Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

The NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman Standard and other Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew Texts

Part One - Genesis through 1 Samuel.


"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5,6.

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18, 19.

The Old Testament scriptures, except for a few chapters of Aramaic, were written in Hebrew - not Greek or Syriac or Latin. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jots and tittles refer to the Hebrew scriptures.

Likewise the apostle Paul states: "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Romans 3:1,2.

The Hebrew Masoretic scribes were used of God to preserve His inspired words in the Old Testament. Of the Bible versions widely used today in the English language, only the King James Bible consistently sticks to the Hebrew text. The NKJV departs at least 10 times I have found so far, the NASB over 40 times and the NIV, ESV reject the Hebrew Masoretic text well over 80 times, and most of these are openly admitted to in the footnotes of the NIV and ESV. The NASB departs from the Hebrew but they don't tell you when they do this in their footnotes.

The modern Catholic bible versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 often reject the same Hebrew texts in the same places and ALL these versions have virtually the SAME New Testament "interconfessional" text created by a joint effort of the Vatican and the infallibility denying, apostate 'Evangelicals" called the UBS (United Bible Society) or Nestle-Aland critical Greek text. See Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASBs are the new "Catholic" bible versions here -

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

This article will not list all the examples from the NIV, ESV, NASB, but enough to allow you to see what is happening to the Book we should all hold in reverence and treasure above any earthly possession.

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It?s found in Article XII - ?We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.? Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?
It is devastating for the modern version promoter to see where the New Jerusalem Catholic bible lands on these verses. Also notice how the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims read. It was a whole lot closer to the historical truth than are these more modern translations.
The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples, but these are just a few to make you aware of what is going on here with "the late$t in $cholar$hip Finding$."
The Bible Agnostic Test
I hear from many unbelievers in the existence of a complete and infallible Bible when they say: "I'm not a bible agnostic! You don't know my heart. How can you say I am a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the inerrancy of the Bible? How dare you? You are being judgmental."

So I ask them if they are willing to take The Bible Agnostic Test. A bible agnostic is someone who does not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) for sure what God said in many instances. Just go through this first part where you will find about 20 examples of completely different names and numbers in todays Bible Babble Buffet Versions and tell us if you know which readings are the ones God inspired in His Book. Just pick one example if you like and let us know. OK? Most bible agnostic simply dodge the whole test and refuse to answer it. What about you? Willing to take the Test?
The Bible Babble Buffet Versions

Among these ?historic details? are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?
KJB - "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."
ESV (NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of MOSES, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land."
http://brandplucked.webs.com/juds1830manassehmoses.htm
1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain or only 70 or 75 or 70 men 50 chief men or 50 oxen of a man? Why we cannot trust the Bible commentators or the modern versions.
1 Samuel 6:19 King James Bible - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked INTO the ark of the LORD, even he smote OF THE PEOPLE FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
ESV 2016 (NIV 2011, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985) - "He struck SEVENTY men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow."
Young?s "literal" translation reads: ?He smiteth among the people SEVENTY MEN - FIFTY CHIEF MEN?.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1sam61950070or70.htm

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: ?Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.? reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (ASV 1901, Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible, , Jehovah Witness New World Translation) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or ?32 years old...reigned for 22 years? in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or as the Jehovah Witness New World Translation has it - I Samuel 13:1 - ?Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, and for two years he reigned over Israel. ? Footnote: The number is missing in the Hebrew text." or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!
But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?
Can you guess which other version reads this way? You got it; the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay Version 1950 which read: "Saul was A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."
Or 1 Samuel 13:5 we read: "And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, THIRTY thousand chariots..." (Hebrew text, Geneva, RV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, Douay-Rheims) or "THREE thousand chariots." (Syriac text, NET, NIV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible)

Or 1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain (KJB, Douay-Rheims, RV, ASV, NASB, NET) or only 70 (ESV, NIV, RSV, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible) or 75 (The Voice) or 70 men, 50 chief men (Youngs) or 70 men and 50 oxen (NKJV, NLT footnote)?
1 Samuel 17:4 How Tall Was Goliath?
In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "???? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.
Agreeing with the Hebrew text the he was 6 cubits and a span tall are the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and all Jewish translations.
However there are a few loonies out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL."
Dan Wallace's group chose the reading found in SOME LXX copies of FOUR and a half cubits tall. Other LXX copies have FIVE and others still have SIX cubits and a span. Also reading this way are the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Catholic St. Josepeh New American bible 1970. So, which one is right? Was he 4 or 5 or 6 cubits and a span tall?
For more information on this see Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness -
http://brandplucked.webs.com/scatterbrainseptuagint.htm

In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "???? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.

"after forty years" or "four years"? Has the Hebrew text been corrupted?
2 Samuel 15:7 forty years or four years?
King James Bible - "And it came to pass AFTER FORTY YEARS, that Absalom said unto the king..."
ESV, NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT 2013 revision - "And at THE END OF FOUR YEARS Absolom said to the king..."


In 2 Samuel we read of Absalom's rebellion against his father, king David. Verses 7-8 say: "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go a pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the LORD shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD."
Here ALL Hebrew texts read FORTY years.
See why the KJB and the Hebrew text is right, here -
http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam15740or4year.htm
Or whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV 1881, ASV 1901, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
2 Samuel 21:8 KJB - "and the five sons of MICHAL the daughter of Saul, whom she BROUGHT UP FOR Adriel..."

2 Samuel 21:8 - ESV, NIV, NASB - "and the five sons of MERAB, the daughter of Saul, whom she BORE TO Adriel..."

There is no error in the Hebrew text nor in the King James Bible. Here is why the KJB is right, as always -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam218michalmerab.htm

Three or Thirty?
2 Samuel 23:18-19 KJB (Hebrew texts, Geneva, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman) - ?And Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief among THREE. And he lifted up his spear against three hundred, and slew them, and had the name among three. Was he not most honourable of THREE? therefore he was their captain: howbeit he attained not unto the first three.
2 Samuel 23:18-19 - ??was chief of THE THIRTY?most renowned of THE THIRTY? (RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB)
http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam2381819three.htm
1 Kings 5:11 ?TWENTY measures? (Hebrew text, KJB, NASB, ASV, ISV) or ?TWENTY THOUSAND baths? (NIV, LXX) ?20,000 cors? (RSV, ESV, NET)?
King James Bible - ?And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for food TO HIS HOUSEHOLD, and TWENTY MEASURES of pure oil: thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year.
ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NET) - ?while Solomon gave Hiram 20,000 core of wheat as food for his household, and 20,000 cors of beaten oil. Solomon gave this to Hiram year by year.? ESV Footnote 20,000 = Septuagint; 20 = Hebrew.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/1k51120or20000.htm

?one hundred and twenty? or ?twenty cubits??
2 Chronicles 3:4 Measurements of the house of the LORD built by king Solomon ? ?the height ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY? or ?TWENTY CUBITS HIGH? (NIV)?
2 Chronicles 3:4 - KJB - ?And the porch that was in front of the house, the length of it was according to the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, and the height was AN HUNDRED AND TWENTY; and he overlaid it within with pure gold.?
NIV (NET- 2 Chronicles 3:4 - ?The portico at the front of the temple was twenty cubits long, across the width of the building and TWENTY CUBITS HIGH. He overlaid the inside with pure gold.?
NIV Footnote: ?SOME Septuagint and Syriac manuscripts; Hebrew A HUNDRED AND TWENTY.?

1 Chronicles 20:3 "he CUT THEM with saws" or "he PUT THEM TO WORK with saws"?

KJB - 1 Chronicles 20:3 - KJB (NASB) - ?And he brought out the people that were in it, AND CUT THEM WITH SAWS, AND WITH HARROWS OF IRON, AND WITH AXES. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.?
NKJV, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT - 1 Chronicles 20:3 - ?And he brought out the people who were in it, and PUT THEM TO WORK WITH SAWS, WITH IRON PICKS, AND WITH AXES. So David did to all the cities of the people of Ammon.?
See why the KJB (and NASB) is right but the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, modern Catholic versions and Jehovah Witness NWT rejected the Hebrew text.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/cutwithsaws.htm

or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not ?until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times? (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)
See "Wrong Numbers in the Fake Bibles" to see why the KJB is right. Scroll about half way down.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/wrongnumbers.htm
or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT) or "the NEXT day" ISV (they just made this up!)
Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or ?A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT)
See why the KJB and the Hebrew texts are right -
http://brandplucked.webs.com/jud1415samsonsriddle.htm
or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
See why the KJB and the Hebrew texts are right, here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/7or3yearsoffamine.htm
or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, ISV, Douay-Rheims, Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 edition) or 4,000 stalls (SOME LXX copies, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT 2013 edition)

Jehovah Witness NWT 2013 edition - ?And Sol?o·mon had 4,000 stalls of horses for his chariots and 12,000 horses.? This is one of the places where the new Revised NWT changes the Hebrew reading of 40,000 for the reading found in SOME Greek LXX copies of 4,000.
See why the KJB and the Hebrew texts are right, here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/4000or40000.htm

or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and 2013 editions, RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew ?three?, ISV -"every male 30 years old and older", St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem and the Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 and 2013 editions)
See why the KJB and the Hebrew texts are right, here -
http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm
or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 ?this day have I begotten thee? (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB) or ?today I have become your Father? (NIV, Holman, NET, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT).
See why the KJB is right, here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/acts1333thisdaybegotte.htm
If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
As for the ESV, you can see a lot more examples of how this revamped RSV version often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and has changed over 300 verses from the 2001 to the 2007 editions -

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

Remember, God said that no man should add to or take away from His words.

Genesis 1:26 KJB - "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."

NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - "Then God said, let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, over the livestock, *OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Footnote: "Hebrew; Syriac - all the wild animals"

NIV 2011 edition - "Then God said, Let us make MANKIND in our image, in our likeness, sot that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over livestock and *ALL THE WILD ANIMALS, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Footnote: "probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac); Masoretic Text - the earth".

In other words the new NIV arbitrarily rejected the clear Hebrew reading of "over all the earth" and decided to follow the Syriac text that says "all the wild animals". Is this a case of "updating the archaic Hebrew or English"? Of course not. They just decided to reject the Hebrew reading that they previously followed and is still followed by other modern versions like the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB 1995, NET, NKJV, ESV 2011, Holman 2009 and the Common English Bible 2011.

But just a minute. There is more to this story - the Catholic versions. The previous Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both followed the Hebrew text here and said "OVER ALL THE EARTH", but the Jerusalem bible 1968, the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 likewise rejected the Hebrew text and went with the Syriac reading of "over ALL THE WILD ANIMALS". But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it went back to the Hebrew text of "and the beasts, AND THE ENTIRE EARTH, and every animal that moves on the earth." The NRSV 1989 also went with the Syriac reading, but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV - went back to the Hebrew reading again of "over all the earth".
Genesis 4:8 KJB "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 - "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD. And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."

Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961, 2013 editions "After that Cain said to his brother Abel, "LET'S GO OVER INTO THE FIELD."

The NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass". In fact, the NIV complete concordance will tell you that they have "not translated" this verb a whopping 887 times. Not only does the NIV not translate this verb here but they also added "Let's go out to the field."

The Holman Christian Standard also adds "Let's go out to the field" as does Dan Wallace's NET version. Wallace footnotes - "The MT has simply ?and Cain said to Abel his brother,? omitting Cain?s words to Abel. It is possible that the elliptical text is original. "

Their own footnotes say this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX - Greek), the Vulgate (Latin) and the Syriac but that the phrase is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Guess which other bible versions also include these added words. That's right, the Catholic Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible all have these extra words in them that are not found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

This additional phrase is not found in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV or any Hebrew translation.

Other places in Genesis where the NIV departs from the Hebrew are Genesis 4:15; 10:23; 36:24; and 47:31 where instead of "bowed himself upon the bed's head" (KJB, NASB, NKJV, Holman, ESV, NET), the NIV says "he leaned on the top of his staff." This reading comes from the LXX and not the Hebrew, and Jacob didn't lean on the top of his staff until after the events of the next chapter. See Hebrews 11:21.

Genesis 47:21- KJB "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof."

ESV - "As for the people, HE MADE SERVANTS OF THEM, from one end of Egypt to the other." Footnote: "Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate; Hebrew - he removed them to the cities.


Following the Hebrew texts and agreeing with the reading "HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES" are Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Lesser Bible 1853, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003, Hebrew Names Version, the Jewish JPS 1917, New Life Version 1969, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah, the NASB 1995, The Complete Tanach, International Standard Version, Jubilee Bible 2010, Common English Bible 2011 (a critical text version), Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 (critical text), Lexham English Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "he removed them to cities", and the Modern Greek Bible - "??? ?? ???? ??????????? ????? ??? ??????" = "he removed the people to the cities" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????


NIV - "And JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE from one end of Egypt..." The NIV footnote says this comes from the Samaritan and the LXX, but that the Hebrew says: "he removed them to the cities".

This false reading taken from the so called LXX is also that of the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV, New Living Translation 2013, Message 2002, The Voice 2012 and the NET version 2006 put out by Daniel Wallace and company.


The Catholic Connection

It is also the reading found in the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985, though the earlier Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the KJB and followed the Hebrew texts.

Dan Wallace footnotes that he thinks the Hebrew reading of "he removed them to cities" makes no sense in the context. Well, bible agnostics like Daniel Wallace are entitled to their humble opinions, but I and millions of other Bible believers maintain that God did not make a mistake and the Hebrew Scriptures are right.

John Gill comments on this verse: "And as for the people, he removed them?From the places where they dwelt, that it might appear they had no more property there, and might forget it, and be more willing to pay rent elsewhere; and their posterity hereafter could have no notion of its being theirs, or plead prescription; and besides, by such a removal and separation of the inhabitants of cities, some to one place, and some to another, sedition and mutiny might be prevented: he had them to cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt, even unto the other end thereof; according to the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, those that dwelt in provinces, or in country towns and villages, he removed to cities, and those that dwelt in cities he removed into provinces, and placed them at the utmost distance from their former habitations, for the reasons before given."

Adam Clarke also agrees with the Hebrew and KJB reading and says it would be easier to feed the people where the corn was being stored, that is, in the cities, and to then have some others out working the fields. The KJB is right and the fake bible versions are wrong for rejecting the Hebrew texts and following some fanciful Samaritan Pentateuch or the alleged Septuagint.


Pulpit Commentary - "Verse 21. - And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES - -NOT enslaved them, converted them into serfs and bondmen to Pharaoh (LXX., Vulgate), but simply transferred them?that throughout the land they were moved into the nearest cities, as a considerate and even merciful arrangement for the more efficiently supplying them with food (Calvin, Keil, Lange, Wordsworth, Speaker's Commentary)."

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - ?as for the people, he removed them to cities ? obviously for the convenience of the country people, who were doing nothing, to the cities where the corn stores were situated.?

The King James Bible is always right. Don't settle for an inferior substitute.



The NIV also departs from the Hebrew in the following verses, though the NASB does not. Lev. 14:31; Numbers 24:17; 26:40; Deut. 23:18; 28:20; Joshua 15:4; 16:2; 18:18; 19:28, 34; Judges 8:8; and 9:29.


Genesis 49:10 KJB (NASB, NKJV)- "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTIL SHILOH COME: and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."


ESV - "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."

Footnote: "Hebrew - until Shiloh comes, or until he comes to Shiloh"


NIV - "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until HE TO WHOM IT BELINGS SHALL COME and the obedience of the nations shall be his."

Footnote: "the meaning of the Hebrew phrase is uncertain"


The word SHILOH means "tranquil" or "peaceful" and has been seen for centuries as a name for the coming Messiah. See the Bible commentators at the end of this study.


Also reading "UNTIL SHILOH COME" are Tyndale 1534, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, New Life Version 1969, The Living Bible 1971, The Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, The NKJV 1982, The Amplified Bible 1987 has: "until SHILOH [the Messiah, The Peaceful One] comes", God's Word Translation 1995 - "until SHILOH comes", the NASB 1995, New Century Version 2005, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, and The Modern English Version 2014 - "until SHILOH comes".

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - ?until SHILOH comes? - Rashi?s Commentary - ?until SHILOH COMES: This refers to the King Messiah, to whom the kingdom belongs.?


Foreign Language Bibles


Foreign language Bibles that also read SHILOH are the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "bis der SCHILO kommt", The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - "hasta que llegue SILOH", the French Martin Bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Second 2007 - "jusqu'à ce que vienne le SHILO", the Portuguese O Livro 2000 and the Almeida Corrigida 2009 - ?até que venha SILO?, The Hungarian Karoli Bible - ?míg eljõ SILO?, the Italian La Nuova Diodati 1991 - ?finché venga SCILOH?, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - ?totdat SILO komt?, The Netherlands Det Boek 2007 - ?tot SILO komt?, the Romanian Cornilescu 2014 - ?Pân? va veni ?ILO?, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - ?SHILOH ay dumating?, the Czech BKR Bible - ?dokud? nep?ijde SILO?, the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - ?uit totdat SILO kom?,

and The Modern Greek Bible - ?????? ???? ? ?????. = "until SHILOH come"


However the ESV reads: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples." Footnote tells us to compare the Syriac, and Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads: "until Shiloh comes".


Why would we want to look at the Syriac translation? Does it say "until tribute comes to him"? No, not at all. Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until THE COMING OF THE ONE TO THE SCEPTRE BELONGS, TO WHOM THE GENTILES SHALL LOOK FORWARD."

And how about the so called Septuagint? Does it read like the ESV? No, not at all. It reads: "A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a prince from his loins, until THERE COME THINGS STORED UP FOR HIM; AND HE IS THE EXPECTATION OF NATIONS."

The NIV also omits the word SHILOH and reads as the old RSV and Daniel Wallace's NET version: "UNTIL HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS".

Daniel Wallace then footnotes "Some prefer to leave the text as it is, reading ?Shiloh?.

Note - What a novel idea! Leave the text as it is! Can we give Dan Wallace a big "Duh"?

The Holman Standard is much like the NIV, saying: "until HE WHOSE RIGHT IT IS COMES."


Likewise the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 also read like the ESV with "UNTIL TRIBUTE BE BROUGHT TO HIM".

Other Weird Versions

Young's 1898 - "Till HIS SEED COMES".

The Common English Bible 2011 (another Critical Text version) has: "GIFTS WILL BE BROUGHT TO HIM"

Easy To Read Version 2006 - "UNTIL THE REAL KING COMES"

The Voice 2012 - "until the One comes TO WHOM TRUE ROYALTY BELONGS."

The ISV 2014 - "UNTIL THE ONE COMES, WHO OWNS THEM BOTH" - Footnote "Or, until Shiloh comes"


The Bible Commentators

John Gill - ?until Shiloh come; which all the three Targums interpret of the Messiah, as do many of the Jewish writers, ancient and modern; and is the name of the Messiah in their Talmud and in other writings; and well agrees with him, coming from a root which signifies to be "quiet," "peaceable," and "prosperous"; as he was of a quiet and peaceable disposition, came to make peace between God and men, and made it by the blood of his cross?


Matthew Henry - ?The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, till Shiloh come, v. 10. Jacob here foresees and foretells, (1.) That the sceptre should come into the tribe of Judah, which was fulfilled in David, on whose family the crown was entailed. (2.) That Shiloh should be of this tribe?his seed, that promised seed, in whom the earth should be blessed: that peaceable and prosperous one, or the Saviour shall come of Judah. Thus dying Jacob, at a great distance, saw Christ's day, and it was his comfort and support on his death-bed.?

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - ?Shiloh?that is, the Messiah. The Jews have been for eighteen centuries without a ruler and without a judge since Shiloh came, and "to Him the gathering of the people has been."

Matthew Poole?s Annotations - ?Until Shiloh come - Shiloh i.e. the Messias; which we need not stand to prove, because it is so expounded by all the three Chaldee Paraphrasts, and by the Jewish Talmud, and by divers of the latter Jews themselves.?

Coffman?s Commentary - ?As for us we prefer unequivocally the rendition of "Until Shiloh come." We believe there is the very strongest Biblical support for this rendition, as outlined herewith. SHILOH. This word occurs (with slight variations) three times in the Bible, and in every one of them, the reference is to JESUS CHRIST. As far as this passage goes, Believing Shiloh to be the name of a person, the majority of commentators, both Jewish and Christian, the ancient as well as modern, agree that the Messiah is the person referred to, and Jacob here foretold that the appearance of that Messiah would not occur until the staff or regal power had dropped from his hands.?


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


Exodus 3:19 "no, not by a mighty hand."

NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV all depart from the Hebrew and change the meaning of Exodus 3:19.

In Exodus chapter three the LORD tells Moses what He is going to do to Pharoah and his land. In 3:19-20 we read in the King James Bible: "And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, NO, NOT BY A MIGHTY HAND. And I will stretch out MY HAND, and smite Egypt with ALL MY WONDERS which I will do in the midst thereof: AND AFTER THAT he will let you go."

The meaning is quite clear in the King James Bible for those who believe the Book and have eyes to see. God Himself is going to stretch out His mighty hand over Egypt and bring a series of 10 plagues upon the land, yet, in spite of the first nine plagues, God will harden the heart of Pharoah and he will refuse to let the people go. Only after the 10th and final plague of the death of the firsborn will God move upon Pharoah to let the people go. Even after that, God will again harden Pharoah's heart that he pursues after the children to Israel to bring them back, but they will be drowned in the Red sea.

In Exodus 7:4 and again in 9:3 and 15 we read concerning the series of plagues: "But Pharoah shall not hearken unto you, THAT I MAY LAY MY HAND UPON EGYPT, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt BY GREAT JUDGMENTS."

Exodus 9:3 "Behold, THE HAND OF THE LORD is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels...there shall be a very grievous murrain."

Exodus 9:15 "For now I will stretch out MY HAND, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence"

The "mighty hand" spoken of in Exodus 3:19 is the hand of God Himself in the first nine plagues. God had raised up Pharoah "for to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." (Exodus 9:16)

The Hebrew texts clearly say exactly what is written in the King James Bible. Not only does the KJB say: "And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, NO, NOT BY A MIGHTY HAND", but so also do the Bishop's Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Darby, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company's translation, Green's interlinear, KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However we find that the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Catholic St. Joseph NAB, the New Jerusalem bible and an host of other versions reject the Hebrew reading and follow the Greek LXX and the Vulgate. You won't see this by consulting the NASB, NIV, but the RSV, NRSV, and ESV let us in on this little secret by saying so in their footnotes.

In the RSV, NRSV, New Jerusalem bible and ESV we read: "I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go UNLESS COMPELLED by a MIGHTY HAND"; then is a footnote these three versions tell us their reading comes from the LXX and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew says "no, not by a mighty hand" - just as found in the King James Bible.

The NIV has no footnotes here but it says: "UNLESS a mighty hand COMPELS HIM" - at least they kept the "mighty hand" part.

But the NASB, vaunted so much for being so literal (what a joke), says: "will not let you go EXCEPT UNDER COMPULSION." - thus rejecting the Hebrew reading, following the Vulgate, and even paraphrasing this by omitting "mighty hand". It is much like the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 that says: "unless he is forced."

The translators of these versions apparently could not make sense of the passage, thought the Hebrew text was in error, and so followed something else according to their own understanding. As a result, they have changed the meaning of the passage.

The King James Bible is ALWAYS right.

Exodus 14:25 - "the LORD TOOK OFF their chariot wheels"


KJB - "And it came to pass that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians...and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And TOOK OFF THEIR CHARIOT WHEELS, that they drave them heavily" Exodus 14:24-25


ESV - "And in the morning watch the LORD looked down on the Egyptian forces...CLOGGING their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily."

NASB - "At the morning watch, the LORD looked down on the army of the Egyptians...He CAUSED their chariot wheels TO SWERVE and He made them drive with difficulty"


NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - "He MADE THE WHEELS OF THEIR CHARIOTS TO COME OFF so that they had difficulty driving."

NIV 2011 edition - "He JAMMED the wheels of their chariots so that they had difficulty driving."

Footnote - "See Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint and Syriac; Masoretic Text REMOVED.


Exodus chapter 14 relates the event of the children of Israel crossing the Red Sea when God divided the waters. The Egyptians pursued after them and were drowned in the sea.

In Exodus 14: 24-25 we read: "And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And TOOK OFF their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily."

"TOOK OFF their chariot wheels" is the reading of Tyndale 1530, Coverdale 1535 (smote the wheels from their chariots), Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Holy Bible 1611, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the NKJV 1982, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 "he TOOK OFF their chariot wheels" (the predecessor of the NASB), New Life Version 1969, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the two Jewish translations of JPS 1917 and Hebrew Publishing Company 1936, Darby 1890, the Living Bible 1971 "the chariot wheels began coming off", Green's interlinear 1984, , the NIV 1978 and 1982 editions - "He made the wheels of their chariots COME OFF", A Conservative Version 2005, the Jubilee Bible 2010, New Heart English Bible 2010 - "He TOOK OFF their chariot wheels", Names of God Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "He TOOK OFF their chariot wheels", and The Hebrew Names Version 2014.


Other Bibles that tell us that God "TOOK OFF the chariot wheels" are The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Biblos Bible 2013 - He TOOK OFF the chariot wheels", and The Modern English Version 2014.


Likewise the modern Jewish translation called the Judaica Press Tanach 2004 follows the Hebrew and agrees with the King James Bible saying: " And HE REMOVED THE WHEELS OF THEIR CHARIOTS, and He led them with heaviness, and the Egyptians said, Let me run away from the Israelites because the Lord is fighting for them against the Egyptians."

The Modern Greek Bible also follows the Hebrew text and agrees with the King James Bible. It says - "??? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????" = "and TOOK OFF the wheels of their chariots".


Foreign Language Bibles


Among foreign language bible that follow the Hebrew text and tell us that God "TOOK OFF the wheels" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valeras 1909 - 2011 - "quitó las ruedas" = "TOOK OFF the wheels", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Il ôta les roues de ses chariots, et fit qu'on les menait bien pesamment. " = "he TOOK OFF the wheels", and the Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006 - " Tolse le ruote dei loro carri e ne rese l?avanzata peasant" = "He TOOK OFF the wheels"

The Modern Greek Bible - ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? = ?He TOOK OFF the wheels of their chariots?


However the "scholarly" NASB tells us: "He CAUSED their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". This is also the reading of the Holman Christian Standard version 2009.

Now I've had the unpleasant experience of having my car wheels swerve on ice or snow, but thankfully I have never had them come off yet. You have to admit there is a difference between the Lord taking off their wheels and the Lord causing them to swerve.

The word used here is # 5493 soor and it means to remove or take away. It is used in Exodus 8:8 "TAKE AWAY the frogs"; in 8:31 "he REMOVED the swarms of flies", in 34:34 Moses TOOK OFF the vail", Genesis 41:42 "Pharoah TOOK OFF his ring" and in Genesis 8:13 "Noah REMOVED the covering of the ark".

Besides the confusion of the NASB, Holman Standard, ESV, NIV 2011 edition, let's see what some of the other modern versions have done with the passage.

The Catholic Connection

The Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Catholic Douay version say God "OVERTHREW the wheels"; but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 say God "CLOGGED the chariot wheels."

The New Jerusalem then footnotes that "clogged" comes from "versions", but that the Hebrew reads TOOK OFF!

And now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it says: "He OVERTURNED the wheels of their chariots". (whatever that means!)

The RSV 1952, NRSV, ESV 2001-2011, New English Bible 1970 and The Message 2002 all say God was "CLOGGING the wheels", with a footnote that tells us this reading (clogging) comes from the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch and Syriac; but that the Hebrew text reads "TOOK OFF" or "removed".

Actually, the Greek version called the Septuagint doesn't say "clogging" at all, as we shall soon see.

The NIV 2011 edition has now come out and it changed the text of the old NIV 1978 and 1984 editions. The old NIVs say God "MADE THE WHEELS COME OFF"

But now the new New International Version of 2011 says God "JAMMED the wheels" (And so does Dan Wallace and company's NET version 2006) and then the NIV footnotes that we should consult the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint and the Syriac, all of which not only differ from the Hebrew but also from each other! AND it even tells us in their own footnote that the Hebrew reads REMOVED!

The Bible in Basic English of 1965 says God "made the wheels STIFF"

ISV (International Standard Version) 2014 - "He made the wheels of their chariots WOBBLE so that they drove them with difficulty."

The New Century Version 2005 tells us God "KEPT THE WHEELS FROM TURNING."

Young's "literal" 1898 (hah) says: "and TURNETH ASIDE the wheels of their chariots." This would mean they swerved, but not that they actually came off.

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta reads: "clogging the wheels" (from the Syriac we get the reading found in the Message, RSV, NRSV and ESV)

The Voice 2012 - " He CAUSED the wheels of their chariots TO BREAK DOWN, so that it was nearly impossible for the drivers to control them."

New Living Translation 2013 - "He TWISTED their chariot wheels, making their chariots difficult to drive." Then it footnotes that this comes from "As in Greek version. Hebrew reads HE REMOVED.

Today's English Version 1992 "He MADE THE WHEELS GET STUCK."

Contemporary English Version - "Their chariot wheels GOT STUCK, and IT WAS HARD FORM THEM TO MOVE."

And the famed Greek Septuagint says God "BOUND THE AXEL-TREES of their chariots"; it doesn't say "clogging the wheels" as the false footnotes of the RSV, ESV, NIV tell us.

So when you read glowing recommendations about the next Bible of the Month Club version coming down the pike that is based on "better manuscripts", "greater advances in scholarship", "easier to read", YADA, YADA, YADA, just realize it is a lot of pious sounding BALONEY.

None of these people believe any Bible or any text is the inspired words of God, and all their efforts are designed to overthrow the time tested, inerrant, God approved King James Holy Bible.

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

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38


Deuteronomy 11:14, and 15 the Hebrew texts have Moses speaking for God who says: "That "I" will give you the rain of your land in his due season...And "I" will send grass in thy fields..." This is the reading of even the NIV, TNIV, New English Bible 1970, as well as the Holman Standard, the NKJV, RV, ASV, and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach and the Complete Jewish Bible. It is also the reading found in the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, New English Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera, French Louis Segond, the Portuguese Almeida, and the Modern Greek O.T. (not to be confused with the so called LXX). The NASB at least up until the 1972 edition also read "I" will give rain.."I" will send grass...But in the 1977, and again in the 1995 edition the NASB editors decided to reject the clear Hebrew reading and they now follow the RSV, NRSV, and the 2003 ESV which read: "HE will give rain...HE will send grass..." The RSV, ESV tell us that the reading of "He" comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew reads "I", and not "he".

Deuteronomy 26:3 - "...I profess this day unto the LORD THY God, that I am come unto the country, which the LORD sware unto our fathers for to give us." Here all Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman read either THY God, or YOUR God (which mean the same thing), but only the NASB follows the Greek Septuagint version and says: "unto the Lord MY God..."

The footnotes in versions like Holman, ESV tell us this. Even the online NASB footnotes that the reading of "MY God" comes from the LXX, but that the Hebrew reads "your God".

Daniel Wallace's ridiculous NET version goes with "your" God in his text, but then he gives us this silly footnote saying: "For the MT reading ?your God,? certain LXX mss have ?my God,? a contextually superior rendition followed by some English versions (e.g., NAB, NASB, TEV)."

How can this be a "contextually superior rendition" when clearly the context of the verse itself is what the man bringing the offering says unto the priest? "...go unto the priest...and say unto him, I profess unto the LORD THY God...." And if it is a "contextually superior rendition" according to Dr. Wallace, then why didn't he himself follow it? Scholars are a funny bunch, No? Wait till you see what Dr. Wallace says about the next one.

In Deuteronomy 28:20 we read: "The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke ...because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken ME."

The word "me" is the reading of the ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman and the Jewish translations. However the NIV and the TNIV say: "...because of the evil you have done in forsaking HIM." Then in a footnote the NIV and TNIV tell us the Hebrew reads ME.

Daniel Wallace's NET version reads HIM but he footnotes: "For the MT first person common singular suffix (?me?), the LXX reads either ?Lord? (Lucian) or third person masculine singular suffix (?him?; various codices). The MT?s more difficult reading probably represents the original text."

However the copy of the LXX I have in front of me actually says ME, just like the Hebrew. Apparently there are at least THREE different LXX readings, and the NIV editors went with one of the three LXX readings and rejected the Hebrew text.

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

Deuteronomy 32:8 KJB (NIV!, NKJV, NASB) - "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."

NRSV 1989 - " he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number OF THE GODS."

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

The New Brenton Translation 2012 (based on the so called Greek Septuagint) reads - "he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of THE ANGELS OF GOD."

But wait! There's more scholarly shenanigans afoot. Now the NEW English Septuagint Version of 2014 has come out and it reads: "according to the number of DIVINE SONS." It doesn't even read like the OLD Septuagints!


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 2014 - "the number of THE CHILDREN OF GOD."

Likewise the Comic Book New Living Translation 2013 says: ?according to the number of HIS HEAVENLY COURT.?


And then it footnotes: ?Dead Sea Scrolls, which read the number of the sons of God, and Greek version, which reads the number of the angels of God; Masoretic Text reads the number of the sons of Israel.?

So, in other words, they rejected what is the clear reading of the Hebrew text and badly paraphrased a wrong text. And then they pass this stuff off as ?the latest in scholarship.?

The Catholic Connection

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 AND The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 and both of them have gone back to the Hebrew reading of "according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL."!


The Jesuits behind the Counter-Reformation aren't concerned about the true readings at all. They just want to sow confusion and disbelief in what they disparagingly refer to as 'The Paper Pope of Protestantism', or the Infallible Bible, so that folks will look somewhere else rather 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 translate 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" - ??????? ????

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 2014, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, and the Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - "according to the number of THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."

Modern Greek Bible - ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ??????.? = ?He set the boundaries of the people according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL.?

The Modern Hebrew Bible - ????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? = according to the number of the children of Israel


"according to the number of THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL"

Reading like the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, Amplified Bible 1987, God's Word Translation 1995, the NASB 1995, NIV 1984, 2011 editions!, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Context Group Version 2007, the Holman Standard 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Ancient Roots Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010 - "the number of THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL", The Hebraic Transliteration Scriptues 2010 - ?according to the number of benai Yisrael.?, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the Names of God Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The World English Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013 and The Modern English Version 2014 - "the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL".


The King James Bible is always right. Don't settle for a bogus "bible" version.


Deuteronomy 32:43 KJB - "Rejoice, O YE NATIONS, WITH HIS PEOPLE; for he will avenge the blood of his SERVANTS, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful UNTO HIS LAND AND TO HIS PEOPLE."

So read the RV 1881, ASV 1901, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, NIV 1984 - 2011, the Holman Standard 2009, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Voice 2012, Knox Bible 2012, and even Dan Wallace's NET version of 2006.

The NIV, which frequently rejects the Hebrew readings or adds things to it, this time stays with the Hebrew text and reads like the King James Bible. The NIV 2011 says: "Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.?

The NASB 1995 also follows the Hebrew text and reads like the KJB, with: "Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people.?

Not even Dan Wallace and company's NET version 2006 goes along with the ESV, NRSV, RSVs conflicting readings (even among themselves) here. The NET version reads basically like the KJB with: ?Cry out, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge his servants? blood; he will take vengeance against his enemies, and make atonement for his land and people.?


However the ESV is really messed up. Keep in mind that the ESV is a revision of the older liberal RSV. The RSV 1952-1971 says: "PRAISE HIS PEOPLE, O YOU NATIONS; for he avenges the blood of his SERVANTS, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and makes expiation FOR the land OF his people." Footnote "Hebrew - his land his people"

Then the NEW RSV came out in 1989 and it says: "PRAISE, O HEAVENS, HIS PEOPLE, WORSHIP HIM ALL YOU GODS. For he will avenge the blood of his CHILDREN, and take vengeance on his adversaries, HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM, and cleanse the land for his people."

Then the NRSV Footnotes that the Hebrew Masoretic text lacks "HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM." Then they tell us this phrase comes from the Greek and one Qumran manuscript. And it also Footnotes that "CHILDREN" comes from the Greek but the Hebrew reads SERVANTS, and "cleanse the land FOR his people" comes from the Greek and the Vulgate, but the Hebrew reads "his land his people".

And finally the ESV comes out in 2001-2011 and it says: "REJOICE WITH HIM, O HEAVENS; BOW DOWN TO HIM ALL GODS, for he avenges the blood of his CHILDREN and takes vengeance on his adversaries, HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM AND CLEANSES HIS PEOPLE'S LAND."

Then the ESV informs us in their Footnotes that "REJOICE WITH HIM, O HEAVENS" comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads like the KJB has it. And that the phrase "HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM" comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, but it is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text, and lastly that "HIS CHILDREN" comes from the Septuagint and the Vulgate but the Hebrew reads "SERVANTS"

As you can see, neither the RSV 1952 - 1971, the NRSV 1989 nor ESV 2001-2011 agree even among themselves, let alone with the King James Bible and all the others that follow the Hebrew texts. About the only other version to agree with the ESV 2011 is the critical text Common English Bible of 2012.

Also the 2007 New Living Bible rejects the Hebrew text, like the ESV does, but it even goes further than the ESV. The New Living Translation 2007 says: ?REJOICE WITH HIM, YOU HEAVENS (= ESV), AND LET ALL OF GOD'S ANGELS (ESV - all gods) WORSHIP HIM. [a] REJOICE WITH HIS PEOPLE, YOU NATIONS, AND LET ALL THE ANGELS BE STRENGTHENED IN HIM. (Not in ESV at all) [b] For he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take revenge against his enemies. HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM [c] and cleanse the land FOR his people.? (= ESV)

Footnotes:

32:43a As in Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek version; Masoretic Text lacks the first two lines.
32:43b As in Greek version; Hebrew text lacks this line.
32:43c As in Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek version; Masoretic Text lacks this line.
You see, not only do the Dead Sea Scrolls nor the so called Greek Septuagint agree with the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, but they don't even agree with each other! The LXX says "Let all the ANGELS OF GOD worship him" but the DSS has "and bow down to him ALL YOU GODS". Then the LXX says "REJOICE, YE GENTILES, WITH HIS PEOPLE" but the DSS has "REJOICE, O HEAVENS, TOGETHER WITH HIM." Then the LXX adds the whole phrase "AND LET ALL THE SONS OF GOD STRENGTHEN THEMSELVES IN HIM" but this is not found either in the Hebrew text nor the Dead Sea Scrolls.

However the MODERN GREEK BIBLE reads like the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic texts and the King James Bible. It has: ??????????, ????, ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???????? ????????? ??? ???? ????????? ?????, ??? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????. = "Rejoice, nations, with his people. For he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will recompense to his enemies, and will cleans his land and his people."


The Catholic Connection


The Catholic versions are in their usual mess. The older Douay-Rheims and Douay and even the 1970 St. Joseph NAB do NOT have the extra phrase "HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM", that is allegedly taken from the DSS and Septuagint, but the newer Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 has added the phrase "HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM", but it still goes with "servants" (Hebrew/KJB) instead of "children" (LXX). But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has now removed the added phrase "He repays those who hate him."

Here are the main two modern Catholic versions in comparison to each other. They obviously do not even agree with each other.

The 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible says: "Exult with him, you heavens, glorify him ALL YOU ANGELS OF GOD, For he avenges the blood of his servants and purges his people's land."

The 1985 New Jerusalem bible reads: "Heavens, rejoice with him, LET ALL THE CHILDREN OF GOD pay him homage, NATIONS, REJOICE WITH HIS PEOPLE, LET GOD'S ENVOYS TELL OF HIS POWER, For he will avenge the blood of his servants, HE WILL RETURN VENGEANCE TO MY FOES, HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM, and purify his people's country."

These two Catholic versions are just 15 years apart from each other, and yet they are very different in texts and meanings.

And now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) has come out, and the late$t in $cholar$hip finding$ has once again for the most part gone back to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic reading. It says:

Deuteronomy 32:43 - "You nations, praise his people! For he will avenge the blood of his servants. And he will distribute vengeance to their enemies. And he will be merciful to the land of his people.?

Gone are all those extra words and phrases the other versions picked up from the conflicting Dead Sea Scrolls and so called Greek Septuagint. Modern scholarship is a Wonder to behold, isn't it? You are always Wondering what they will come up with next.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIV- "The LORD came from Sinai and DAWNED OVER them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones FROM THE SOUTH, FROM HIS MOUNTAIN SLOPES." (That's right, this is what it says in place of "from his right hand went a fiery law for them".) However the NIV Spanish edition of 1999 (Nueva Versión Internacional) and the NIV Portuguese editions have a completely different meaning even from the NIV English version and it says: "y llegó desde Meribá Cades con rayos de luz en su diestra." which means "He came from Meriba Cades (Say what?) with rays of light in his right hand." Yep, that's pretty close, right?

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

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

This is similar to the Catholic versions that just keep getting weirder and weirder. The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the King James Bible saying: "he hath appeared from mount Pharan, and with him thousands of saints. In his right hand a fiery law." However, believe it or not, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible actually reads: "He shone forth from Mount Paran and advanced from Meribath-kadesh, WHILE AT HIS RIGHT HAND A FIRE BLAZED FORTH AND HIS WRATH DEVASTATED THE NATIONS." Then the 1985 Catholic New Jerusalem came out and it says: "...from Mount Paran came forth, FOR THEM HE CAME, AFTER THE MUSTERING AT KADESH, FROM HIS ZENITH AS FAR AS THE FOOTHILLS." I am not kidding you or making this stuff up. That is actually how these "bibles" read.

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

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

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

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

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

Was it a "fiery law", "flashing lightning", "he supplied their needs", "his angels with him", "tongues of fire", "streams", "a host of his own", or "from the south"? Who really cares? They all mean the same thing, right? As Professor James White says, "If we compare all the bible versions together, we arrive at a better understanding of what is really being said." Don't you agree?


Joshua 9:4 ?made as if they had been ambassadors? or ?they gathered provisions??



Joshua 9:4 speaking of the inhabitants of Gibeah that go to make a league with Joshua and the warring children of Israel - KJB ?They did work wilily, AND WENT AND MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles, old and rent, and bound up?



Holman Standard 2003 - ?they acted deceptively. THEY GATHERED PROVISIONS (b) and took worn out sacks on their donkeys and old wineskins, cracked and mended.?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes: Joshua 9:4 Heb uncertain

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

Here is a case where not even the modern Vatican Versions agree among themselves. The NASB, Common English Bible and NIV (all three Critical text versions) and the NKJV side with the traditional Hebrew Masorretic text which reads ?MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS?.

But the ESV and Holman (both Critical text versions) reject the traditional text and say "and MADE READY PROVISIONS." The Holman Standard tells us they got this reading from the so called Greek Septuagint. The ESV doesn't even have a note telling why they changed the Hebrew text. See the fuller development of this study here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebabel2.htm

Joshua 12:23 - Gilgal or Galilee?
In the book of Joshua chapter 12 we have a list of the kings and cities the children of Israel had conquered. In Joshua 12:23 we see listed ?The king of Dor in the coast of Dor, one; the king of the nations of GILGAL, one.?
Yet the ESV says this is GALILEE and not GILGAL. Then it footnotes that this reading comes from the so called Greek Septuagint, yet the Hebrew reads GILGAL.
So, if the ESV editors thought the LXX got it right here in verse 23, why didn?t they follow this same LXX in the same verse where instead of ?the king of DOR? the LXX reads ?the king of ODOLLAM?, OR in the next verse (24) where instead of reading with the Hebrew text ?all the kings THIRTY AND ONE?, when the LXX says all the kings were TWENTY NINE?

Who knows? Such are the mysteries of modern scholarship.

The other ?bibles? that chose to reject the clear Hebrew reading of GILGAL here and replace it with the Greek LXX reading of GALILEE are the liberal RSV 1952 and the NRSV of 1989.
Also doing this are The New English Bible 1970 and the Revised English Bible 1989, and they don?t even tell you in a footnote that they got this reading from the LXX and not the Hebrew. They just change the text.
The Catholic Connection
Oh, and we also have the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 that also says GALILEE, even though the earlier Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, the Douay 1950 and even the St. Joseph?s New American bible 1970 all followed the Hebrew text and correctly read GILGAL.
Following the Hebrew text and correctly reading GILGAL in verse 12:23 are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew?s Bible 1549, the Bishops? bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims bible 1610, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Young?s 1898, the ASV 1901, The Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, Lamsa?s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, New Berkeley Version 1969, The Living Bible 1971, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, Complete Jewish bible 1998, The Message 2002, The Complete Apostles Bible 2003, The Judaica Press Tanach 2005, New Heart English bible 2005, Dan Wallace?s NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2009, Names of God Bible 2011, The Common English bible 2011, The NIV 2011, The Lexham English bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The Modern English Bible 2014, The International Standard Version 2014, Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Amplified Bible 2015, The International Children?s Bible 2015 and The Tree of Life Version 2015.

Judges 14:15 "on the seventh day" or "on the fourth day"?


The NIV, Holman CSB, ESV and NASB change the Hebrew in Judges 14:15 where the KJB, RV, ASV, Youngs, the Jewish translations and many others correctly say "ON THE SEVENTH DAY". Here the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman CSB all say "ON THE FOURTH DAY", which the NIV tells us comes from SOME LXX and the Syriac, but the Hebrew says "on the 7th day". The older Catholic Douay version followed the Hebrew reading of "the SEVENTH day" but the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem read like the other Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and now have "the FOURTH day". There is a riddle within a riddle here and the NASB, NIV Bible Correctors couldn't solve it and they still end up with a contradiction. For a complete study on this apparent contradiction, see my article at:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jud1415samsonsriddle.htm

Judges 16:13 Here the NASB, ESV, NET, the Catholic versions like the Douay, St. Joseph and New Jerusalem and NIV add an additional 35 words to the Hebrew text. Agreeing with the KJB are the Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Young's and many others. There is no Hebrew text that contains these extra words. The NASB, NIV , Holman, ESV all add "and tighten it with the pin, I'll become as weak as any other man. So while he was sleeping, Delilah took the seven braids of his head, wove them into the fabric". The NIV footnote tells us these 35 extra words come from SOME Septuagint manuscripts.

For a much fuller examination and explanation of this passage where versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Daniel Wallace's goofy NET version add these extra words to the Hebrew Scriptures, see my article on the book of Judges here:

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

Judges 18:30 "and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land." MANASSEH is the reading found in the Hebrew texts as well as my copy of the LXX. So too read even the NASB, Complete Jewish Bible, Young's, the Geneva Bible and NKJV to name but a few. However versions like the NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, Catholic Douay, St. Joseph NAB and New Jerusalem bible reject the Hebrew reading Manasseh and say MOSES instead of Manasseh. Again, you can see my article on Judges for further information on this verse -

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

1 Samuel 1:24 "with three bullocks" KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, and the Hebrew texts, is changed in the NIV, Holman, ESV, NASB to "a three year old bull" from the LXX and Syriac. The more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph and New Jerusalem bible also read like the NIV, ESV, NASB though the earlier Douay-Rheims followed the Hebrew text and read "with three bullocks".

1 Samuel 2:33 - KJB ?And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume THINE eyes, and to grieve THINE heart: and all the INCREASE of thine house shall die IN THE FLOWER OF THEIR AGE.?

ESV 2001, RSV, NRSV - ?The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep HIS [1] eyes out to grieve HIS heart, and all the DESCENDANTS [2] of your house shall die BY THE SWORD of men. [3]?

ESV Footnotes: [1] : Septuagint; Hebrew your; twice in this verse; [2] : Hebrew increase; [3] : (BY THE SWORD) Septuagint; Hebrew die as men.

The ESV has, by their own admission, rejected three Hebrew readings in just this one verse, and poorly translated another!

Not even Dan Wallace and company goes off as far as the ESV. Their NET version basically paraphrases the Hebrew text and results in the same meaning found in the King James Bible and many others.

NET - ?Any one of you that I do not cut off from my altar, I will cause YOUR eyes to fail and will cause YOU grief. All of those born to your family ( Heb ?and all the increase of your house.?) will die IN THE PRIME OF LIFE.?

They then footnote: ?The MT literally says ?they will die as men.? Apparently the meaning is that they will be cut off in the prime of their life without reaching old age. The LXX and a Qumran ms, however, have the additional word ?sword? (?they will die by the sword of men?). This is an easier reading (cf. NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT), but that fact is not in favor of its originality.?



This is an interesting case of where the normal "literal" Hebrew text needs to be translated in such a way as to make sense, but without abandoning the Hebrew and going to the so called Greek Septuagint reading as do the ESV and the Holman Standard and ISV 2014, which say: "they shall die VIOLENTLY" which is even a paraphrase of the LXX, which has "shall die by the sword of men".



The word #582 enohsh is normally translated simply as "man" or "men", but in the context of 1 Samuel 2:33 the sense of the passage would be confused or lost if it were translated in a strictly "literal" manner. The verse is a curse being placed on the household of Eli and it says: "And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume THINE eyes (ESV "his" LXX), and to grieve THINE heart (ESV "his" LXX); and all the increase of thine house shall die IN THE FLOWER OF THEIR AGE."



If we were to say that "all the increase of thine house shall die MEN" then the whole meaning of the curse is lost. Most Bible versions DO translate the passage in such a way as to include the meaning that they will die in their youth as a punishment and not live to be full grown men.



The NKJV along with the KJB, Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, Third Millennium Bible 1998, World English Bible 2000, Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, and The Biblos Bible 2013 - "shall die in THE FLOWER OF THEIR AGE", meaning that they will die young and not as adult men.



The NIV and NASB, God's Word Translation 1995, NET 2006, New European Version 2010, the Names of God Version 2011, The Voice 2012, the Modern English Version 2014 say "they will die IN THE PRIME OF LIFE".



New Life Version 1969 - "will die IN THEIR BEST YEARS."



And even the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), God's First Truth 1999, The Complete Tanach 2004, Mebust Bible 2007, the Complete Jewish Bible 2011, Hebrew Roots Bible 2015 and the Tree of Life Version 2015 say - "they shall die AS YOUNG MEN."



Agreeing with the King James Bible are the English Revised Version 1881 - ?But any of your men whom I do not cut off from My altar shall consume your eyes and grieve your heart. And all the descendants of your house shall die IN THE FLOWER OF THEIR AGE.", ASV 1901 "IN THE FLOWER OF THEIR AGE", Webster?s bible 1833, the New Life Version 1969, Darby 1890 - "in their vigour", the Message - "will die before their time", Complete Jewish Bible -"will die young", Hebrew Names Version 2014 - "in the flower of their age", the NASB 1995 - ?Yet I will not cut off every man of yours from My altar so that YOUR eyes will fail from weeping and YOUR soul grieve, and all the INCREASE of your house will die IN THE PRIME OF LIFE.?

Even the NIV is pretty close with: ?Every one of you that I do not cut off from my altar will be spared only to blind YOUR eyes with tears and to grieve YOUR heart, and all your descendants will die IN THE PRIME OF LIFE.? At least in this verse the NIV did not reject the Hebrew readings as do the RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV and the ESV.

The Holman Standard just made stuff up again, badly paraphrases the Hebrew and reads: ?Any man from your [family] I do not cut off from My altar will bring grief and sadness to you. All your descendants will die VIOLENTLY.?



1 Samuel 3:13 KJB - ?For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because HIS SONS MADE THEMSELVES VILE, and he restrained them not.?

Reading the same - ?his sons made themselves vile? or the same meaning are Wycliffe 1395 ?his sons did unworthily?, Coverdale 1535 - ?how shamefully his children behaued the selues?, Douay Rheims 1610 - ?because he knew that his sons did wickedly?, the Geneva bible, Youngs - ?or his sons are making themselves vile?, Webster?s 1833, Darby -?because his sons made themselves vile?, J.P. Green?s literal translation, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

The Judaica Press Tanach is similar to the KJB with: ?his sons were bringing disgrace upon themselves?

However the NASB says: - ?because his sons BROUGHT A CURSE ON THEMSELVES?

The NIV 1984 edition reads: ?For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; HIS SONS MADE THEMSELVES CONTEMPTIBLE, and he failed to restrain them.?

However the ?new? NIV 2011 edition now reads: ?For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; HIS SONS BLASPHEMED GOD, and he failed to restrain them.?

Then the NIV 2011 footnotes that ?his sons blasphemed God? is - ?an ancient Hebrew scribal tradition (see also Septuagint); Masoretic Text reads ?sons made themselves contemptible.?

The RSV and ESV also read: ?HIS SONS WERE BLASPHEMING GOD?

Lamsa?s translation of the Syriac actually says: ?for the iniquity which he knew when HIS SONS REVILED THE PEOPLE and he did not rebuke them.?

Dan Wallace and company?s goofy NET version reads: ?YOU should tell him that I am about to judge his house forever because of the sin that he knew about. For his sons WERE CURSING GOD, and he did not rebuke them.?

He then tells us that he changed ?For I have told him? to ?YOU? and he says they have followed the LXX by saying ?were cursing God?.

The other version that reads like this is the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 which likewise reads: ?YOU ARE TO TELL HIM that I condemn his family for ever, since he is aware that his sons HAVE BEEN CURSING GOD and yet has not corrected them.? Then it tells us that ?YOU are to tell him? comes from the Greek LXX but the Hebrew reads ?I have told him? just like the KJB has it.

However now the latest Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 has gone back to reading very similar to the KJB saying: ?he had known that HIS SONS ACTED SHAMEFULLY, and he did not chastise them.?

The Holman Standard 2003 goes off completely on its own with: ?I told him that I am going to judge his family forever because of the iniquity he knows about: HIS SONS ARE DEFILING THE SANCTUARY, and he has not stopped them.? They just made this up!

1 Samuel 6:19 "he smote of the people 50,070 men." This is the Hebrew reading and also the RV, ASV, NASB and even the NET version. However the NIV, ESV say "putting 70 of them to death." The NIV is only off by 50,000. Is that close enough? By the way, the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and New Jerusalem also read "struck down 70 of them" just like the NIV, ESVs. The earlier Douay-Rheims had: "he slew of the people seventy men, and fifty thousand of the common people."

The Holman CSB is different from them all in that it says: "He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men."

The NIV also changes the Hebrew in 1 Samuel 12:11; 13:5; 20:24; 25:1, 22; 2 Samuel 5:25; 6:5; 7: 16 "before thee" to "before me" (NASB too); 7: 23; 8:4, 8, 13; 9:11 (NASB too); 13:39; 14:4; 15:7, 8; 17:28; 23:8, 36; 24:2, 13. The NASB agrees with the Hebrew and the KJB in all of these verses except the two mentioned.


1 Samuel 8:16 ?goodliest young men? (Hebrew) or ?best of your cattle? (LXX)
KJB - "And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and YOUR GOODLIEST YOUNG MEN, and your asses, and put them to his work."
NIV (NET, RSV, NRSV, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "Your male and female servants and THE BEST OF YOUR CATTLE and donkeys he will take for his own use."
In the Hebrew text and in the King James Bible we read of Samuel describing the manner of king that would reign over them in their rebellion against God. Part of this description is found in verse 16 where Samuel tells them: "And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and YOUR GOODLIEST YOUNG MEN, and your asses, and put them to his work."

So read the Hebrew texts as well as the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation - "and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.", The New Jewish Version 1985, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "And he will take your menservants and your maidservants, and your goodly young men and your asses, and put them to his work.", Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, he Douay-Rheims 1610, the KJB 1611, NKJV 1982, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, Douay 1950, World English Bible 2000, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, the KJB 21st Century Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, Holman Standard 2003, The Mebust Bible 2007, the ESV 2011, NASB 1995, the 2012 Lexham English Bible 2012, the 2012 Knox Bible, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Concordant Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The ISV (International Standard Version) 2014, The Modern English Version 2014, The Tree of Life Version 2015 and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015.

"YOUR CATTLE"

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

Not only does the NIV reject the clear Hebrew reading here but so do the liberal RSV, NRSV, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Life Bible 1969, the New Century Version 1991, the Amplified Bible 1987, the Revised English Bible 1989, the Apostolic Polyglot bible 2003, Dan Wallace's NET version (with NO footnotes!) the 2011 Common English Bible, The Names of God Version 2011, The Translator's Bible 2014, The New Living Translation 2015, The International Children's Bible 2015 and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and 2013 Revision (again, with NO footnotes)
The hypocrisy and inconsistency of the NIV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT and all these other modern versions that have rejected the clear Hebrew reading of "best young men" and have replaced it with the so called Greek Septuagint reading of "cattle" is that the Septuagint also has several other false readings in this very same chapter that they have NOT followed.

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

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

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

Again, the Catholic versions are in their usual disarray. It seems a lot of these new Vatican Versions have the same type of problems. The older Douay Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the Hebrew text and the King James Bible with "your goodliest young men" instead of "your cattle".
But the 1968 Jerusalem Bible, the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 also rejected the Hebrew reading and followed the LXX saying "your goodly CATTLE".
BUT now the latest Catholic version of 2009, called the Catholic Public Domain Version, and the Revised Douay-Rheims 2012 have both gone back to the Hebrew reading - "Then, too, he will take your servants, and handmaids, and YOUR BEST YOUNG MEN, and your donkeys, and he will set them to his work."

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

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


1 Samuel 9:25 When Saul went to Samuel and he was anointed king of Israel we read:



KJB (NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET, Holman) - "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE."


ESV (RSV, The Message, Catholic Versions) - "And when they came down from the high place into the city, A BED WAS SPREAD FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE LAY DOWN TO SLEEP."


"And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE."

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

This reading found in the ESV comes neither from the Hebrew nor the LXX; they just made it up. Not even the Catholic versions read this way but say "when I invited the people." (Douay-Rheims) Yet this ever changing (3 different editions in just 10 years) Vatican supervised corrupt bible version is the latest darling of many of today's so called Calvinists who have rejected the Reformation text of the King James Bible and now promote the whore's "bible" versions.



To see much more about the Vatican supervised ESV see my article here -

The Ever Changing ESVs 2001, 2007 and 2011 = just another Vatican Version

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

1 Samuel 10:1 - The Hebrew text or the so called Greek Septuagint?
1 Samuel 10:1 KJB (NASB, NIV, Holman, NKJV, all Jewish translations, the Syriac Peshitta) - "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?"
BUT the ESV (RSV, NRSV, NET, the Message and ALL Catholic versions) - "Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL? AND YOU SHALL REIGN OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD AND YOU WILL SAVE THEM FROM THE HAND OF THEIR SURROUNDING ENEMIES. AND THIS SHALL BE THE SIGN TO YOU THAT THE LORD HAS ANOINTED YOU TO BE PRINCE OVER his heritage."



In 1 Samuel 10:1 the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, New English Bible 1970, Revised English bible 1989, NET 2006, the Message, The Voice 2012, the Common English bible of 2011, Names of God bible 2011, and all Catholic versions add a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew texts.


Following the Hebrew text and NOT adding these 42 extra words are the Geneva Bible, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syraic Peshitta, the Revised Version, ASV 1090, the NASB 1995, NIV 2011, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2009, World English Bible 2000, The New European Version 2010, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, ISV 2014, Modern English Version 2014, New Living Translation 2015, Tree of Life Version 2015, Amplified Bible 2015 nor any Jewish translation like The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible, The New Jewish Version 1985, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Koster Scriptures 1998, The Complete Jewish Tanach 2004, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, or The Hebrew Names Version 2014.


The Catholic Connection


And once again we see that it is the Catholic bible versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the so called Greek Septuagint that all add these 40 to 42 extra words. The New Jerusalem footnotes that all these extra words come from the Greek Septuagint but that the Hebrew text does not contain them.

Here also Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 adds all these extra words too and then footnotes: "The MT reads simply ?Is it not that the Lord has anointed you over his inheritance for a leader?? The translation (NET) follows the LXX."

Wallace comes up with the lame explanation that a scribe's eye accidentally skipped over all these word and that the LXX supposedly restores these lost words to the Hebrew text.

Why does Dan Wallace and company follow the so called Greek Septuagint here in 1 Samuel 10:1 but not in 1 Samuel 9:25 where the KJB and Hebrew text read: KJB (NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET, Holman) - "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE."


But the ESV (RSV, The Message, Catholic Versions) follow the LXX with - "And when they came down from the high place into the city, A BED WAS SPREAD FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE LAY DOWN TO SLEEP."?

All these 42 extra words in capital letters in 1 Samuel 10:1 (see above) are not found in the Hebrew texts, but they are brought in from the Septuagint version which is wildly different than the Hebrew texts in hundreds and hundreds of passages.

If these contradictory modern versions wish to follow the so called Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, then why did none of them follow the Greek reading found in 1 Samuel 9:22? The Hebrew text tells us "And Samuel took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlour, and made them sit in the chiefest place among them that were bidden, which were about THIRTY persons."

However the LXX tells us: "and set them there a place among the chief of those that were called, about SEVENTY men." The Bible is supposed to be a historically true narrative of events that actually took place and there is a significant difference between 30 and 70.

Why did none of these modern versions follow the LXX reading in verse 22? It's anybody's guess, but the bible agnostics like Dan Wallace and James White prefer to call this lame brained witches brew of theirs "the science of textual criticism".


Do you think it is just "a coincidence" that the Catholic bookstores are now selling the ESV complete with the Apocrypha -

http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2009/01/esv-w-apocrypha-deuterocanonicals-is.html


And that the The ESV was being considered to be used by the Roman Catholic Church in their Lectionary?


News and Events - Catholic Voice

https://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2011/12/07/the-catholic-esv-lectionary/
"In fact, we have decided to move away from the NRSV and to prepare the Lectionary using a modified form of the English Standard Version (ESV), still with the revised Grail Psalter"
The ESV and it's "SOMETIMES the Septuagint" philosophy in action - 1 Samuel 12:3, 6, 8 and 15.


1 Samuel 12:3 - KJB (NIV, NASB, NKJV, Holman, NET) - Samuel is speaking to all Israel and says: "...or of whose hand have I received any bribe TO BLIND MINE EYES THEREWITH? and I will restore it you."

ESV (RSV, NRSV, ) - "Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? TESTIFY AGAINST ME, and I will restore it to you."

Footnote: Hebrew lacks "Testify against me." Septuagint.

Here the ESV not only ADDS words to the Hebrew text that they took from the so called Greek Septuagint, but they didn't even follow the Septuagint reading in THE SAME VERSE.

Instead of saying "from whose hand have I taken a bribe TO BLIND MY EYES WITH IT?", the Septuagint actually reads: "of whom have I taken a bribe, EVEN TO A SANDAL? BEAR WITNESS AGAINST ME, and I will make restitution to you."

So the ESV chose to take PART OF the same sentence in the LXX but NOT the other part. And they call this stuff "textual science"?

If the ESV editors are so enamored with the LXX, why did they not follow it in the previous chapter of 1 Samuel 11:8 where instead of the Hebrew reading of "the children of Israel were THREE HUNDRED thousand, and the men of Judah THIRTY thousand.", the LXX says: "every man of Israel was SIX HUNDRED thousand, and the men of Judah SEVENTY thousand."???

1 Samuel 12:6 KJB (NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET) - "And Samuel said unto the people, It is the LORD that advanced Moses and Aaron, and that brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt."

ESV (RSV, NRSV, Holman, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And Samuel said to the people, "The LORD IS WITNESS, who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt."

Footnote: Septuagint, Hebrew lacks "is witness".


1 Samuel 12:8 KJB (NASB, NIV, Holman, NKJV, NET) - "When Jacob was come into Egypt, and your fathers cried unto the LORD, then the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, which brought forth your fathers out of Egypt, and made them dwell in this place."


ESV (RSV, NRSV, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985) - "When Jacob went into Egypt, AND THE EGYPTIANS OPPRESSED THEM, then your fathers cried out to the LORD and the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your fathers out of Egypt and made them dwell in this place."

Footnote: Septuagint; Hebrew lacks "AND THE EGYPTIANS OPPRESSED THEM"

But once again, the ESV didn't completely follow the LXX even in this same verse. The LXX also says "When Jacob AND HIS SONS went into Egypt...", but the ESV didn't use that part of the so called Greek Septuagint, just the other part found in the same verse. Now, that's science, don't ya know!


Then in 1 Samuel 12:15 the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NEB 1970, REB 1989, the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and this time Dan Wallace's NET version too ALL ADD words from the so called LXX and OMIT words found in all Hebrew texts.
In the Hebrew and the KJB we read: "But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, AS IT WAS AGAINST YOUR FATHERS."
Agreeing with the Hebrew text and the KJB are the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and Holman Standard - (only the NIV omits 2 of the 3 times the word LORD occurs here.)
However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, REV, NET, the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 all say: "But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you AND YOUR KING."
Thus these versions OMIT the Hebrew reading "as it was against your fathers" and ADD "and your king" taken from the so called Greek Septuagint.


For many more examples of today's Bible Babble Buffet Versions in action, see here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebabel1.htm
1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: ?Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.? reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" ISV, or even ?32 years old...reigned for 22 years? in the 1989 Revised English Bible! For a much fuller and in depth study on this verse, please see the article here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm



1 Samuel 13:5 In the King James Bible and in the Hebrew texts we read: "Then the Philistines gathered together to fight with Israel, THIRTY thousand chariots (30,000) and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude. And they came up and encamped in Michmash, to the east of Beth Aven."

The number of THIRTY thousand chariots is that found in Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB, RV 1885, ASV 1901, NASB 1995, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, NKJV, all Jewish translations like the 1917 JPS, Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, Darby, Young's, Berkeley Versions 1969, the 1610 Douay-Rheims version, 1950 Douay, the Revised English Bible 1989 Common English Bible 2011 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

Among foreign language Bibles that correctly read "30,000 chariots" are the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, the French Louis Segond 2007, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909-1995, La Biblia de las Américas 1997, the Portuguese Almeida, the Italian Diodati 1649, Nueva Diodati 1991, Riveduta 2004, and the German Luther Bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000.

However the NIV 1984 and 2011 edition tell us: "The Philistines assembled to fight Israel, with THREE thousand[a] chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore." They then tell us in a footnote that the reading of 3,000 instead of 30,000 comes from "Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac; Hebrew thirty thousand".

"Some" Septuagint manuscripts? I don't know if this is true or not, but I do know that the copy of the LXX I have as well as the online version of the Septuagint both read 30,000 chariots and not 3,000.

Not only does the NIV reject the Hebrew reading here but so also do the Easy to Read Version 2001, the Bible in Basic English 1960, the Holman Standard of 2003 and the more recent Catholic versions like the Jerusalem bible 1968, the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.

However the latest Catholic bible to come on the scene is called The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 and it has now gone back to the Hebrew reading of "30,000 chariots".

Dan Wallace's NET version also reads 3000 chariots instead of the Hebrew 30,000 chariots and he then footnotes: "Many English versions (e.g., KJV, NASB, NRSV, TEV) read ?30,000? here." That's it! No word of explanation, or where either reading came from. Nothing.

1 Samuel 14:41 KJB (NKJV, NASB, NIV 1984 edition, Geneva bible) - "Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, GIVE A PERFECT LOT. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped.",
Also reading like the KJB and following the Hebrew texts are the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, Holman Standard 2009 - "Give us the right decision", NASB 1995 - "GIVE A PERFECT LOT.", NKJV 1982, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, and the NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions, say: "Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, GIVE A PERFECT LOT. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped.", The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "Then Sha'ul said to Elohim "GIVE A PERFECT LOT.", World English Bible 2000, Green's Literal 2004 - "GIVE A PERFECT LOT.", The New European Version 2010 - "Therefore Saul said to Yahweh, the God of Israel, SHOW ME THE RIGHT ANSWER. Jonathan and Saul were chosen, but the people escaped.", Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 (see below), Lexham English Bible 2012, the International Standard Version 2014 - "Judge us properly" -Footnote -Literally "Give perfect", Modern English Version 2014 - "GIVE A PERFECT LOT.", The Hebrew Names Version 2014 - "Show the right.", and the Tree of Life Version 2015 - "GRANT A PERFECT LOT."
Yisra?el, ?Give a perfect lot.?
Also reading like the KJB are =
The Complete Tanach - "And Saul said to the Lord God of Israel "Give a perfect lot."
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15843
The Jewish Virtual Library Tanach Full Text 1994 - "Therefore Saul said unto HaShem, the G-d of Israel: 'Declare the right.'
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-tanakh-full-text
The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "Therefore Saul said unto the Lord God of Israel 'Give a perfect lot.'
https://archive.org/stream/ancienthebrewlit02yyy5uoft#page/28
The New Jewish Version 1985 - "Saul then said to the Lord, the God of Israel, "Show Thammin."
http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/Index/english-1%20Sam-14
This is a transliteration rather than a translation. The Hebrew word tah-meen # 8549 refers to "that which is perfect, without spot, without blemish". But it does not add all those extra words that are taken from the so called Greek Septuagint as do some NIVs, the ESV, RSV, NET and most Catholic versions.

The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010 - Therefore Sha'ul said unto YHWH (????) Elohim (?????) of Yisrael, Give a perfect [lot].?

https://www.messianic-torah-truth-seeker.org/Scriptures/Tenakh/Shemuel-Alef/1st-Shemuel14.htm

Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - ?Therefore Sha?ul said unto Hashem Elohei Yisroel, Give a tamim (perfect lot).?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+14%3A41&version=OJB
However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NEB, REB, The Message, AND NOW THE NIV 2011 EDITION TOO read, adding all these words, "Therefore Saul said, O LORD God of Israel, WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED YOUR SERVANT THIS DAY? IF THIS GUILT IS IN ME OR IN JONATHAN MY SON, O LORD, GOD OF ISRAEL, GIVE URIM. BUT IF THIS GUILT IS IN YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL, GIVE THUMMIN. And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped."
Even though the English "new" New International Version 2011 edition added all these extra words (though it still didn't at the extra 42 words to 1 Samuel 10:1 like the ESV does) yet the NIV Spanish version 2015 and the NIV Portuguese version of 2000 still retain the Hebrew reading like the KJB has it.

The NIV Spanish version (La Nueva Version International) 2015 does not. It follows the Hebrew text and reads: ?Luego le rogó Saúl al Señor, Dios de Israel, que le diera una respuesta clara.? = ?and give a clear answer?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+14%3A41&version=NVI
Daniel Wallace's NET version also adds all these extra words and then footnotes: "Heb ?to the Lord God of Israel: ?Give what is perfect.?? The Hebrew textual tradition has accidentally omitted several words here. The present translation follows the LXX."

Sorry, Dr. Dan, but the Hebrew text didn't "accidentally omit" anything.
The Catholic Versions
Well, guess what. So too do ALL the Catholic bible versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, the Douay 1950, St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985 as well. Then the New Jerusalem bible footnotes that "the Hebrew is corrupt".
In a footnote the ESV says these additional words come from the Septuagint. However my copy of the Septuagint does not read like the ESV says it does. It says instead "Lord God of Israel, give clear manifestations; and if the lot should declare this, give, I pray thee, to thy people Israel, give, I pray, holiness. And Jonathan and Saul are taken..."
If the ESV, NET and NIV folks are so fond of this so called Greek Septuagint, then why did they not follow it in this same chapter of 1 Samuel 14 where in verse 14 instead of reading "And this first slaughter, which Jonathan and his armourbearer made, was about twenty men, WITHIN AS IT WERE AN HALF ACRE OF LAND, WHICH A YOKE OF OXEN MIGHT PLOW", the LXX says "...was twenty men, WITH DARTS AND SLINGS, AND PEBBLES OF THE FIELD."?

OR in 1 Samuel 14:18 instead of reading "And Saul said to Ahiah, BRING HITHER THE ARK OF GOD. FOR THE ARK OF GOD WAS AT THAT TIME WITH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.", but the LXX says: "And Saul said to Achia, BRING THE EPHOD; FOR HE WORE THE EPHOD IN THAT DAY BEFORE ISRAEL."?
OR in 1 Samuel 14:22 the LXX adds the words "AND ALL THE PEOPLE WITH SAUL WERE ABOUT TEN THOUSAND MEN." Yet neither the ESV, the NIV or Dan Wallace's NET version followed the LXX here?
Folks, don't be deceived or taken in by the lies these bible agnostics refer to as their "science" of textual criticism. It has a lot more in common with witches brew than it does with any legitimate science known to God or man.

1 Samuel 25:22 KJB and the Hebrew texts read: "So and more also do God unto THE ENEMIES of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall."

Note - see my article on this literal phrase "pisseth against the wall" and why the KJB is right.

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

NIV - 1 Samuel 25:22 - "May God deal with David, (b) be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive one male of all who belong to him." Footnote: Some Septuagint manuscripts; Hebrew "with David's ENEMIES."

Here the NIV flat out tells us that they have omitted the word "enemies" from the Hebrew text and they did this on the dubious authority of SOME Septuagint manuscripts.

Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 also omits the Hebrew words "enemies of" and follows the so called Greek Septuagint.

Both the RSV and the NRSV also omitted the words "enemies of", but the ESV has now put them back in the text again.

The Holman Standard 2017 goes even further and says: "May God punish ME [a] and do so severely if I let any of his males[b] survive until morning.?
Footnotes:

25:22 LXX; MT reads David?s enemies, [b] Literally of those of his who are urinating against the wall

The Catholic Connection

The previous Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610 and Douay 1950 followed the Hebrew texts and said "the FOES of David", but now the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omit the words "enemies of" and read like the NIV with the same footnote telling us that the Hebrew text reads "the enemies of David" but that the LXX omits those words.
Among the many Bibles that include the Hebrew reading of "unto the ENEMIES OF David" are the NKJV, NASB, ESV, the ISV 2014, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible, Young's, Darby, RV, ASV, World English Bible 2000, The Voice 2012, New Heart English Bible 2010, Modern English Version 2014 and many others.


1 Samuel 28:17 - Many modern versions reject the inspired Hebrew text.

In 1 Samuel 28 the prophet Samuel is speaking to king Saul who had just disobeyed the Lord God of Israel and had sought out a woman who had a familiar spirit. The prophet Samuel appears to king Saul and tells him:

v. 16. ?Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?

v. 17. And the LORD hath done TO HIM, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David.? 1 Samuel 28:16-17

The words ?TO HIM? in verse 17 are in the Hebrew text and they refer to David, whom God had appointed to be king in the place of Saul.

Yet in the ESV (RSV, NRSV, Catholic version) we read: - ?The Lord has done TO YOU as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David.?

ASV 1901 reads: ?And Jehovah hath done UNTO THEE, as he spake by me: and Jehovah hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbor, even to David.?

Then it footnotes: ?Hebrew has HIM?.

So, what the ESV and Catholic versions did was to reject the Hebrew and follow either the Greek LXX or the Latin Vulgate.

The Holman Standard, NASB, NIV and Dan Wallace?s NET version just OMIT the phrase altogether. They read:

?The Lord has done [a] exactly what He said through me: The Lord has torn the kingship out of your hand and given it to your neighbor David.? - Holman Standard 2009.

Then the Holman tells us in a footnote that ?some LXX and some Hebrew? read as the Holman has it - omitting the words ?to him?, and that The Vulgate reads ?done TO YOU.?

The reading of ?the LORD has done TO THEE? is also found in Benton?s version of the so called Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, but the Hebrew Masoretic text as well as Lamsa?s translation of the Syriac Peshitta both read as the KJB has it - ?the LORD hath done TO HIM, as he spake by me?

The NKJV messes things up in a different way. It reads similar to the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, saying:

?And the Lord has done FOR HIMSELF [a] as He spoke by me. For the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David.?

But then it gets it right in the footnote where it says: ?Or HIM, that is, David?.

The Catholic Connection

ALL Catholic versions (Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985) read like the ESV saying ?The LORD has done TO YOU what he foretold through me??

KJB - ?And the LORD hath done TO HIM, as he spake by me?

Agreeing with the King James Bible and the Hebrew text are the following bible translations - the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - ?Even the LORD hath done TO HIM, as he spake by mine hand?. Footnote - That is, to David.?, the Webster Bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, Rotherham?s Emphasized bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - ?the LORD hath done TO HIM??, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the 21st Century KJV 1994, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - ?And YHWH (????) hath done TO HIM, as he spake by me?, The Scripture 4 All Translation 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012 and The Biblos Bible 2013.

The Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - ?And the Lord has done TO HIM as He spoke by me; and the Lord has torn the kingdom from your hand, and has given it to your fellow-to David.?

Then Rashi comments: ?TO YOUR FELLOW DAVID: But during his lifetime, he did not mention his name to him, only ?and gave it to your fellow who is better than you? (1 Sam. 15:28) because he feared him lest he kill him, since he (Samuel) had anointed him (David) as king.?

And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament -

http://studybible.info/IHOT/1%20Samuel%2028:17

Bible commentators, as usual, are all over the board on this verse, but here are some that agree with the reading found in the King James Bible.

John Gill - ?And the Lord hath done to him,.... To David, Saul's enemy?

Geneva Study Bible - ?And the LORD hath done TO HIM (g), as he spake by me?
(g) That is, to David.?

Matthew Poole?s English Annotations on the Holy Bible - ?The Lord hath done TO HIM, i.e. to David, as it is explained in the following words.?

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

ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible,

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - https://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

Can you guess which other bible version reads like the ESV? You got it; the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Catholic Douay version 1950 which read: "Saul was A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."
Can you guess which other bible version reads like the ESV? You got it; the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Catholic Douay version 1950 which read: "Saul was A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."
In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "???? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today.
King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.
1 Samuel 14:41 - The KJB, as well as the RV, ASV, Holman Standard 2009, NASB 1995, ISV 2014, NKJV, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Tree of Life Version 2015 and the NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions, say: "Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, GIVE A PERFECT LOT. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped."


However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NEB, REB, The Message, AND NOW THE NIV 2011 EDITION TOO read, adding all these words, "Therefore Saul said, O LORD God of Israel, WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED YOUR SERVANT THIS DAY? IF THIS GUILT IS IN ME OR IN JONATHAN MY SON, O LORD, GOD OF ISRAEL, GIVE URIM. BUT IF THIS GUILT IS IN YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL, GIVE THUMMIN. And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped."

Even though the English "new" New International Version added all these extra words (though it still didn't at the extra 42 words to 1 Samuel 10:1 like the ESV does) yet the NIV Spanish version 1999 and the NIV Portuguese version of 2000 still retain the Hebrew reading like the KJB has it.

Daniel Wallace's NET version also adds all these extra words and then footnotes: "Heb ?to the Lord God of Israel: ?Give what is perfect.?? The Hebrew textual tradition has accidentally omitted several words here. The present translation follows the LXX."


The Catholic Connection

Well, guess what. So too do ALL the Catholic bible versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, the Douay 1950, St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985 as well. Then the New Jerusalem bible footnotes that "the Hebrew is corrupt".

In a footnote the ESV says these additional words come from the Septuagint. However my copy of the Septuagint does not read like the ESV says it does. It says instead "Lord God of Israel, give clear manifestations; and if the lot should declare this, give, I pray thee, to thy people Israel, give, I pray, holiness. And Jonathan and Saul are taken..."

Quite different from them all, isn't it? Folks, don't be deceived or taken in by the lies these bible agnostics refer to as their "science" of textual criticism. It has a lot more in common with witches brew than it does with any legitimate science known to God or man.


1 Chronicles 20:3 - KJB - ?And he brought out the people that were in it, AND CUT THEM WITH SAWS, AND WITH HARROWS OF IRON, AND WITH AXES. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.?
1 Chronicles 20:3 - KJB - ?And he brought out the people that were in it, AND CUT THEM WITH SAWS, AND WITH HARROWS OF IRON, AND WITH AXES. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.?
25:22 Lit of those of his who are urinating against the wall