Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

"Science" of Textual Criticism - Book of Acts



Acts of the Apostles


Acts 1:3 “by many INFALLIBLE proofs”


KJB - “To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many INFALLIBLE PROOFSi, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:”




ESV - “He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many PROOFS, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.



Also reading “by many proofs” are the Catholic Douay-Rheims, Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Alford N.T. 1870, Darby 1890, RSV 1971, World English Bible, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - “by many demonstrations”, The Faithful N.T. 2009 -“my many proofs”, Hebrew Names Version 2014.



NASB 1995 - by many CONVINCING PROOFS


Also reading “by many CONVINCING PROOFS” are the NRSV 1989, NET version 2006,  Common English Bible 2011, Complete Jewish bible 1998, New European Version 2010, NIV 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Disciples’ Literal N.T. 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012,  ISV 2014, Tree of Life Version 2015, Evangelical Heritage Version 2017, Holman Christian Standard 2017.

Young’s 1898 - in many CERTAIN PROOFS



Geneva Bible 1587 - “by many INFALLIBLE TOKENS”


Agreeing with the KJB’s “many INFALLIBLE PROOFS” are Beza’s New Testament 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, Webster’s Bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Longman Version 1841, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853,  Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Smith Bible 1876 - “many infallible signs”, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Clarke N.T. 1913, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green’s Literal, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “by many INFALLIBLE PROOFS”, Third Millennium bible 1998, Tomson N.T. 2002 -“by many INFALLIBLE TOKENS”, A Conservative Version 2005, Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 - “by many INFALLIBLE PROOFS”, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, the Modern English Version 2014.


The words translated as “many infallible proofs” in the KJB and others are πολλοις τεκμηριοις.  πολλοις simply means “many”.  The difference in the next part is the meaning of the Greek word τεκμηριοις.


This word is used only one time in all the Greek texts. As many lexicons tell us, it means more than just “proofs”.  It means “convincing, decisive proofs” (Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich), “a sure sign or token, a positive proof” (Liddell & Scott), “an indubitable evidence” (Thayer).


The King James Bible is right, as always.


Acts 2:30 KJB - “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, HE WOULD RAISE UP CHRIST to sit on his throne”



 


NIV (ESV, NASB, NET, Holman, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - “But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.” 


Footnote: "one of his descendants" - Literally "of the fruit of his loins" (Lexham English bible)


The Vatican supervised, constantly changing Nestle-Aland/Westcott-Hort/UBS Critical Greek text omits the words “το κατα σαρκα αναστησειν τον χριστον” - “ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, HE WOULD RAISE UP CHRIST”


 These words are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including D*, P, Psi, the Syriac Harclean, the Old Latin d and are quoted by such early church writers as Origen, Chrysostom and Theodoret.


These words are omitted by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and C.  


Other manuscripts contain the words “according to the flesh” but omit the part about “he would raise up Christ”, and so reads the Syriac Peshitta.


While others like E and the Georgian translation contain the words “to raise up Christ” but omit the part about “according to the flesh”.


The full reading found in the King James Bible is also that of the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, Scrivener 1896 and the Modern Greek Bible.


Agreeing with the King James Bible and the Reformation text of the Bible in foreign languages are Tyndale 1524, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston N.T. 1745, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Thomson Translation 1808, The Revised Translation 1815,  Living Oracles N.T. 1835, Pickering N.T. 1840, the Longman Version 1841, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Calvin Version 1856, The Revised N.T. 1862, the Smith Bible 1876, Young’s 1898, Clarke N.T. 1913, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Koster Scriptures 1998, the Laurie N.T. 1998, Third Millennium bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, the World English Bible 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2004, the Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010 - “according to the flesh, he would raise up Mashiach to sit on his throne.”, The Scripture For All Translation 2010, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014.


Foreign Language Bibles = KJB


Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera 1960-1995,  the German Schlachter bible 2000, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991, the Portuguese Almeida Bible 2009, the French Martin Bible 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996, the Smith & van Dyck Arabic Bible, the Czech Kralicka bible, the Finnish Bible 1776, the Dutch Staten-Vertaling bible, the Russian Synodal Version, the Afrikaans bible 1953, the Hungarian Karoli bible, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos bible of 1998,  the Polish Gdansk Bible 2013, and the Romanian Fidela bible 2014. 


The Modern Greek Bible - Επειδη λοιπον ητο προφητης και ηξευρεν οτι μεθ' ορκου ωμοσε προς αυτον ο Θεος, οτι εκ του καρπου της οσφυος αυτου θελει αναστησει κατα σαρκα τον Χριστον δια να καθιση αυτον επι του θρονου αυτου,


https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Acts+2%3A30&s=0&t1=el_gmd


And the Modern Hebrew Bible - 

והוא בהיותו נביא ומדעתו את השבועה אשר נשבע לו האלהים להקים את המשיח כפי הבשר מפרי חלציו להושיבו על כסאו׃

https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Acts+2%3A30&search_form_type=general&q1=Acts+2%3A30&s=0&t1=iw_hmd&ns=0


 

 

Acts 2:40 “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying: SAVE YOURSELVES from this untoward generation.”

 

NKJV (NASB, Holman 2009) - “saying, BE SAVED from this perverse generation.”

 

Gary Hudson claims the King James Bible is in error because the verb here is a passive verb and he says it should be translated as BE SAVED. 

 

You can see his debate with Peter Ruckman here on Youtube -

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er_5kMT15cE&app=desktop

 

Yet, agreeing with the King James Bible’s “SAVE YOURSELVES” are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims bible 1582, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, John Wesley N.T. 1755, The Worsely Version 1770, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster’s Bible 1833, Living Oracles N.T. 1835, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Noyes N.T. 1869, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, James Moffatt N.T. 1913, Riverside N.T. 1923, The New Century Version, Montgomery N.T. 1924, George Lamsa’s Translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 - “SAVE YOURSELVES”, The RSV 1946-1973, New American Bible 1970, The Living Bible 1971,  Williams N.T. 1972, J.B. Phillips New Testament 1972, The NRSV 1989, Good News Translation 1992, New Living Translation 1996, An Understandable Version 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Common Edition N.T. 1999, Easy-to-Read Version 2001, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Updated Bible Version 2004, The New Simplified Bible 2004, New Heart English Bible 2005, New Century Version 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 (Vince Garcia),  Dan Wallace’s NET Version 2006, The New European Version 2010, The New American Bible 2010, The English Standard Version (ESV) 2001-2011 editions, The NIV 1978, 1984 and 2011 editions - “SAVE YOURSELVES from this corrupt generation.”, Names of God Bible 2011, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Open English Bible 2014, New International Reader’s Version 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014, The International Children’s Bible 2015, Tree of Life Version 2015 - “SAVE YOURSELVES from this twisted generation.”

 

Other Versions

 

Mace N.T. 1729 - “did he conjure and exhort them, TO SAVE THEMSELVES  from that depraved generation.”


Goodspeed N.T. 1923 - “and urged them TO SAVE THEMSELVES from that crooked age.”

 

Weymouth 1903 has “"Escape from this crooked generation."


The Jonathan Mitchell New Testament actually says all this - “"You folks can be rescued and kept safe, away from this generation which has become warped and crooked from drying out (or, as an imperative: Be restored to health and wholeness – be at once saved – as you are separated from this perverse generation)!"


The Bible in Basic English 1961 reads: “COME OUT FROM this evil generation.”


New Life Version 1969 - “THEY SHOULD KEEP THEMSELVES FROM the sinful people of this day.”


The Contemporary English Version - “"I beg you to SAVE YOURSELVES from what will happen to all these evil people."


The Message 2002 - “"Get out while you can; get out of this sick and stupid culture!"

 

Pickering N.T. 2005 - “ESCAPE from this perverse generation.”


The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear N.T. 2011 - “ESCAPE FROM this corrupt generation.”


Right here in the NKJV itself we see another example of a passive verb being translated as an active. In Acts 2:26 we read in the NKJV “My heart REJOICED”. It is clearly translated as an active verb, yet in the Greek, this verb is a passive verb.


And, as Mr. Peter Rickman pointed out, Gary Hudson and others like him who criticize the KJB here are missing the context. 


The apostle Peter is telling these people what they need to do to separate themselves from the wicked and untoward generation that killed their Messiah.


It is like the exhortations we have in other Bible portions like “Come out from among them”; “Love not the world”


There are many examples of a passive imperative being translated as an active verb in all the translations like the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, etc.


For example: “Remember” Jude 17; “Hold thy peace” Mark 1:25; “purify thyself” Acts 21:24; “Fear not” Matthew 10:26; “Be strong” 2 Timothy 2:1; “Rejoice” Matthew 5:12; “Trouble not thyself” Luke 7:6; “Pass the time of your sojourning” 1 Peter 1:17; "Submit yourselves" James 4:7 and “Humble yourselves” James 4:10.


Jameson, Faussett and Brown - “Save yourselves from this untoward generation--as if Peter already foresaw the hopeless impenitence of the nation at large, and would have his hearers hasten in for themselves and secure their own salvation. “


Matthew Henry comments on Acts 2:40 - “With many other words, to the same purport, did he testify gospel truths, and exhort to gospel duties; …Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Be you free from them. The unbelieving Jews were an untoward generation, perverse and obstinate; they walked contrary to God and man (1 Th. 2:15), wedded to sin and marked for ruin. Now as to them, 1. "Give diligence to save yourselves from their ruin, that you may not be involved in that, and may escape all those things" (as the Christians did) 2. "In order to this continue not with them in their sin, persist not with them in infidelity. Save yourselves, that is, separate yourselves, distinguish yourselves, from this untoward generation. Be not rebellious like this rebellious house; partake not with them in their sins, that you share not with them in their plagues." Note, To separate ourselves from wicked people is the only way to save ourselves from them”


People’s New Testament commentary - “Save yourselves. This was the object of the "many other words." They could "save themselves" by complying with the conditions named in Acts 2:38, and thus accepting Christ as their Savior.”


Gary Hudson with his school boy Greek is flat out wrong for trying to correct God’s masterpiece, and the man simply does not believe that ANY Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God. He even says so himself.


Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, RISE UP AND walk."


Here the words "rise up and" (eyeire kai) are found in the Majority of all texts, including A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, and Armenian ancient versions. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV, and the ISV. The Nestle-Aland text originally omitted these words too, but then later added them back to the text again. The words "rise up and" are now included in the NRSV, ESV, and even in the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. Are you beginning to get the picture of how our scientific scholars constantly disagree among themselves?


Acts 6:8. Full of Grace or Full of Faith?


According to the KJB, the Word was full of grace (John 1:14)


According to the Douay-Rheims Bible, Mary was full of grace (Luke 1:28).


According to modern translations, Stephen was full of grace (Acts 6:8), whereas in the KJB, he was full of faith and power.

The KJB is right, of course. The phrase in John 1:14 is literally "full of grace". = πληρης χαριτος


John 1:14 KJB - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


In Luke 1:28 the KJB says of Mary that she was "highly favored" and this is an entirely different Greek construction - κεχαριτωμενη 


And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.


And as you said, the Catholic Douay Rheims says that she was "full of grace", yet that is not at all what it says. It means "having been graced, or favored". - the KJB's "highly favored" is a proper translation.


Acts 3:26 “his SON Jesus” or “his SERVANT Jesus”?

Acts 3:26 King James Bible -

“Unto you first God, having raised up his SON Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”


 

NKJV (Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985,, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman Standard - all omit the name of Jesus as well)

“God, having raised up his SERVANT Jesus, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”  


The NKJV keeps the name of Jesus but changes the word SON to Servant like all the Vatican Versions do.

The word used here for SON or “servant” is παιδα. This word can be translated either as “son, servant, child, children. maid, maiden, young man, or menservants.”

The NKJV itself has translated this same word as SON in places like John 4:51 “your SON lives”, yet it changed all four instances in the book of Acts where the KJB and many other translations refer to Jesus as the SON or the CHILD.

We see this in Acts 3:13 “the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus” (NKJV - his Servant Jesus); Acts 4:27 “of a truth against thy holy CHILD Jesus” (NKJV - your holy Servant Jesus”; and Acts 4:30 “that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy CHILD Jesus” (NKJV -in the name of Your holy Servant Jesus)

There is also a textual variant reading in Acts 3:26. The Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including Alexandrinus read JESUS, but Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and C omit the name Jesus from this verse.


Agreeing with the King James Bible in Acts 3:26 and “God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” are - Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Thomson Translation 1808, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young’s 1898 - “his child Jesus”, the Clarke N.T. 1913, the New Life Version 1969, the KJV 21st Century 1994, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010 - “having raised up HIS BEN Yeshua (ישוע)” and the New Matthew Bible 2016 - God raised up his Son Jesus.

The Modern Greek Version clearly reads “his SON Jesus.”

Θεος αναστησας τον Υιον αυτου Ιησουν

https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Acts+3%3A26&s=0&t1=el_gmd


Foreign Language Bibles

Foreign Language Bible that read like the KJB with “thy SON JESUS” are the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - “Dios, levantando a su Hijo, Jesús”, Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera Gómez bible,  the French Martin Bible 1744, and the French Ostervald bible 1996 - “suscité son Fils Jésus”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “a seu Filho Jesus”, and the Italian Diodati 1991 - “il suo Figlio Gesú”


And in Acts 6:8 the Reformation bibles follow a different text than do the Vatican Versions.


The reading of the KJB is "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people."

The Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. say: “And Stephen, full of GRACE and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.”


KJB “full of FAITH and power". This is the reading in the Majority of all remaining texts and the TR but the Vatican manuscripts read "full of GRACE and power", and so the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman, the Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT,  etc.


 

Thus, once again, we see that the true Bible (the KJB) exalts the Lord Jesus Christ above all others, and the fake bibles try to bring him down to the level of mere humans.

Also reading that Stephen was “full of FAITH and power” are  Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster Bible 1833, Julia Smith Translation 1855,  The Revised N.T. 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, Young’s 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Laurie N.T. 1998, Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, World English Bible 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Pickering N.T. 2005, Green’s literal 2005, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, the Modern English Version 2014, Hebrew Names Version 2014, Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014, and the New Matthew Bible 2016.

Foreign Language Bibles = KJB

The Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “pieno di fede, e di potenza” , the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Second 2007 - “plein de foi et de puissance”, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera Game 2010, but the Reina Valera 1960, 77, 95 went with the Vatican reading of “full of grace and power”, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “cheio de fe de poder”

The Modern Greek Bible - Ο δε Στεφανος, πληρης πιστεως και δυναμεως, εκαμνε τερατα και σημεια μεγαλα εν τω λαω.

 

Acts 7:46 "The GOD of Jacob" or "the HOUSE of Jacob"?  


An interesting anomaly that shows the utter inconsistency of the modern Critical Text/Vatican Versions is found in how they deal with the TEXT of Acts 7:46.

  

In the King James Bible we read: "Who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the GOD of Jacob."  


Both the text and the immediate context are talking about a dwelling place for GOD, not for His people.

The reading "GOD of Jacob" τω θεω ιακωβ is found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus correction, A, C and many ancient versions like the Old Latin ar, c, dem, e, gig, h, p, ph, ro, w, the Syriac Peshitta, harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Sahidic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Slavonic and Armenian.

 

Yet the Critical text UBS 1-4 editions and the Neslte-Aland editions dating from at least the 4th edition 1934 to the present day 28th edition 2012 all read "the HOUSE of Jacob" in their Greek text. τω οἴκῳ ιακωβ.  These are two very different words; not even close in spelling or meaning.  In spite of the FACT that the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical text reads "the HOUSE of Jacob", yet the vast majority of all Critical text versions chose not to follow this reading, which comes from the Vatican manuscript as well as Sinaiticus original, D and H.

 

Following the traditional Reformation reading of the "GOD of Jacob" are the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, NIV 1973, 1984 and 2011 editions, the NASBs 1963-1995, RSV 1946, 1971 and ESVs 2001 - 2011 editions.

But again Vaticanus reads differently and says: "to find a tabernacle for the HOUSE of Jacob." The NASB, even though it reads "God of Jacob", has this footnote: "the earliest mss. read 'house' and not 'God'". Well, if they think this is the closest to the original reading, why not put it in their version?


Ah, but wait, the NRSV 1989, the ISV (International Standard Version), Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 have done just that and now read "for the HOUSE of Jacob." Notice that the RSV said "the GOD of Jacob", the the NRSV went with "the HOUSE of Jacob", but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV, went back to "the GOD of Jacob" even though their own UBS/Nestle-Aland Critical text has "HOUSE" in the text!

  

Yet other Critical Text versions continue to reject the UBS reading of HOUSE and still go with "the GOD of Jacob."  Among these are the Holman Standard 2009 edition, the 2011 Common English Bible and the Lexham English bible 2012.  


The reading of "the GOD of Jacob" is that of the traditional Reformation texts and is that found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, RV, ASV, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the NKJV 1982 as well as the NASB, NIV and ESV.


The Catholic Connection



The earlier Douay-Rheims 1582 and the 1950 Douay Version both follow the traditional text here and say: "that he might find a dwelling place for the GOD of Jacob".

 

But now the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem have once again changed their text and now read: "who found favor with God and begged that he might find a dwelling place for THE HOUSE of Jacob."


Get yourself the King James Bible and stick with it. Friends don't let friends read fake bible versions that nobody believes are the inerrant words of the living God.

 

Acts 9:12 - "And hath seen IN A VISION a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight." The words "in a vision" are in the majority of Greek texts as well as in Vaticanus and C. They are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' bible and the Geneva Bible.


However the words "in a vision" are omitted by Sinaiticus and A. The new versions are all over the board. Westcott and Hort originally put the words in brackets. Then later Nestle -Aland editions took it out, but then later on they put it back in again, but in brackets. That's their "science" at work.


The RV, ASV, RSV all omit the words, but then the NASB, NRSV and ESV put them back in. Typical bungling nonsense of today's Bible Agnostics.


More on Acts 9:12 and the mindless mumblings of today's textual scholars. Daniel Wallace and company's goofy NET version reveals the double minded uncertainty behind what passes as the "science" of textual criticism.


Wallace's NET version includes the words, but notice his mind bending footnotes of "explanation". The NET version reads: "9:12 and he has seen IN A VISION (26) a man named Ananias come in and place his hands on him so that he may see again."


Then we see his footnote 26 where he says: - "The words (en oramati, "in a vision") are not found in some of the earliest and best mss (74 A 81 pc lat sa bo), but are implied from the context. The phrase is included, although sometimes in a different order with (andra, "man") or omitting altogether, by B C E 33 1175 1739 . The order of words in NA27 is supported only by B C 1175. Generally speaking, when there are three or more variants, with one an omission and the others involving rearrangements, the longer readings are later scribal additions. Further, the reading looks like a clarifying note, for an earlier vision is explicitly mentioned in v. 10. On the other hand, it is possible that some scribes deleted the words because of perceived repetition, though this is unlikely since it is a different vision two verses back...Perhaps the best argument for the authenticity of the phrase is that B C 1175 preserve a rare, distinctively Lukan word order, but this is not nearly as harsh or unusual as what Luke does elsewhere. A decision is difficult in this case, but on balance the omission of the phrase seems to be authentic. The words are nevertheless added in the translation because of contextual considerations. NA27 places the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity."


Well, I'm certainly glad ol' Dan Wallace cleared that up for us! "looks like a clarifying note", "possible some scribes deleted the words", "perhaps...authenticity"; "omission seems be authentic"; "the words are added because of contextual considerations", "doubts as to their authenticity" - Who really knows or even cares?


Acts 10:19 "three men", "two men" or just " some men"?


Further textual confusion both by Westcott-Hort and the two so called "oldest and best" manuscripts is further seen in Acts 10:19. In the King James Bible we read: "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, THREE men seek thee." 


The three men refers back to verses 10:7-8 where we read that Cornelius "called TWO of his household servants, AND a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually...he sent THEM to Joppa." Thus there were three men altogether who went to find Peter.


The reading of "THREE men" is again confirmed in chapter eleven verse eleven where Peter is rehearsing the events that previously occurred in chapter ten. There Peter relates: "And, behold, immediately there were THREE men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me."


THREE men (andres treis) is the reading found in the TR, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, C, E, many Old Latin copies, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Syriac, Georgian, Vulgate and the Ethiopian ancient versions. It is also the reading of Spanish Reina Valera and the Modern Greek N.T.


THREE men is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV and the Holman Standard.


Quite a few manuscripts completely omit any number here and simply say "Men seek thee". Among these are D, L, P and a few Old Latin copies. Among those versions that omit any number at all are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 and the New English Bible 1970.


However where the real confusion comes in is when we look at the Vaticanus manuscript and the early Westcott-Hort, Nestle Aland critical texts. ONLY the Vaticanus copy reads TWO men (andres duo) and Westcott and Hort as well as the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 1962 editions read "TWO men seek thee", all based solely on the Vaticanus mss.


Later on the Nestle-Aland crtical text once again changed their previous reading and the current one now reads "THREE men", and so too do the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard.


There are only two bible translations I have found so far that actually contain the Vaticanus reading of "two men". One is Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible that says: "Behold, TWO men seek thee.", and the other one is the Catholic New American Bible St. Joseph 1970 which reads: "There are TWO men in search of you."


The Catholic versions present us with the usual hodge-podge of confusion, with the previous Douay 1950 correctly reading "three men", then the 1968 Jerusalem bible came out with the reading "SOME men". Then in 1970 the St. Joseph NAB 1970 went with the Vaticanus reading of "TWO men", but now the latest Catholic bible, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985, has come out and it just omits the number altogether and once again reads: "SOME men have come to see you."


This is the fickle nature of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" and the men who support them.


Acts 12:25 - The Devil is in the Details


In Acts 12:25 we read: "And Barnabas and Saul returned FROM (ex) Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark."


This is the reading found in a multitude of Greek manuscripts and Bible versions including P74, Alexandrinus, the Textus Receptus, the Modern Greek N.T., the Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Italian Diodati 1649, Riveduta 1927, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 - 1995, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Weymouth, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac 1933, Douay 1950, Darby, Young's, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, ESV 2003, The Message, Bible in Basic English, New English Bible, the NIV 1984, and the TNIV 2005.


Clearly the whole context tells us that Barnabas and Paul had already gone TO Jerusalem and had now returned FROM Jerusalem. In Acts 11:29-30 we read: "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of BARNABAS AND SAUL."


Then in 13:1 we again pick up with both Saul (Paul) and Barnabas already at Antioch, and not in Jerusalem. "Now there were at Antioch certain prophets and teachers: as Barnabas....and Saul."


However the corrupt manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us in Acts 12:25 that both Barnabas and Saul (Paul) now returned TO Jerusalem, even though they had already been there as recorded in Acts 11:29-30, and were now in Antioch as found in Acts 13:1.


The total fickleness and inconsistency of the modern Critical text is seen in that Westcott and Hort originally went with the erroneous reading of "returned TO Jerusalem" (eis), but then the Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 1962 both read "returned FROM Jerusalem (ex). But wait; it gets worse. Now the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition have once again rejected the previous Nestle critical text and have gone back to the reading originally adopted by Westcott and Hort. The UBS 4th edition once again says: "returned TO (eis) Jerusalem."


Versions that contain this erroneous reading - "returned TO Jerusalem" - and thus contradict the whole context of Acts 11 through 13 are Tyndale 1525 - one of many reasons why Tyndale was not the perfect English Bible - see  Tyn,TR or KJB?  



 Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, and in modern times Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, the NRSV 1989, Holman Christian Standard Version 2003, the ISV (International Standard Version 2003), and Daniel Wallace's NET version. Notice that the RSV 1952 and the ESV 2001 both read "FROM Jerusalem" but the NRSV 1989 read "TO Jerusalem". These three are revisions of each other. Can't seem to make up their minds, can they?


Acts 14:15 "THE living God" or "A living God"?

Acts 14:15 KJB - “And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto THE living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:”


ESV (NASB, ASV 1901, RSV 1971) - “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to A living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.”



There IS a very definite textual variant here. In fact, two of them.


The Majority text as well as the TR not only have the Greek definite article, but they have it twice for added emphasis.


A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey - “The repetition of the article with some word or phrase which modifies the noun is a device employed for emphasis, in which the article functions with more than its ordinary force… The use of the article is to lend greater emphasis and prominence to a clause which in some particular way defines.”  Page 148.



When it says "turn from these idols unto THE living God" it literally says "unto THE God THE living"


It looks like this -


επιστρεφειν επι τον θεον τον ζωντα 


That little word τον is the definite article and it is used twice in this verse in both the Majority and the TR.


However the WH/Critical text omits both definite articles - επιστρεφειν επι θεον ζωντα

When Westcott and Hort came out with their new Critical Greek which omitted these two definite articles, not even the Revised Version of 1881 followed it, but still read “turn unto THE living God.”

It was the ASV of 1901 that first changed this verse to read “turn to A living God”.

Even today most of the Vatican supervised text versions that follow the ever changing Critical Greek text STILL maintain the traditional reading of “THE living God.”

Reading “that ye should turn to THE living God” (there is only one and his name is Jehovah) are (to name just some of them) the Wycliffe bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, J.B. Phillips N.T.1972, the NRSV 1989, the Holman Standard 2009, the NIV 2011, Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, World English Bible 2000, the International Standard Version 2014, the Modern English Version 2014, the Lexham English bible 2012, the New Life Version 1969, the Tree of Life Version 2015s, The Voice 2012, The Names of God Bible 2011, and The New Matthew’s Bible 2016.

 


 

 

Acts 16:7 KJB - “After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the SPIRIT suffered them not.”

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, all Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - “And when they had come to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bythinia, but the SPIRIT OF JESUS did not allow them.”

 

The obvious textual difference here is between the reading of “the Spirit” and “the Spirit of JESUS”.

 

The reading “the Spirit of Jesus” is that of Sinaitic and Vaticanus mss. as well as Alexandrinus, D and E. All these are Egyptian texts that make up the constantly changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican “inter confessional” Critical Greek text. It is also found in the Latin Vulgate.

 

Manuscript C original said “the Spirit of the LORD”.

 

But the reading of simply “the Spirit suffered them not” is that found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including H, L, P, the Coptic Sahidic ancient versions and is so quoted by such early church writers as Ephraem, Epiphanius and Chrysostom.

 

It is the reading of the Reformation bibles and it the Greek text found in Erasmus 1516, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, Scrivener 1894, The Majority Text by Hodges & Farstad, The Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Greek N.T and the Modern Greek Bible.

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “but the Spirit suffered them not.” are the following Bible translations: Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza New Testament 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, the Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster’s bible 1833, the Living Oracles 1835, the Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, the Anderson N.T. 1865, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Dillard N.T. 1885, Young’s 1898, the Clarke N.T. 1913, the New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), The Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999,  the Tomson N.T. 2002, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003,  The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Green’s literal 2005, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Conservative Interlinear Version 2005, the Pickering N.T. 2005 (with a footnote “Perhaps 6% of the manuscripts read “the Spirit of Jesus”), the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol),  the Jubilee Bible 2010,  the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The English Majority Text Bible 2013,  The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014 - “but the Spirit did not allow them.”

 

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Foreign Language Bibles that read simply “the Spirit” and NOT “the Spirit of Jesus” are Luther’s German bible 1545, the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “und der Geist ließ es ihnen nicht zu.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-2011 - “mas el Espíritu no les dejó.”,  the Italian La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “ma lo Spirito non lo permise loro.”, the French Ostervald Bible 1996 - “mais l'Esprit ne le leur permit pas.”,  the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “ale im Duch nie pozwolił.”, the Russian Synodal Version - “но Дух не допустил их.”, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - “na Espiritu.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - “de Geest liet het hun niet toe.”, the Basque Navarro-Labourdin N.T. -“baina etziecén permetti Spirituac.”, the Finnish Biblia 1776, the Smith & van Dyke’s Arabic Bible - فلما أتوا الى ميسيا حاولوا ان يذهبوا الى بيثينية فلم يدعهم الروح‎, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - “en de Geest liet het hun niet toe.”,  the Chinese Union Traditional Bible, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Corrigida e Fiel 1671 - “mas o Espírito näo lho permitiu.”, and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.

 

.

 

The Modern Greek New Testament - πλην δεν αφηκεν αυτους το Πνευμα.

 

And The Modern Hebrew Bible - וכבאם אל מוסיא הואילו ללכת אל ביתוניא ולא הניח להם הרוח׃ 



Acts 17:26 “hath made of one BLOOD all nations of men”


Acts 17:26 KJB - “And hath made of one BLOOD all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”


ESV (NASB, NIV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic versions) - “And he made from one MAN every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place”


The word “man” is actually not in any Greek text. They just added it so the verse would make sense.   Omitting the word “blood” (αιματος) are the usual suspects. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus Alexandrinus and P 74.


The Greek manuscript Psi actually reads “made of one MOUTH”



 The words “of one blood” (εξ ενος αιματος) are found in the Majority of all remaining manuscripts including D, E, L, P, as well as the Old Latin ar, d, e, gig, ro, w, and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonic ancient versions and are so quoted by such early church writers as Ephraem, Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theophylact.


Also reading that God “hath made OF ONE BLOOD all nations of men” are the following Bibles - Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Worsley N.T. 1770,  Haweis N.T. 1795, Thomson Translation 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, Sawyer N.T. 1858,  The Revised N.T. 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, Sharpe Bible 1883, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Bible in Basic English 1961, New Life Version 1969, Amplified bible 1987, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Laurie N.T. 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, the World English Bible 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green’s Literal 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Natural Israelite Bible, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010, The Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014, Hebrew Names Version 2014, and the New Matthew Bible 2016.


Foreign Language Bibles - “of one blood”


The Italian Diodati 1649 - “d’un medesimo sangue”, Luther’s German bible 1545, German Schlachter bible 2000 - “von einem Blut”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina-Valera 1960-1995 - “de una sangre”, the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 - “d'un seul sang”,  the Portuguese Almeida 1681 - “E de um só sangue fez toda a geraçäo dos homens” and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “dintr-un singur sânge “



The Modern Greek Translation - εξ ενος αιματος παν εθνος ανθρωπων


And The Modern Hebrew Bible - 


ויושב כל עממי בני אדם על כל פני האדמה מדם אחד ויצב מועדים קבועים וגבולת מושבם



So once again it comes down to the Reformation Bible text or the Vatican Versions.




Acts 19:16 - a Clear Blunder in the so called "Oldest and Best" Manuscripts.


In Acts 19 we are told of SEVEN sons of Sceva, who were vagabond Jews, exorcists, which "took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, WE adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth". 



There are two blunders found here in the "oldest and best" texts of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against the majority of all others. 


The Majority of all texts, as well as the Syriac Peshitta, read as does the KJB with these seven sons saying "WE adjure you by Jesus". (ορκιζομεν υμας τον ιησουν)


The word "we" is obviously plural, and the evil spirit answers in verse 15 "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are YE?". The word "ye" is plural in all texts answering to the plural "we" of "We adjure thee".  Even the Critical texts read “but who are YE?” And it is emphatic (υμεις δε τινες εστε). It’s like saying “But YOU who are YOU?”



However in verse 13 Sinaiticus and Vaticanus along with A, D and P74, have only one individual saying: "I" adjure you by Jesus, (ορκιζω) and so read the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the Holman Standard.

Nevertheless, the evil spirit still answers addressing a plural number of persons rather than one individual even in the corrupted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.

The more striking blunder is found in Acts 19:16. There we read: "And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame THEM, (αυτων) and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."

There were seven sons and the spirit leaped on THEM.


The single word "them" (αυτων) is the reading of the majority of all texts. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well as P74, A an D (all Egyptian texts) tell us that the evil spirit "overcame BOTH (αμφοτερων) and prevailed against them."

The Amplified bible brings out this errant reading and even tries to tell us that it is found "in the best texts". The Amplified reads: "Then the man in whom the evil spirit dwelt leaped upon them, mastering TWO OF THEM, and was so violent against them that they dashed out of that house in fear, stripped naked and wounded." Then in a footnote is says: "The best texts read "both of them."


The word for "both" is amphoteros (αμφοτερων), and always means "both". It is found 14 times in the Greek N.T. and is always translated as “both”.  It is used in such statements as “let BOTH grow together” (Mat. 13:30), “BOTH shall fall into the ditch” (Mat. 15:14); “they were BOTH righteous before God” (Luke 1:6), “he frankly forgave them BOTH” (Luke 7:42), “he might reconcile BOTH unto God” and “through him we BOTH have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” (Ephesians 16 and 18)


The word "both" can only refer to the number two, not the SEVEN sons of Sceva. In fact, the NASBs from 1963 through 1972 read "and overcame BOTH OF THEM", and so also do The Alford N.T. 1870 (a Critical text version) the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Catholic Douay.

The Alford N.T. 1870, following the corrupt Egyptian manuscripts, says:”and overcame them BOTH”. Then he footnotes “So all the ancient MSS. There seem to have been TWO ONLY of the seven engaged in this particular act.”

Not even the RSV, NRSV or ESV followed this bogus reading found in the "oldest and best manuscripts", though they do mention it in their footnotes.

The RSV and ESV read "mastered ALL of them", but then footnote: "Or BOTH of them."  There is NO Greek text that reads “mastered ALL of them”. They just made this up in an effort to conceal the blatant blunder found in these so called “oldest and best” manuscripts.

Even to this day the ever changing Nestle-Aland critical Greek text used in making up most modern versions still reads "overcame BOTH" - (κατακυριευσας αμφοτερων)


Finally, after several years and numerous editions, it apparently occurred to the NASB scholars that there was a clear blunder in their "oldest and most reliable texts", so in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB changed their versions to read that the evil spirit overcame "ALL OF THEM" instead of "both".

The NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard also say "all of them". But, as I mentioned, the word "all" is not found in any text whatsoever, but the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV put the extra word in there in an attempt to cover up their textual blunder.

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and the other Egyptian manuscripts that differ from the Majority all all remaining Greek manuscripts we have plus the ancient Syriac versions, are clearly wrong. The NKJV correctly footnotes that the Nestle and UBS text says "both of them" instead of "overcame them".

  

Another “error” in the King James Bible Bites the Dust.


Acts 20:7 Paul PREACHED unto them.  διελέγετο


KJB - “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul PREACHED unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”


Some bible critic who came to our Facebook King James Bible Debate forum claimed that no Bible translation was perfect and that he only used “the” Greek and “the” Hebrew. 


Of course he would not identify which “the” Greek and Hebrew he meant, nor would he show us a copy of ANY Bible that he honestly believes IS the complete and inerrant words of God. He told us that the KJB got this verse wrong and that instead of “preaching” it should be something like “was discoursing” or “talking”.


The fact is, this man is just another self appointed Bible critic who has made his own mind his final authority, and armed with his schoolboy Greek, he thinks he is some kind of expert, when in reality he has no clue what he is talking about.


The verb in question here in Acts 20:7 is dialegomai and it has several meanings.  It is variously translated as “to preach, to dispute, to reason with, and to speak.”  The context often determines the meaning.


The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon, University of Chicago Press 1957 on page 184 informs us that this Greek verb means: “also, simply to speak, PREACH.”


And in Kittel’s massive Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume II on page 94 he specifically mentions Acts 20:7-9 where this word is used twice and he says: “There is here no reference to “disputation” but to the “delivering of religious lectures or sermons.”


Sounds pretty much like “preaching”, huh?


Not only does the King James Bible show the apostle Paul PREACHING to the saints assembled on this occasion, but many others do as well.


So also read Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Geneva bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795,   The Revised Translation 1815, The Longmont Version 1841, The Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, Weymouth N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, the Montgomery N.T. 1924, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Modern English Version 2014, The New Matthew Bible 2016


Meaning of “to preach”


Oxford English Dictionary - to preach - Deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.


‘he preached to a large congregation’


with object ‘our pastor will preach the sermon’


Merriam-Webster Dictionary - to deliver a sermon


Cambridge English Dictionary - (especially of a priest or minister in a church) to give a religious speech.


The King James Bible is right, as always, and the Bible critics are not.


Bible Critic’s Selfie



Acts 20:28 - "Feed the church of GOD, which he hath purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD."


This verse is under attack by many modern versions because it clearly shows that the Lord Jesus Christ is GOD, and that GOD shed His blood to purchase the church. Those who oppose the full Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ will alter this verse in several ways to either change, hide, or obscure the truth that it was GOD'S blood that purchased the church.


The Traditional Byzantine Text that underlies the King James Bible says: poimainein thn ekklhsian tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV - feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."


The Westcott-Hort text has a slight variation which says:dia tou aimatoV tou idiou- by the blood of His own", which opens the door to several of the renderings we will see in some modern versions based on the Westcott-Hort text.


There are a wide variety of readings found for this verse. Many texts say "the church of THE LORD AND GOD", and this is actually the reading of the Hebrew Names Version, and the World English Version. Then there is Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac which reads: "feed the church OF CHRIST which he has purchased with his blood." 


Many other texts have the absurd reading of: "the church of THE LORD OF GOD", while Alexandrinus, C original, D and P74 read "the church OF THE LORD which he purchased with his own blood." This last reading would say it was only the Lord (not God) who shed his blood, and thus not clearly teach the deity of Christ.


In fact, this last reading is found in the American Standard Version of 1901 based on the Westcott-Hort texts, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the Worldwide English New Testament, and the New English Bible of 1970. They say: "Feed the church OF THE LORD which he obtained by his own blood."


 The new ISV (International Standard Version) shows both readings with this: "to be shepherds of God's (Other mss. read the Lord's) church, which he purchased with his own blood."


It should be of interest here to point out that when the English Bible was first being "revised" by the Westcott-Hort committee, the Revised Version of 1881 actually came out reading exactly like the King James Bible - "feed the church of GOD, which he purchased with his own blood". However it was the American committee of the ASV 1901 that first changed this traditional reading instead to that of "feed the church of the LORD, which he purchased with his own blood."


Other versions deny the full deity of Christ by keeping the word "God" in the phrase "the church of God", but they add an extra word to the sentence, not found in any Greek text, and thus again deny the Godhead of Christ. Among these are the modern versions like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation (based on the Westcott-Hort texts), the New Revised Standard of 1989, the New Jerusalem Bible, the 21st Century New Testament, The Contemporary English Version 1991 by the American Bible Society, Today's English Version 1992 put out by the American Bible Society and the United Bible Society, which also publish the Westcott-Hort Greek text that underlies most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV.


The NRSV, Jehovah Witness' New World Translation, Today's English Version, the Good News Translation, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the Contemporary English Version all say: "Feed the church of God which he obtained by the blood OF HIS SON". 


This fabricated reading denies that it was the blood of GOD which purchased the church, but affirms only the blood of His Son. The word "Son" does not occur in any manuscript at all.


The Bible versions that correctly read "Feed the church OF GOD which he purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD", are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Bible, NKJV, Revised Version of 1881, NASB, NIV, the Modern Greek N.T. used by the Greek Orthodox church today, Green's Modern KJV, Webster's translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the ESV. This is the reading of the Tradtional Byzantine texts that underlies the King James Bible. It is also the reading found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Old Latin, Syriac Harclean, Vulgate, some Coptic versions, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Antigua Version of 1569, and Luther's German Bible.


Notice that the RSV, NRSV and ESV, all of which are revisions of each other, each gives a different rendering of this same verse, and the ASV differs from both the Revised Version 1881 and the NASB's from 1963 to 1995. Isn't modern scholarship exciting to watch! Hey, all bible versions have the same "message", and no doctrines are changed, right?




Acts 25:21, 25 and Acts 27:1  Augustus, Caesar or the Emperor?



A Christian sister named Katie writes:  “Hi!  I have a question about Acts 25:21, 25 and the Greek word, Σεβαστον.  It’s translated in the KJV as Augustus, but in the ESV as Caesar or the emperor.  The ESV notes say that Caesar was Nero (not Augustus).  Are the ESV editors wrong and the KJV translators right?  Can you explain why?


Thanks so much for your website - very informative and helpful.


Blessings,

~Katie


My Response:  Hi sister Katie. Thank you for writing and for the question.  This is pretty easy to answer once you know how the title Augustus was used. The Bible commentaries help explain it.


For example -  Adam Clarke Commentary - “σεβαϚος is usually translated Augustus, and the Roman emperors generally assumed this epithet, which signifies no more than the venerable, the august”




Acts 25:21 KJB - “ But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of AUGUSTUS, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar.”


ESV (Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, NIV, NASB, Holman) -  But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of THE EMPEROR, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.”


NRSV 1989 (The Voice 2012) - “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of his IMPERIAL MAJESTY, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to the emperor.”


NET 2006 (Tree of Life Version 2015) - “But when Paul appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR, I ordered him to be kept under guard until I could send him to Caesar.”


NASB 1995 (ASV 1901) - “ But when Paul appealed to be held in custody for [a]the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him to be kept in custody until I send him to Caesar.”


Footnotes: in both the ASV and NASB -


a. Acts 25:21 Lit the Augustus’s (in this case Nero)


ISV (International Standard Version) 2014 - “But Paul appealed his case and asked to be held in prison until the decision of HIS MAJESTY. So I ordered him to be held in custody until I could send him to the emperor.”


Young’s 1898 - “ but Paul having appealed to be kept to the hearing of SEBASTUS, I did command him to be kept till I might send him unto Caesar.”


Modern English Version 2014 (Tyndale 1525, Great bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Worldwide English N.T. 1996) - “But when Paul had appealed to be under guard for the decision of CAESAR, I ordered that he be secured until I could send him to Caesar.”




AUGUSTUS


Also reading AUGUSTUS in these passages like the KJB are the following Bible translations - the Bishops’ Bible 1568,  the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1795, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster’s bible 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Julia Smith Translation 1855, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, Noyes N.T. 1869, The Alford N.T. 1870, The Revised English Bible 1877,  Darby 1890, Godbey N.T. 1902, Worrell N.T. 1904, NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the 21st Century KJV 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Laurie N.T. 1998, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green’s Literal 2005, A Conservative Version 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014. and The Pioneers’ New Testament 2014.




Foreign Language Bibles 


Foreign Language Bibles that also say AUGUSTUS are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera’s 1960 - 1995 -“Pero como Pablo apeló para que se le reservara para el conocimiento de AUGUSTO, mandé que lo custodiaran hasta que lo enviara yo a César.”


The Spanish NIV says “emperador” (emperor) but then it footnotes: Lit. al augusto; también en v. 25. = Literally AUGUSTUS, also in verse 25.  


The French Martin bible 1744, French Louis Segond 2007 - “à la connaissance d’Auguste”, the Hungarian Karoli bible - “hogy õ Augustus”, the Italian Diodati bible 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “appellato ad Augusto”, The Polish Updated Gdansk bible 2013 - “sprawy przez Augusta”, The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “ao conhecimento de Augusto”, the Russian Synodal Bible - “Августово”, The Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos bible 1998 - “Emperador Augusto”, Albanian Bible - “tek Augusti”, Czech Kralicka Bible - “soudu Augustovu”, and the Romanian Fidela bible 2014 - “examinarea lui Augustus,”



The Bible commentators 


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown on Acts 25:21. the hearing of Augustus--the imperial title first conferred by the Roman Senate on Octavius. 


B.W. Johnson’s Bible Commentary  - “Unto the hearing of Augustus. One of the titles of the Roman emperor. He was styled Cæsar, Augustus, and Imperator, from whence the word emperor. “


Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament - “Instead of “the Emperor” it should be “the Augustus,” as Σεβαστος — Sebastos is simply the Greek translation of Augustus, the adjective (Revered, Reverent) assumed by Octavius b.c. 27 … The successors of Octavius assumed Augustus as a title. The Greek term Σεβαστος — Sebastos has the notion of worship (cf. σεβασμα — sebasma in Acts Acts 17:25). In the N.T. only here, Acts 25:25; Acts 27:1.  It was more imposing than “Caesar” which was originally a family name (always official in the N.T.) and it fell in with the tendency toward emperor-worship which later played such a large part in Roman life and which Christians opposed so bitterly.”


John Gill - “unto the hearing of Augustus; to have his cause heard, tried, and judged of, by the Roman Emperor Nero, here called Augustus; for as it was usual for a Roman emperor to be called Caesar, from Julius Caesar, the first of them, so to be called Augustus, from Octavius Augustus, the second emperor: his original surname was Thurinus, but this being objected to him as a reproachful one, he afterwards took the name of Caesar, and then of Augustus; the one by the will of his great uncle, the other by the advice of Munatius Plancus; when some thought he ought to be called Romulus, as if he was the founder of the city, it prevailed that he should rather be called Augustus; not only this surname being new, but more grand, seeing religious places, and in which anything was consecrated by soothsaying, were called "Augusta…in the Greek text the name is Sebastos, which signifies venerable and worshipful.”


Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible - “Of Augustus - The reigning emperor at this time was Nero. The name Augustus Σεβαστός Sebastos properly denotes “what is venerable, or worthy of honor and reverence.” It was first applied to Caesar Octavianus, who was the Roman emperor in the time when our Saviour was born, and who is usually nailed Augustus Caesar. But the title continued to be used of his successors in office, as denoting the veneration or reverence which was due to the rank of emperor.”


Adam Clarke Commentary - “σεβαϚος is usually translated Augustus, and the Roman emperors generally assumed this epithet, which signifies no more than the venerable, the august”


E.W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible Notes - “Augustus. Greek. Sebastos. The Greek word means "venerable", the same as the Latin augustus, a title first used by Octavianus, the adopted son of Julius Caesar, and his successor, and by the Emperors succeeding.”


John Trapp Complete Commentary - That is, to Nero. But for memory of their two first emperors, Caesar and Augustus, all their successors bore these two names.”


Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible - “Augustus: the emperor who now reigned, and to whom Paul appealed, was Nero, who was called Augustus; this title being at first appropriated to Octavius, who succeeded Julius Caesar; but out of honour unto him, or because of its signification, it became an appellative, and was given unto all the emperors successively.”


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



Acts 26:23 - Was Christ the first to rise from the dead?  NASB Blunder.


In Acts 26 the apostle Paul is making his defense before king Agrippa. Paul says: "Having therefore obtained help from God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that HE SHOULD BE THE FIRST TO RISE FROM THE DEAD, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."


The verse, as it stands in the King James Bible clearly tells us that Christ was the first to rise from the dead. 



ει παθητος ο χριστος ει πρωτος εξ αναστασεως νεκρων φως μελλει καταγγελλειν τω λαω και τοις εθνεσιν



Agreeing with the reading and meaning found in the King James Bible are the following Bible versions: Latin Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace 1729, Wesley 1755, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "That Christ should suffer and that he should be the first to rise from the dead and that he should preach light to the people", Douay-Rheims 1950, New Life Bible 1969, RSV 1952, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the Bible in Basic English 1960, the NRSV 1989, NIV 1984 - 2011, the Revised English Bible 1989, the TNIV 2005, ESV 2003 - 2016, NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Holman Standard 2009, Names of God Bible 2011, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 - "that the Christ was to suffer and be the first to rise from the dead, to proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”, the ISV (International Standard Version) 2014, Modern English Version 2014, Tree of Life Version 2015, and The New Matthew's Bible 2016, to name but a few.


Foreign Language Bibles that tell us that Christ would be the first to rise from the dead are the Italian Diodati 1649, Martin Luther's German Bible 1545, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, and French Ostervald 1996, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 & 1995 and the Portuguese Almeida Bible 2009 - "sendo o primeiro da ressurreição dos mortos"



All these Bible versions teach that Christ was the first to rise from the dead.

However, when we look at the NASB we read something quite different. The NASB does not teach the truth that Christ was the first to rise from the dead in this verse.

 Rather, it says: "stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that Christ was to suffer, and THAT BY REASON OF HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD HE SHOULD BE THE FIRST TO PROCLAIM LIGHT both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."


Instead of saying that Christ was the first to rise from the dead, the NASB teaches that Christ was the first to proclaim light to both the Jews and the Gentiles. This is obviously not the same thing, nor is it even true.

Many portions of the Old Testament show the prophets proclaiming light to both Jews and Gentiles, as well as the New Testament forerunner, John the Baptist. The NASB is wrong.


Adam Clarke comments: "That he should be the first that should rise from the dead - That is, that he should be the first who should rise from the dead so as to die no more; and to give, in his own person, the proof of the resurrection of the human body, no more to return under the empire of death. In no other sense can Jesus Christ be said to be the first that rose again from the dead; for Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite. A dead man, put into the sepulchre of the Prophet Elisha, was restored to life as soon as he touched the prophet's bones. Christ himself had raised the widow's son at Nain; and he had also raised Lazarus, and several others. All these died again; but the human nature of our Lord was raised from the dead, and can die no more. Thus he was the first who rose again from the dead to return no more into the empire of death."


John Gill comments: "And that he should be the first that should rise from the dead: by his own power, and to an immortal life, as Jesus did; and so is the firstborn from the dead, and the first fruits of them that slept."


Matthew Henry states: "He was the first that rose from the dead to die no more; and, to show that the resurrection of all believers is in virtue of his."

 

 


 

Acts 27:37 - "216 souls" or "about 76"?


Vaticanus alone has a silly reading in this verse. The Holy Ghost is relating the shipwreck that occured when Paul was on his way to Rome. The Scripture says: "And we were in all the ship two hundred and sixteen souls."


So read the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus and C. Alexandrinus uniquely reads "275" instead of "276", but Vaticanus alone reads "we were in all the ship ABOUT 76 souls". 


Now, you can have about 200 or about 300, but it is more than a little silly to say ABOUT 76. The number 76 is an exact number, not a round number.


Westcott and Hort initially followed the erroneous reading of Vaticanus and placed "about 76 souls" in their critical Greek text, but later revisors decided to reject this unique reading, and changed their texts to read 276 souls.


The only version I am aware of that actually followed this bogus reading found in the Vaticanus manuscript is Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902. It reads: "Now we were, in the ship, in all, ABOUT SEVENTY-SIX souls."


Acts 27:40 “taken up anchors” or “casting off the anchors”


A certain Bible critic, who himself has NO complete and inerrant Bible in any language he can show us that he really believes is the inerrant words of God, criticizes the King James Bible for how it has translated Acts 27:40.


He says: “Acts 27:40 –The KJV botches this verse by saying that "they had taken up the anchors." This is not at all what occurred. Instead, they cut away the anchors which held them. Their intent was to run up on shore in as light a manner as possible. There was no benefit to be derived from pulling in the immense anchors for this purpose. Further, the KJV uses in the next clause the word "themselves," as if it is speaking of those on the ship committing themselves to whatever the sea would do to them. This is incorrect. The action of committing is referring to the anchors, not to those on the ship. They committed the anchors to the deep, where they would not further encumber the ship.”


Let’s compare the different bible translations and see if this KJB critic is right or not.


A rather simple and logical explanation of why the sailors wanted to keep their anchors on the ship is because in the midst of the roaring sea with the waves crashing against the shore and rolling out again, they wanted to be sure that if it were possible, once they hit the shore they could again cast out the anchors and prevent the ship from being driven back out to sea.


As it was “they ran the ship aground; and the forepart stuck fast, and remained unmovable, but the hinder part was broken with the violence of the waves”, so the anchors were not needed at this time.




Acts 27:40


King James Bible -“And when they had TAKEN UP THE ANCHORS, they committed THEMSELVES unto the sea, and loosed the rudder bands, and hoised up the mainsail to the wind, and made toward shore.”


ESV (ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB and New Jerusalem bible) - “So they CAST OFF THE ANCHORS AND LEFT THEM IN THE SEA,  at the same time loosening the ropes that tied the rudders. Then hoisting the foresail to the wind they made for the beach.”


First, it should be pointed out that just as there is no specific word for “THEMSELVES” in the Greek texts, neither is there a word for “THEM” in these other versions.


Agreeing with the meaning that the sailors “took up the anchors” instead of “casting off the anchors” are the following Bible translations - the Wycliffe Bible 1395 and the 2001 update - “And when they HAD TAKEN UP the anchors, they betook them to the sea”, Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587 - “So when they HAD TAKEN UP the anchors, they committed the ship unto the sea”, the Beza New Testament 1599, Mace N.T. 1729 - “having HEAVED IN their anchors, they drove with the sea”, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, the Worsley Translation 1770, Thomas Haweis N. T. 1795 - “And WEIGHING THE ANCHORS, they committed her to the sea”, Webster’s bible 1833, the Sawyer N.T. 1858, Young’s literal 1898 -“the anchors having taken up”, the Tomson N.T. 2002 - “So when they HAD TAKEN UP THE ANCHORS, they committed the ship unto the sea”, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 - “After TAKING UP THE STERN ANCHORS, they were at the mercy of the sea again”, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Hebrews Transliteration Scriptures 2010, and the New Matthew’s Bible 2016 - “ And when they HAD TAKEN UP the anchors, they committed themselves to the sea”


The Catholic Connection


The previous Douay-Rheims Bible read like the KJB with - “And when they had taken up the anchors, they committed themselves to the sea”, but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read like the ESV, NASB, NKJV, NET and Jehovah Witness NWT.


“They CUT LOOSE THE ANCHORS and abandoned them to the sea” - St. Joseph New American bible 1970.


Foreign Language Bibles


Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB are the Italian Diodati 1649 - “Ed avendo ritratte le ancore”, Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, The Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 - “Y ALZANDO LAS ANCLAS, se dejaron a la mar”, the Spanish Reina Valera Gomez Bible, the French Martin Bible 1744 - “C'est pourquoi ayant retiré les ancres, ils abandonnèrent le navire à la mer”, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Portuguese Almeida Atualizada- “E, levantando as ncoras, deixaram-no ir ao mar”

 



Acts 28:29 "AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE JEWS DEPARTED, AND HAD GREAT REASONING AMONG THEMSELVES."


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta, both of which predate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which omit this whole verse. What is of interest here is that while the NIV, RSV, ESV omit the verse, the NASB put it back in the text in 1977 and again in 1995, whereas from 1960 to 1972 they had omitted it. Now the new Holman Christian Standard version is coming out and it includes the verse while the ISV does not! If you get ten scholars in a room, you will come out with 12 different opinions.


Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm