 145:13 where the NIV and a few others have added an entire verse that he thinks should be there.  

See my article on  Psalms 145:13 about this alleged "missing verse".

Another of Mr. Benner's  alleged "provable error" which he calls "A Major Grammatical Error in the King James Version"  is found in Exodus 25:31. It is a matter so unbelievably minor that hardly anyone would even notice it, yet in Mr. Benner's mind it looms very large indeed.

Here is his video on this alleged error -

The King James Bible reads "And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold; of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: HIS shaft, and HIS branches, HIS bowels, HIS knops, and HIS flowers, shall be of the same."

The particular bee Mr. Benner has in his bonnet is that he tells us that the Hebrew word for "candlestick" or "menorah" is a feminine noun and it should read "HER shaft" and "HER branches" etc.  So he says this is a provable grammatical error in the King James Bible.

I also noticed that he displayed his ignorance of how languages work when he mentioned that Hebrew has Feminine and Masculine nouns, but not Feminine, Masculine and NEUTER as Greek OR SPANISH.

Well, I DO know something about the Spanish language and it most definitely does NOT have neuter nouns. It only has masculine and feminine nouns.

Other Bible translations also read "HIS shaft" and "HIS branches" etc. as well as the King James Bible and among these are Tyndale's translation of Exodus done in 1534, the Great Bible of 1540, Matthew's Bible of 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible of 1587, 
the 21st Century KJV 1994, God’s First Truth Translation 1999 - HIS shaft, the Revised Geneva Bible 2005.

This online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - HIS bowls, HIS knots, and HIS flowers”


Mr. Benner insists this should be "HER shaft" etc. because the word is feminine. However there are many Bible translators, and some of the are Jewish translators, who disagree with this “expert”.

Most translations (and many of them done by Jewish scholars) have neither a masculine nor a feminine, but put a neuter - “ITS”.  

Among these are the ASV - “And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even ITS base, and ITS shaft; ITS cups, ITS knops, and ITS flowers, shall be of one piece with IT”

Also have the neuter ITS are the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Bible 1917, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The New Jewish Version 1985, the Holman Standard 2017, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998 “ITS base”, Darby 1890, ESV, God’s Word Translation 1995, ISV 2014, Lexham English bible 2012, NASB 1995, NET version 2006, NIV 2011, NKJV 1982, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Young’s 1898 and The Complete Tanach 2005.

Other translations eliminate all genders and don’t have HIS, HER or ITS.  The Common English bible 2011 reads this way: “Make a lampstand of pure hammered gold. The lampstand’s base, branches, cups, flowers, and petals should all be attached to it.”

So too do the RSV 1946, the NRSV 1989, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998 

Mr. Benner should just write his own bible version and be done with it, because NOBODY else out there who is just as qualified as he is agrees with him.

Just because a particular word in either Hebrew, Greek or Spanish happens to be masculine, feminine or neuter as in Greek or German, does NOT mean that the thing itself is masculine or feminine.  

Even Rashi, a very famous Jewish scholar, deals with the gender issue in a way that may not please our Bible Critic Mr. Benner.

"Rashi proceeds to generalize, pointing out that there are a number of words which appear in the Tenakh as both masculine and feminine. Examples which Rashi gives are shemesh ('sun') which is masculine (Gen. 19:23; Psalms 19:7) and feminine (2 Kings 3:22); ruah ('wind') which is feminine (Job 1:19), masculine (ibid.), and both (1 Kings, 19:11); and esh ('fire') which is feminine (Num. 16:35), and masculine (Psalms 104:4).

So, why would the King James Bible translators and several others refer to the candlestick as "HIS shaft and HIS branches"?

I don't know for sure because I wasn't there at the time, but I have a couple of ideas about it.  The Bible, and particularly the King James Bible, is a supremely masculine Book. God is revealed as masculine, not feminine.

In Exodus God is laying out the commandments for building His House and His Sanctuary. It just so happens that both Hebrew words for "house" as in "the house of the Lord God" and "sanctuary" are masculine nouns. God can refer to any piece of furniture or item used in this House of God for His worship as being "HIS" and the candlestick can have "his shaft" and "his branches" made of gold if God wishes to refer to it in this manner.

Another definite possibility, as was pointed out to me by a King James Bible believing Christian who is a native speaker of Hebrew himself, is that just a few chapters later we read virtually the same thing and we are told very clearly that it is a man who is making these furnishings. 

In Exodus 37:16-17 we read of the man Bezaleel who made the ark, the mercy seat, and the vessels, HIS dishes and HIS spoons, and HIS bowls, and HIS covers to cover withal, of pure gold. And HE made the candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work made HE the candlestick; HIS shaft, and HIS branch, HIS bowls, HIS knops, and HIS flowers, were of the same."

We must keep in mind that the King James Bible, which I fully believe to be the complete and infallible words of the living God, is an ENGLISH translation. The English language as such does not have "masculine" and "feminine" gendered nouns as many other languages, but we do sometimes associate a gender with certain objects.  We usually refer to cars and boats as "she", and we may think of the moon as a "she" and the sun as a "he".  But this does not mean that they are actually male and female.

Mr. Benner is all hung up on the intricate technicalities of Hebrew grammar which do not apply nor are even necessary when translating God's words into ENGLISH or most foreign languages either for that matter.  The word genders of Hebrew would not carry over to the same word genders when translated into Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French or German.

Mr. Benner has NO infallible Bible to give you and other Bible scholars clearly disagree with his personal opinions.  He has a right to his own opinions, but that is all they are.  He is not a spokesman for God and he most certainly is not our final authority. Even he admits in his video that "There are a lot of unknowns in textual criticism."  

My advice for those who might be led to believe that Mr. Jeff Benner actually knows what he is talking about and is some kind of Biblical authority?  It's found in the book of Proverbs.  "Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."  Proverbs 14:7

All of grace, believing The Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Return to Articles -