“Lucifer” or “Day Star” in Isaiah 14:12?

Below is Will Kinney’s take on Isaiah 14:12, reprinted with permission.

I personally know someone who really struggled with calling Jesus and Satan by the same title in the NIV.

That said, most of the commentaries I consulted seemed to agree that the verse is talking about a literal star in the sky and not the fallen angel also known as Satan.

The Geneva Bible says

(h) You who thought yourself most glorious and as it were placed in the heaven for the morning star that goes before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared.

Albert Barnes says

Lucifer – Margin, ‘Day-star’ (הילל  hēylēl, from הלל  hâlal, “to shine”). The word in Hebrew occurs as a noun nowhere else. In two other places Eze_21:12; Zec_11:2, it is used as a verb in the imperative mood of Hiphil, and is translated ‘howl’ from the verb ילל  yālal, “to howl” or “cry.” Gesenius and Rosenmuller suppose that it should be so rendered here. So Noyes renders it, ‘Howl, son of the morning!’ But the common translation seems to be preferable. The Septuagint renders it, Ἑωσφόρος  Heōsphoros, and the Vulgate, ‘Lucifer, the morning star.’ The Chaldee, ‘How art thou fallen from high, who wert splendid among the sons of men.’ There can be no doubt that the object in the eve of the prophet was the bright morning star; and his design was to compare this magnificent oriental monarch with that. The comparison of a monarch with the sun, or the other heavenly bodies, is common in the Scriptures.

John Gill says

How art thou fallen from heaven,…. This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see Luk_10:18 but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon…

O Lucifer, son of the morning! alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, Job_38:7 and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers. The Targum is,

“how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.”

Jarchi, as the Talmud (c), applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation:

Adam Clarke says

O Lucifer, son of the morning – The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל  heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל  heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל  yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, “Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל  halal.

Of the commentaries I consulted, only Matthew Henry (whose opinion is weighty indeed) saw a direct allusion to fallen angels in Isaiah 14:13, the verse following the one in question:

Thou has said in thy heart, like Lucifer, I will ascend into heaven. Here is the language of his vainglory, borrowed perhaps from that of the angels who fell, who not content with their first estate, the post assigned them, would vie with God, and become not only independent of him, but equal with him. Or perhaps it refers to the story of Nebuchadnezzar, who, when he would be more than a man, was justly turned into a brute, Dan_4:30. The king of Babylon here promises himself, [1.] That in pomp and power he shall surpass all his neighbours, and shall arrive at the very height of earthly glory and felicity, that he shall be as great and happy as this world can make him; that is the heaven of a carnal heart, and to that he hopes to ascend, and to be as far above those about him as the heaven is above the earth. Princes are the stars of God, which give some light to this dark world (Mat_24:29); but he will exalt his throne above them all. [2.] That he shall particularly insult over God’s Mount Zion, which Belshazzar, in his last drunken frolic, seems to have had a particular spite against when he called for the vessels of the temple at Jerusalem, to profane them; see Dan_5:2. In the same humour he here said, I will sit upon the mount of the congregation (it is the same word that is used for the holy convocations), in the sides of the north; so Mount Zion is said to be situated, Psa_48:2. Perhaps Belshazzar was projecting an expedition to Jerusalem, to triumph in the ruins of it, at the time when God cut him off. [3.] That he shall vie with the God of Israel, of whom he had indeed heard glorious things, that he had his residence above the heights of the clouds. “But thither,” says he, “will I ascend, and be as great as he; I will be like him whom they call the Most High.” It is a gracious ambition to covet to be like the Most Holy, for he has said, Be you holy, for I am holy; but it is a sinful ambition to aim to be like the Most High, for he has said, He that exalteth himself shall be abased, and the devil drew our first parents in to eat forbidden fruit by promising them that they should be as gods. [4.] That he shall himself be deified after his death, as some of the first founders of the Assyrian monarchy were, and stars had even their names from them. “But,” says he, “I will exalt my throne above them all.” Such as this was his pride, which was the undoubted omen of his destruction.

Methinks this is not a hill to die on, but in any case, here is Will Kinney’s article:


“Lucifer” or “Day Star” in Isaiah 14:12?

 “Lucifer” or “Morning Star” (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?

In Isaiah 14:12 the King James Holy Bible (and MANY others, as we shall soon see) reads: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”

The reason this passage is attacked by the modern bible version proponents is because the NASB, RSV, Holman Standard, NIV, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and many others have translated this section in a VERY different way. Instead of, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER. . .”, they say, “How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR. . .” or “DAY STAR”

The Jehovah Witness New World Translation has: “O how you have fallen from heaven, YOU SHINING ONE, son of the dawn!”

Doug Kutilek, who himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God, and who tells us that regarding the N.T. he accepts neither the Textus Receptus, nor the Westcott-Hort influenced critical texts, but thinks that he needs to evaluate every reading for himself before he decides which readings are right and which are not, (in other words Kutilek is his own authority) thinks he has irrefutable proof that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about the planet Venus.

Mr. Kutilek points out in one of his articles criticizing Lucifer in the KJB that the marginal reading of the King James Bible says: “or, O day star”, and thus, he thinks, the KJB translators were on the side of the modern versions. It should be pointed out that we King James Bible believers do not believe the KJB translators were inspired nor do we believe their own thoughts, their Preface or their own theology was always right.

We believe and defend THE TEXT of the King James Bible as having been guided by God Almighty to give us His perfect words of 100% truth. God overruled the occasional marginal readings and guided them to put in THE TEXT what He wanted to be there. 

The Hebrew does not mean “day star”, and though there is a relationship between the planet Venus and what is called the morning star, the Isaiah passage is actually referring to the fall of Lucifer, who became Satan, and not some planet wanting to be like God.

The only thing the marginal notes show is that among the forty seven plus translators who worked on the King James Bible not all of them were agreed on how to translate numerous words or passages. The marginal notes refer to ideas other translators entertained but which were rejected in the final TEXT.  

You can see many of these marginal notes throughout the whole Bible.  For example, in Isaiah 6:9 we read “Here ye indeed, but understand not” – marginal note “Or, without ceasing“.  Isaiah 9:1 “in Galilee of the nations” – or, populous (Galilee)”; Isaiah 9:16 “the leaders of this people cause them to err” – or, “they that call them blessed“; Isaiah 14:4 “the golden city ceased” – or, “the exactress of gold“; Isaiah 14:9 “stirreth up…all the chief ones of the earth” – or, “the great goats“; and Isaiah 15:7 “to the brook of the willows” – or, “the valley of the Arabians“.  We do not defend the marginal notes, but the words God caused to be placed into the TEXT of the King James Bible as being inspired and 100% true. 

The Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary defines Lucifer as 1. The archangel who led the revolt of the angels and fell from heaven: identified with Satan. and 2. The planet Venus when it appears as the morning star.

 The Hebrew Lexicon by Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2011), p. 190, gives Lucifer as one of the definitions of the Hebrew word Helel.  הֵילֵל

“masculine. the morning star; Lucifer, Isaiah 14:12.  others take it as the imperfect of “to wail, lamen 

Likewise the Latin Dictionary at Latin-Dictionary.net defines the English word Lucifer as meaning “Lucifer, Satan”.

http://latin-dictionary.net/search/english/Lucifer

There are several problems with the translation “O morning star”, but first let me point out that there are as many opinions in Bible commentaries as to who or what is being referred to as there are bible versions. Some absolutely deny that it has anything to do with the fall of Satan.
Others believe this passage refers to the king of Babylon, whom many identify as king Nebuchadnezzar; others believe it refers to Belshazzar, some say it speaks of the Antichrist, and others as the kingdom of Babylon itself.
Amazingly, some even support the idea that it was the planet Venus that wanted to be like God and will be cast down to hell.

Many others see Isaiah 14:12 as referring to the Satanic spiritual power behind the king and kingdom of Babylon. There is little agreement among scholars as to who or what is being addressed in this passage or how to translate it.

The problem with the translation, “MORNING STAR” (#1966- haylale), is that the words “morning” and “star” are not found here in ANY Hebrew text. (Morning is #1242- boker and star is #3556- kokawb)

The word for star IS found in verse 13, where it says: “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.” The two words, morning and star, are found together in Job 38:7, where God is asking Job in verse 4, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?. . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” This might be a reference to the angels who rejoiced at God’s creation, or the “morning stars” that sang may well be an anthropomorphism of the first created literal stars “singing”. God also describes mountains and hills as singing and trees of the field clapping their hands (See Isaiah 55:12).

Another serious problem with rendering this word (#1966 Haylale) as “morning star” is that Jesus Christ himself is called the morning star in Rev. 22:16 where he says: “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” The NIV and NASB make it possible to identify Satan with Jesus Christ. I believe this is Lucifer’s ultimate game plan and that the new versions have taken a giant step forward in advancing Satan’s deception.

In fact, if you take a look at the notes on Isaiah 14:12 in the Amplified bible (put out by the same people who gave us the NASB), you will find the following “explanation”. It says: “‘Light-bringer’ or ‘Shining one’ was originally translated Lucifer, but because of the association of that name with Satan it is not now used. Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. Lucifer, the light-bringer is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word Phosphoros, which is used as a title of Christ in 2 Peter 1:19 and corresponds to the name ‘bright Morning Star’ in Revelation 22:16, which Jesus called Himself.”

The word translated as Lucifer in the KJB occurs only once in the Hebrew, just as the word Lucifer occurs only once in the Holy Bible. It is a noun and it comes from a very interesting verb #1984 hawlal. This verb is used many times and has many very different meanings including: “to shine, to be foolish, to boast, to glory, to praise, and to be mad (insane or crazy)”.

Isn’t it interesting that Satan boasts and glories in his wisdom and power, wants to receive praise as god, shines as an angel of light to deceive, and his madness in wanting to be like the most High is ultimately the height of foolishness?

Some Bible critics get a bee in their bonnets about the translation Lucifer and they claim this is merely a Latin word, and they ask why does the King James Bible have a Latin translation in it.  This is a really silly objection if you think about it.  In 382 A.D. Jerome translated from the Hebrew into Latin and he believed Lucifer (bearing light) was the best translation to depict who this entity was that wanted to be like God and fell from heaven.   

In 425 the Latin Vulgate did the same and later on the Latin Clementine version did likewise.  The 2005 electronic edition of the Latin Clementine reads this way: Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris?”  You can see this Latin translation online here –

 http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html

Numerous other Bible translators agree. If you begin to criticize the Latin, you get yourself into all kinds of problems.  Numerous words found in the English language come directly from Latin.  In the Bible we get such words as justice = Latin iustitiam; justify and justification; sacrifice = sarificium; sanctify and sanctification; cross = crucem; saint= sancti; propitiation, and revelation = revelationis, to name but a very few.  

Yet not one of these English words looks anything remotely like the literal Hebrew and Greek words in the texts from which we get our English translations.  The Latin gave us many good words that eventually were carried over into English.

 The Greek Septuagint and Modern Greek Today

It is also highly significant that the so called Greek Septuagint (LXX) also agrees with the reading of Lucifer.  In the common copy of what is know as the Greek Septuagint, the Isaiah passage reads: πως επεσεν εκ του ουρανου, ο Εωσφορε” and the English translation is “How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven.” There are also at least three English translations of the Septuagint or Siniaticus copies, and all three of them translate it as Lucifer. The Septuagint Bible of 1954 by C.A. Muses and  the Old Testament According to the Septuagint of 2009 – “How is LUCIFER fallen from heaven, that rose up in the morning!” The Septuagint online English translation can be see here

– http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Esaias/index.htm

 where it says:  “How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven!” In addition to this there are The Septuagint Bible of 1954 by A.C. Muses, and the 2009 Old Testament According to the Septuagint.  Then there is the modern Greek meaning of the word Εωσφορε.  

I have in my study a modern day Greek-English dictionary. It is called Divry’s Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary, published by D. C. Divry, Inc. Publishers New York 1974.  If you look under the English Lucifer page 182 you get Εωσφορε, and if you look up the word Εωσφορε on page 523 (the same Greek word found in all copies of the Greek Septuagint) you get the English word Lucifer.

There is also an online English to Greek Dictionary. Simply go to the site – http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon  Then type in the word Lucifer and what you come up with in Greek is this same word  Εωσφορε that is found in the Septuagint translations and the Modern Greek Old Testament too.

The reasons I believe the King James Bible reading of Lucifer is correct are many. First, if this passage is not referring to the fall of Satan, also known as the dragon, the old serpent, the devil, leviathan, Beelzebub, etc., then we have no account in Scripture as to how he, who was originally created by God as good, became what he is today.

In I Timothy 3:6 we are told that a bishop should not be a novice “lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” We are also told that Satan wishes to be worshiped. We see in the temptation in the wilderness that he came to Jesus Christ and said: “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” Where are this desire to be like the most High God and the pride that resulted in his condemnation recorded in the Scriptures except here in Isaiah 14:12-15? The fall of Satan is not found anywhere else in the whole Bible except here.

Secondly, I disagree with those that argue that only the king of Babylon is being referred to in Isaiah 14:12 and not the fall of Satan. Many say it refers to king Nebuchadnezzar. A big problem with this view is that Nebuchadnezzar became a worshiper of the true God and his miraculous conversion is recorded in Daniel chapter 4. Nebuchadnezzar will not “be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit”, but rather will be with the Lord Jesus Christ and his redeemed for all eternity.  Another problem is that if the passage refers to an earthly king, then how did he get into heaven from whence he fell?

Thirdly, I and many others believe that Lucifer or Satan’s fall is recorded here, and that he, the devil, was the real spiritual power behind the kingdom of Babylon. Babylon also appears prominently again in the book of Revelation as the kingdom of the beast and both are spiritually empowered by Satan and his devils.

David Guzik’s commentary notes (Caps are mine): “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Here, the prophet identifies the king of Babylon as Lucifer, son of the morning. Some debate if Lucifer is a name or a title… The prophetic habit of speaking to both a near and a distant fulfillment, the prophet will sometimes speak more to the near or more to the distant. HERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF ISAIAH SPEAKING MORE TO THE DISTANT, ULTIMATE FULFILLMENT. It is true that the king of literal Babylon shined brightly among the men of his day, and fell as hard and as completely as if a man were to fall from heaven. BUT THERE WAS A FAR MORE BRIGHTLY SHINING BEING WHO INHABITED HEAVEN, AND FELL EVEN MORE DRAMATICALLY – THE KING OF SPIRITUAL BABYLON, SATAN.”

The 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible has a note on “O Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12 that says, “O Lucifer. . .O day star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon. It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God.” 

Likewise, E.W. Bullinger notes in his well known Companion Bible In Isaiah 14:12, ‘Lucifer = Morning star. Is worshipped by the Assyrians as male at sunrise, female at sunset. And is a name of Satan’, this is according to the work of E.W. Bullinger. See also verse 13, in that context, “the north”, ‘this helps us to localize the dwelling place of God. No “Semitic conception”, but Divine revelation of Him Who knows what Satan “said in his heart.” ‘ Cp. Ps. 75.6 , Job 26.7. (E.W. B.)

Bible teacher and Commentary writer Harry A. Ironside writes in his Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah – “These words cannot apply to any mere mortal man. Lucifer (the light-bearer) is a created angel of the very highest order, identical with the covering cherub of Ezekiel 28. He was, apparently, the greatest of all the angel host and was perfect before God until he fell through pride. It was his ambition to take the throne of Deity for himself and become the supreme ruler of the universe.

Note his five “I wills.” It was the assertion of the creature’s will in opposition to the will of the Creator that brought about his downfall, and so an archangel became the devil! Cast down from the place of power and favor which he had enjoyed, he became the untiring enemy of God and man, and down through the millennia since has exerted every conceivable device to ruin mankind and rob God of the glory due to His name.

It is of him our Lord speaks in John 8:44. The Lord there shows that Satan is an apostate, having fallen from a position once enjoyed, and we know from other Scriptures how he ever goes about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. The Cross was the precursor of Satan’s doom, but he is determined to wreak his vengeance upon mankind so far as he can before his own final judgment takes place, because his heart is filled with hatred against God and against those whom God loves.

We know from other passages that Lucifer was not alone in his rebellion (II Peter 2:4), and our Lord speaks of “the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), and this is confirmed in Revelation 12:7, where we read of the coming war in heaven between Michael and his angels, and the dragon and his.” (End on notes from Harry Ironside)

Commentator Dr. Henry M. Morris states: “Although the prophecy in Isaiah 14 is directed toward the earthly king of Babylon, here it goes far beyond him (he could never fall from heaven) to the wicked spirit possessing his body and inspiring his actions. Just as Satan possessed and used the serpent’s body in Eden, so he does here with Babylon’s king…”

Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 382, Against Eunomius, Book I, chapter 22: “as the Scripture says in the description of the fall of the morning star, the mysteries on which subject are revealed by our Lord to His disciples: “I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven.”

A.D. 400 – The Apology of Rufinus, Book I, chapter 34 (“Principalities and Powers”): “the Apostle means by these expressions the rebellious angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who once was the morning star, over whom in the end of the age the saints must sit with Christ…the rebellious angels and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who once was the morning star”

Jonathan Edwards, (circa 1750) Volume II, Miscellaneous Discourses, XI. Miscellaneous Observations, II. Fall of the Angels: “This angel, before his fall, was the chief of all the angels, of greatest natural capacity, strength, and wisdom, and highest in honour and dignity, the brightest of all those stars of heaven, as is signified by what is said of him, under that type of him, the king of Babylon, Isa. xiv. 12. “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

Charles H. Spurgeon, in a sermon delivered on January 10th, 1864, said “We can scarcely think that all devils are Satans. There seems to be one chief arch-spirit, one great Diabolus, who is an accuser of the brethren-one mighty Lucifer, who fell down from heaven and has become the prince of the powers of darkness. In all his hosts it is probable that there is not his like. He stands first and chief of those fallen morning stars; the rest of the spirits may stand in different grades of wickedness, a hierarchy of hell.”

Even some non KJB only preachers see this passage as referring to Lucifer and Satan.  These are the 1999 notes from Fullerton Calvary Chapel, Rich Cathers, Commentary Sermon Notes on Isaiah –

Satan’s Boast  12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Lucifer – the name is Latin for “morning star” (or, “light bearer”). The Hebrew word used here is heylel – shining one, morning star, Lucifer. This is the only place this specific Hebrew word is found, and it comes from another Hebrew word, halal, meaning to shine; to praise, boast, be boastful. The term “morning star” is used to describe angels (Job 38:7), and Jesus (Rev. 22:16).

The morning star is actually the planet Venus. It shines brightly for a short time in the early morning, but soon fades with the rising of the sun.

Why I believe this also refers to Satan, the power behind the king of Babylon:

1. There are angelic beings (both good and bad) which seem to be connected with earthly, political persons.
a. In Daniel 10, Daniel meets the angel Gabriel, who describes having been in a war with the “prince of the kingdom of Persia”, apparently a title of a demonic spirit which was in charge of the kingdom of Persia, perhaps even in charge of the king of Persia.
b. We have another passage similar to the one here in Isaiah, in Eze. 28:12-20, where a word is given to the “king of Tyre”. At first he seems to be talking to a human, but there comes a point where suddenly things sound different. This “king” is described as having been in the garden of Eden (Eze. 28:13), and being the “anointed cherub that covers” which is a term describing an angel (Eze. 28:14). Again, the idea is that at a particular point, the prophecy turns and addresses the angel behind the person.

2. There are just too many telltale signs that this is Satan:

a. vs.12 – “Fallen from heaven” supposes that the person was in heaven. Satan is in heaven accusing us. (Job 1:6; Rev. 12:10)
b. vs.12 – Satan can be an “angel of light”:
(2 Cor 11:13-15 KJV) For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. {14} And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. {15} Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
c. vs.12 – Satan loves to imitate Jesus and deceive people. Jesus is the “morning star” (Rev. 22:16; Mat. 24:5; Rev. 13:2).
d. vs.12 – Jesus referred to seeing Satan falling from heaven (Luke 10:18), and one day Satan will be cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:10).
e. vs.14 – Satan wants to take God’s place in having everyone worship him. He even tried getting Jesus to worship him (Mat. 4:8-10).
f. vs.15 – Satan will one day be thrown into a bottomless pit (Rev. 20:2) and then later thrown forever into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10).

:13 I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
stars of God – a term used to describe angels (Job 38:7)
:13 upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north
mount of the congregation – refers to Mount Zion, the place where God had His temple built, the place where He would meet with His people.
the sides of the north – the side of the mountain that the temple was on.
The Antichrist, who will be empowered by Satan (Rev. 13:2), will one day set up his throne in the temple and demand to be worshipped as God (2Th. 2:4).
:14 I will be like the most High  (end of notes from Rich Cathers)

David Guzik’s commentary on the Bible – a. How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Here, the prophet identifies the king of Babylon as Lucifer, son of the morning. Some debate if Lucifer is a name or a title; the word means morning star or day star, referring to a brightly shining object in the heavens. Whether it is a title or a name makes little difference; this once brightly shining king of Babylon is now fallen from heaven.

i. The prophetic habit of speaking to both a near and a distant fulfillment, the prophet will sometimes speak more to the near or more to the distant. Here is a good example of Isaiah speaking more to the distant, ultimate fulfillment. It is true that the king of literal Babylon shined brightly among the men of his day, and fell as hard and as completely as if a man were to fall from heaven. But there was a far more brightly shining being who inhabited heaven, and fell even more dramatically – the king of spiritual Babylon, Satan.

b. Fallen from heaven: In fact there are four falls of Satan, and this refers to his final, fourth fall.

i. Satan fell from glorified to profane (Ezekiel 28:14-16). This is what Jesus spoke of in Luke 10:18 when He says He saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. This is the only fall of Satan that has already happened.

ii. Satan will fall from having access to heaven (Job 1:121 Kings 22:21,Zechariah 3:1) to restriction on the earth (Revelation 12:9).

iii. Satan will fall from his place on the earth to bondage in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3).

iv. Finally, as mentioned here in Isaiah 14:12, Satan will fall from the bottomless pit to the lake of fire, which we commonly know as hell (Revelation 20:10). 

Smith’s Bible Dictionary of 1901 says regarding the name Lucifer: “Its application, from St. Jerome downward, to Satan in his fall from heaven arises probably from the fact that the Babylonian empire is in Scripture represented as the type of tyrannical and self idolizing power, and especially connected with the empire of the Evil One in the Apocalypse.”

Revelation 18:2 says: “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit…”, and very significantly we read in Revelation 13: 1-2, “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having SEVEN HEADS and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a LION, and THE DRAGON GAVE HIM HIS POWER, and his seat, and great authority.”

I understand this beast which has 7 heads and 10 horns to be a combination of the four world powers depicted in the book of Daniel, of which the king of Babylon was the lion and one of the 7 heads mentioned. In the book of Revelation we see that the dragon gave him his power. Satan himself is the spiritual power behind the kingdom of the beast and he finally gets the worship he has always wanted – “And they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast…” Revelation 13:4.

Fourthly, many Bible critics say Lucifer is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and that the KJB has been responsible for this misconception and confusion. It should be pointed out that the KJB is not the first or the only Bible version to so understand and translate this passage in Isaiah 14:12.

All English Bibles before the KJB of 1611 also have the word LUCIFER in them. This includes Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale’s 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible (John Rogers) 1549,  Bishop’s Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599 – “How art thou fallen from heauen, O LUCIFER, sonne of the morning?”.

Lucifer is also found in the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D., the Douay-Rheims of 1582 – “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER”, the Douay 1950 Catholic bible.

BUT the more modern Catholic versions like the Jerusalem Bible and the St. Joseph New American Bible now agree with the NIV, NASB, RSV versions and have “morning star”.  However the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has now gone back to reading “Lucifer”.  You can see this 2009 Bible translation here

– http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm 

Lucifer is also the reading found in The Bill Bible 1671, The Thomson Bible 1808, Daniel Webster’s 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Brenton Translation 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby’s 1890 version, The American Translation 1927, The Word of Yah 1993, God’s First Truth 1999, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2012 Natural Israelite Version -“How you are fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!”, the Jubilee Bible 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 – “how are you fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER.”, the BRG Bible 2012 and the Modern English Bible 2014 – “How are you fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!”

The 2008 Ancient Roots Translinear Bible – “How you fell from the heavens, LUCIFER, son of the daylight!  You smashed to the ground, feeble over the nations.”

This Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament – “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!”

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Isaiah%2014:12 

Hebrew Roots Bible 2012 – “Oh LUCIFER, son of the morning, how you have fallen from the heavens2!”  Footnote – “Showing the downfall of Satan.”

The Asser Septuagint version 2009 – “How is LUCIFER fallen from heaven, that rose up in the morning! ” 

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm

The Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bbile both say Lucifer – “Cum ai căzut din cer, LUCIFER, fiu al dimineţii”  as well as the 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras read Lucifer – “¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh LUCIFER, hijo de la mañana!” Lucifer is also the reading of the 2004 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, that can be seen here

http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/RVGhtml/index.html  

 It says: ¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh LUCIFER, hijo de la mañana! Cortado fuiste por tierra, tú que debilitabas las naciones.” Czech Kralika (1613) lucifere; the Albanian Bible – “Vallë, si ke rënë nga qielli, o LUCIFER.  The New Italian Diodati of 1991, as well as the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana version read: “Come mai sei caduto dal cielo, o LUCIFERO“. The Portuguese O Livro of 2000 also reads the same with – “Como caíste do céu, ó LUCIFER – estrela matinal!”. The Russian Synodal Version also reads Lucifer – “Как упал ты с неба, денница, сын зари!” = “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”, the Lithuanian Bible – “Kaip tu iškritai iš dangaus, LIUCIFERI, ryto aušros sūnau?”,   The French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy also reads Lucifer – “Comment es-tu tombé du ciel. LUCIFER, toi qui paroissois si brillant au point du jour?” 

Lucifer is also the reading in the 1982 NKJV, the 21st Century KJV 1994, The Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible 1855,  the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version, the Knox Bible ‘You’ Version 2009, The Septuagint Bible of 1954 by C.A. Muses, the Old Testament According to the Septuagint of 2009 – “How is LUCIFER fallen from heaven, that rose up in the morning!“-  

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/pdf/ot/isaiah.pdf  and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Ryrie’s Scofield bible and Dakes annotated bible make reference to the fact that many early church fathers (among these Tertullian 160-220 A.D., Origen 185-254 A. D., and Gregory the Great), saw the passage in Isaiah 14 as referring to the fall of Satan. The idea that the passage refers to the fall of Satan did NOT originate with Jerome (384 A.D), though he also believed this. Tertullian lived almost 200 years before Jerome, and he held this view.

Bible versions that contain the Scofield notes, including the NIV Scofield edition, say regarding the Lucifer of Isaiah 14:12: “Verses 12-14 evidently refer to Satan, who, as prince of this world-system (See Scofield “Revelation 13:8) is the real unseen ruler of the successive world- powers. Tyre, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. (see Ezekiel 28:12-14) Lucifer, “day-star,” can be none other that Satan. This tremendous passage marks the beginning of sin in the universe. When Lucifer said, “I will,” sin began.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says: “The Church Fathers interpreted the words of Jesus in Luke 10:18, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven,” as a reference to this passage in Isaiah, so that “Lucifer” came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall.”

The Random House 1999 Webster’s dictionary gives the following definitions of Lucifer. The first one listed is “a proud rebellious archangel, identified with Satan, who fell from heaven.” The second one is: “the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star.” Of these two, I don’t think it was the planet Venus that wanted to be like God and exalt its throne above the stars of God, do you?  

Notes from the Internet

On one of the internet Bible clubs I belong to, I was discussing this passage with another Christian who said Lucifer was a bad translation of the Hebrew text. Here is part of our dialogue.

“My aim has not been to argue that the Isaiah text is irrelevant to our understanding of Satan’s downfall: we’re probably not so far apart as it sometimes seems. Whilst “Lucifer” is a bad translation of heylel in Is 14:12 it is actually a good exposition of the text from a biblical-theological perspective. Since our discussions here usually focus on the questions of translation we often miss the fact that we’re largely in agreement doctrinally.” (end of statement)

(My response) “Well, I’m glad we tend to see this passage in a similar way doctrinally, but I would disagree with you that Lucifer is a bad translation. We know that one of the primary meanings of the verb from which Hehlel is derived is “to shine”. Lucifer literally means “light bearing or light bearer”. The other passage that traditionally speaks of Satan is Ezekiel 28:12-19.

First the prince of Tyrus is addressed, then beginning with verse 12 the king of Tyrus is spoken to. The king seems to be the spiritual power behind the earthly prince. This “king” is also called the anointed cherub that covereth who was in the mountain of God. He was also in the garden of Eden. Part of his description is being covered with many precious stones and gold. He walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire, and verse 17 says: “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness”. Apparently this covering cherub was resplendent and reflected bright lights and colors – thus “light bearer” or Lucifer.

Many Christians have thought that the reason God made two cherubs facing each other over the mercy seat, was to provide an object lesson about pride. Lucifer was the only one of his kind before his fall. He was lifted up because of his beauty. So as an object lesson, God creates two cherubs facing each other. They can “see” that there is another one just like them and they are not so special or unique.

Lucifer or Light bearer fits perfectly because Satan was a very bright, beautiful, light reflecting creature before his fall, and he now transforms himself into an angel of light to deceive.

Those that say, like the NKJV footnote, that the Hebrew reads literally “morning star” are simply making this up (that is a kind way of saying they are lying). As you know, the words “morning star” are used in other places in Scripture, but not here in Isaiah 14:12. So I would say that the name Lucifer in Isaiah is exactly what it should be; it is an excellent translation.” (end of response)

Lucifer seems to be the personal name of this powerful spiritual entity who wants to be like the most High God and he is also known as Satan and the devil. A host of modern dictionaries and encyclopedias, including Webster’s 1999 edition, Word Net. Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Wordsmyth English Dictionary, and Encyclopedia Com. all define Lucifer as Satan and the devil. This is not a new doctrine, nor is it an old one that has passed out of favor.

Another objection I have heard raised against understanding Isaiah 14:12 as referring to the fall of Satan is this. Some have pointed to verse 16 where those who witness this fall say: “Is this THE MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms…that opened not the house of his prisoners?” They then ask How is it possible to call Satan A MAN?

Initially this might seem like a good point, but if you read The Bible more carefully you will also see that God Himself is called a MAN, and the angels, and Satan too. In Exodus 15:3 Moses and the children of Israel sing a song of deliverance saying: “The LORD is A MAN of war; the LORD is his name.” The Hebrew word “man” is in the text and is so rendered by the RV, ASV, ESV, NKJV and many others, though the NASB, NIV have paraphrased this as “The Lord is a warrior”.

Angels as well are referred to as “men” in the Scriptures. In Genesis 18-19 we see three MEN come to Abraham. Two of them are angels as seen from 19:1 and one of them is God. Yet they are called “men” several times in these two chapters. See Genesis 18:2,16,22; and 19:1,10,12 and 16.

Then in the New Testament, Mark 2:22-27 the Lord Jesus talks about casting out Satan and says: “No man can enter into a strong MAN’S house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong MAN; and then he will spoil his house.’

I have also recently heard another argument brought forth by a bible agnostic who openly admits that he does not believe that any Bible in any language is the infallible words of God. He tries to defend the modern version reading found in some translations like the ESV “O Day Star” or the NASB “O Star of the morning” or the NIV 1984 edition “O morning star” by pointing to Job 38:7 where it says: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”. 

He then proceeds to build his argument that the name of “morning star” was not exclusive to Jesus Christ and that to call Satan, or the king of Babylon or whoever is being talked about in Isaiah 14 is not a bad thing or giving the title of our Lord to Satan. 

On the surface this argument may seem to have some weight, but we should consider the following.  The “morning stars” and “the sons of God” spoken of in Job 38 DO seem to be angelic beings.  However there is a difference between “the sons of God” and “the Son of God”. There are many “sons of God” both human and angelic, but only one Son of God.  Likewise there is only one Lucifer. 

The phrase in the new versions in Isaiah 14:12 like “O Day Star” or “O Star of the morning” seem to imply a uniqueness, that is, there is only one of these.  Yet Jesus Christ refers to Himself as “the morning star” in Revelation 22:16 when He says: “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”  He does not say “I am A morning star” but “THE morning star”. There is only one who is separate from all others and unique in His being, just as there are many “sons of God” but only one “the Son of God”. 

I have also heard the argument given by the bible agnostics that it is not a legitimate translation to take a literal word like Helel and translate it as a personal name like Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12.  What I then point out to bible agnostics like this is that their own bible versions do this very thing in Acts 14:12 where their own bible versions say “And they called Barnabas JUPITER”. There is NO Greek text that says anything even remotely like “Jupiter” but all Greek texts have the literal words: ἐκάλουν τε τὸν Βαρνάβαν Δία.  It is this last word Dia that they all translate as a personal name “Jupiter”.  So, once again, his argument falls to the ground.

Those who attack the King James Bible and say that we who believe and defend it are not using the facts, may not be aware that there are many differing scholarly opinions and Bible versions, and many of them agree with the King James Bible.

Those who criticize the KJB do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant words of God. They have no final authority as to what are the true words of God and are left to their own changeable opinions and preferences.

The King James Bible is the perfect word of the living God. It alone, like the incarnate Word of God of Whom it testifies, is the faithful and true witness.

Will Kinney

Early Church writers’ testimony to the fall of Lucifer as recorded in Isaiah 14:12

(A special thanks to brother Mark Lamb for this information)

“LUCIFER” and “SON OF THE MORNING” Only appear in Isa 14:12.

Nowhere else can this name or title be found in the Bible.

Patristic Evidentiary Support for the Genuineness of the above Passage

The Early Church Fathers 38 Vol. Set WordSearch Add-On

182-254 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 4 – ORIGEN – Origen de Principiis. – Book 1. – Chapter 5. On Rational Natures.

5. Again, we are taught as follows BY THE PROPHET ISAIAH regarding another opposing power. THE PROPHET SAYS, “HOW IS LUCIFER, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven! He who assailed all nations is broken and beaten to the ground. Thou indeed saidst in thy heart, I shall ascend into heaven; above the stars of heaven shall I place my throne; I shall sit upon a lofty mountain, above the lofty mountains which are towards the north; I shall ascend above the clouds; I shall be like the Most High. Now shalt thou be brought down to the lower world, and to the foundations of the earth. They who see thee shall be amazed at thee, and shall say, This is the man who harassed the whole earth, who moved kings, who made the whole world a desert, who destroyed cities, and did not unloose those who were in chains. All the kings of the nations have slept in honour, every one in his own house; but thou shalt be cast forth on the mountains, accursed with the many dead who have been pierced through with swords, and have descended to the lower world. As a garment cloned with blood, and stained, will not be clean; neither shall thou be clean, because thou hast destroyed my land and slain my people: thou shall not remain for ever, most wicked seed. Prepare thy sons for death on account of the sins of thy father, lest they rise again and inherit the earth, and fill the earth with wars. And I shall rise against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and I shall cause their name to perish, and their remains, and their seed.”[11]

ISA 14:12-22. Most evidently BY THESE WORDS IS HE SHOWN TO HAVE FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, WHO FORMERLY WAS LUCIFER, AND WHO USED TO ARISE IN THE MORNING. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is LUCIFER said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, “Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.”[12] Luke 10:18. For at one time he was light.

 170-236 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 5 – HIPPOLYTUS – The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus. – Part II. Dogmatical and Historical. – Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, SON OF THE MORNING![48] He is cast down to the ground who sends off to all the nations. possess my land.”[50] … ISA 14:4-21.

182-254 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 9 – ORIGEN – Epistle to Gregory and Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John. – Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John. – Book 1. – The Angels Also are Evangelists. But the angels also wonder at the peace which is to be brought about on account of Jesus on the earth, that seat of war, on which LUCIFER, STAR OF THE MORNING, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus.

354-430 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – First Series – Volume 2 – ST. AUGUSTIN: City of God – City of God – Book XI – Chapter 15 – The Devil Sinneth from the Beginning.

“HOW ART THOU FALLEN, O LUCIFER, SON OF THE MORNING!”[3] ISA 14:12.

354-430 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – First Series – Volume 2 – St. AUGUSTIN: – On Christian Doctrine – Book III – Chapter 37 – The Seventh Rule of Tichonius.

For example, what is said in ISAIAH, “HOW HE IS FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, LUCIFER, SON OF THE MORNING!”[1]

ISA 14:12 (LXX.). “HOW ART THOU FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, O LUCIFER, SON OF THE MORNING!” (A.V.).

354-430 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – First Series – Volume 7 – St. AUGUSTIN: – Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John. – Tractate III – Chapter I. 15-18.

Listen to the voice of the Father to the Son: “Before LUCIFER I have begotten Thee.”[12] Ps 110:3.—Vulgate. He who was begotten before LUCIFER Himself illuminates all. A certain one was named LUCIFER, WHO FELL; for he was an angel and became a devil; and concerning him the Scripture said, “LUCIFER, WHO DID ARISE IN THE MORNING, FELL.”[13] ISA 14:27. And why was he LUCIFER? Because, being enlightened, he gave forth light. But for what reason did he become dark! Because he abode not in the truth.[14] John 8:44. Therefore He was before LUCIFER, before every one that is enlightened; since before every one that is enlightened, of necessity He must be by whom all are enlightened who can be enlightened.

296-373 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 4 – ATHANASIUS: Select Works and Letters – Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) – Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) – Discourse III

For they would not have remained in their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for instance, who did not remain, but went astray, heard the words, ‘HOW ART THOU FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, O LUCIFER, SON OF THE MORNING [6] IS 14:12.?’ But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom?

335-394 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 5 – GREGORY OF NYSSA: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. – Prolegomena. – His General Character as a Theologian. An Epitome of all Philosophers.

He was ‘AS THE ANGELS’ AND IF HE FELL, LUCIFER FELL TOO.

347-420 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 6 – St. JEROME: Letters and Select Works – The Letters of St. Jerome. – Letter XV – To Pope Damasus.

In the West the Sun of righteousness[9] Mal 4:2. is even now rising; in the East, LUCIFER, WHO FELL FROM HEAVEN,[10] Luke 10:18. has once more set his throne above the stars.[11] ISA 14:12.

347-420 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 6 – St. JEROME: Letters and Select Works – The Letters of St. Jerome. – Letter XXII – To Eustochium.

LUCIFER FELL, LUCIFER WHO USED TO RISE AT DAWN;[35] ISA 14:12. and he who was bred up in a paradise of delight had the well-earned sentence passed upon him, “Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord.”[36] Obad 4. For he had said in his heart, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God,” and “I will be like the Most High.”[37] Isa 14:13-14.

347-420 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 6 – St. JEROME: Letters and Select Works – Treatises. – Against Jovinianus. – Book II

LUCIFER FELL who was sending to all nations, and he who was nurtured in a paradise of delight as one of the twelve precious stones, was wounded and went down to hell from the mount of God. Hence the Saviour says in the Gospel: “I beheld SATAN FALLING as lightning from heaven.” If HE FELL who stood on so sublime a height, who may not fall? If there are falls in heaven, how much more on earth! And yet though LUCIFER BE FALLEN (the old serpent after his fall), “his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly.

330-390 A.D.Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 7 – GREGORY NAZIANZEN – Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen. – Oration XXVIII – The Second Theological Oration.

Or perhaps it is in order that we may not share the fate of LUCIFER, WHO FELL, and in consequence of receiving the full light make our necks stiff against the Lord Almighty, and suffer a fall, of all things most pitiable, from the height we had attained.

330-390 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 7 – GREGORY NAZIANZEN – Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen. – Oration XXXVIII – On the Theophany, or Birthday of Christ.

I am obliged to stop short of saying that, and to conceive and speak of them only as difficult to move because of him, who for his splendour WAS CALLED LUCIFER, BUT BECAME AND IS CALLED DARKNESS THROUGH HIS PRIDE;

330-390 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 7 – GREGORY NAZIANZEN – Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen. – Oration XLV – The Second Oration on Easter. 

“because of him who for His Splendour WAS CALLED LUCIFER, BUT BECAME AND IS CALLED DARKNESS THROUGH HIS PRIDE; and the Apostate Hosts who are subject to him, creators of evil by their revolt against good, and our inciters.”

329-379 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 8 – BASIL: Letters and Select Works – The Letters. – To a lapsed Monk.

you were demonstrating and explaining the chastisement of God, and you yourself brought chastisement on your own head. How am I to lament you, how grieve for you? HOW IS LUCIFER THAT WAS

RISING IN THE MORNING FALLEN AND DASHED ON THE GROUND? Both the ears of every hearer will tingle. How is the Nazarite, brighter than gold, become dark above pitch?

360-435 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 11 – JOHN CASSIAN – The Works of John Cassian. – The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults. – Book XII. Of the Spirit of Pride. – Chapter IV. How by reason OF PRIDE LUCIFER WAS TURNED FROM AN ARCHANGEL INTO A DEVIL.

And that we may understand the power of its awful tyranny we see that that angel who, for the greatness of his splendour and beauty WAS TERMED LUCIFER, WAS CAST OUT OF HEAVEN for no other sin but this, and, pierced with the dart of pride, was hurled down from his grand and exalted position as an angel into hell. If then pride of heart alone was enough to CAST DOWN FROM HEAVEN to earth a power that was so great and adorned with the attributes of such might, THE VERY GREATNESS OF HIS FALL shows us with what care we who are surrounded by the weakness of the flesh ought to be on our guard. But we can learn how to avoid the most deadly poison of this evil if we trace out the origin and causes of HIS FALL. For weakness can never be cured, nor the remedies for bad states of health be disclosed unless first their origin and causes are investigated by a wise scrutiny. For as he (viz., LUCIFER) was endowed with divine splendour, and shone forth among the other higher powers by the bounty of his Maker’

360-435 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 11 – JOHN CASSIAN – The Works of John Cassian. – The Conferences of John Cassian. Part I. Containing Conferences I-X. – Conference V. Conference of Abbot Serapion. On the Eight Principal Faults. – Chapter VII. How vainglory and pride can be consummated without any assistance from the body.

Or what act on the part of the body was there in that pride of old in the case of the above mentioned LUCIFER; as he only conceived it in his heart and mind, as the prophet tells us: “WHO SAIDST IN THINE HEART: I WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN, I WILL SET MY THRONE ABOVE THE STARS OF GOD. I WILL ASCEND ABOVE THE HEIGHTS OF THE CLOUDS, I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH.”[1] IS 14:13-14. And just as he had no one to stir him up to this pride, so his thoughts alone were the authors of the sin when complete and of his eternal fall; especially as no exercise of the dominion at which he aimed followed.

360-435 A.D. Early Church Fathers – Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers – Second Series – Volume 11 – JOHN CASSIAN – The Works of John Cassian. – The Conferences of John Cassian. Part I. Containing Conferences I-X. – Conference VIII. The Second Conference of Abbot Serenus. On Principalities. – Chapter VIII. OF THE FALL OF THE DEVIL and the angels.

“And so we are clearly shown that out of that number of them some of THE LEADERS FELL, by the lamentations of Ezekiel and ISAIAH, in which we know that the prince of Tyre or that LUCIFER WHO ROSE IN THE MORNING is lamented with a doleful plaint: …

And thy heart was lifted up with thy beauty: thou hast lost thy wisdom in thy beauty, I HAVE CAST THEE TO THE GROUND: I have set thee before the face of kings, that they might behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thy iniquities and by the iniquity of thy traffic.”[1] Ezek 28:11-18. ISAIAH ALSO SAYS OF ANOTHER: “HOW ART THOU FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, O LUCIFER, WHO DIDST RISE IN THE MORNING? HOW ART THOU FALLEN TO THE GROUND, that didst wound the nations? and thou saidst in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will be like the Most High.”[2] IS 14:12-14.

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

See also John Hinton’s article on Lucifer vs.  morning star, which does a good job of explaining the meaning of Lucifer and the implications of mistranslating this as “morning star”

http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_version_defence_morning_star.htm 

See a very good article on this subject at KJV Today

“Lucifer” or “Day Star” in Isaiah 14:12

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/lucifer-or-day-star-in-isaiah-1412

Notes from the Internet

Objection:

– A Bible agnostic posts:

“Morning star is ONLY for Jesus? Then the KJV blasphemes in Job 38:7. It implies multiple Jesuses.
Why doesn’t the KJV want only one Jesus?”

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (end of objection)

Then a fellow Bible believer responds: You folks really think you threw a “GOTCHA!!!!!” monkey wrench for the KJ Bible believers eh?

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Numbers 24:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.

Notice the passage where the Lord Jesus Christ calls himself “the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” This is a fulfillment of Numbers 24:17

Let’s read your passage again:

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Morning stars/stars = angels

Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Look again:

Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Morning stars of Job 38:7 = angels!!

the bright and morning star = the Lord Jesus Christ!!

Nothing like a King James Bible to straighten things out, eh?” (end of comments by the fellow King James Bible believer)

Additional Notes:

There are many “morning stars” (Job 38:9) that are angles, but there is only ONE THE morning star – Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

There were many “angels” but there is only ONE THE angel of the LORD, who is the Son of God.

There are many “sons of God” but there is only ONE THE Son of God.

There were many “high priests” but there is only ONE The High Priest – Hebrews 3:1

There were many “apostles” but there is only ONE The Apostle – Hebrews 3:1

Hebrews 3:1 “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.”

There are many “lords” and many “gods” but there is only ONE Lord Jesus Christ, and ONE God the Father.

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

The Angel of his presence = the Son of God

The angel of the LORD = the Son of God (See Genesis 16:7-13; Exodus 3:2-6)

Isaiah 63:9 King James Bible 1611 – “In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his presence saued them: in his loue and in his pitie hee redeemed them, and he bare them, and caried them all the dayes of olde.

John Gill on Isaiah 63:9 -“and the Angel of his presence saved them – the Messiah is here meant; the Angel of the covenant, the Angel which went before the Israelites in the wilderness, (Exodus 23:20-23) not a created angel, or an angel by nature, but by office; being sent of God, as the word signifies, on the errand and business of salvation; called “the Angel of God’s presence”, or “face”, because his face was seen in him; his name, and nature, and perfections were in him; he is the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person besides, the presence of God was always with him; he is the “Ithiel”, the Word that was with God, and with whom God always was; who lay in the bosom of his Father, and was ever with him; and who also, as Mediator, introduces his people into the presence of God, and always appears in it for them as their advocate and intercessor”

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament – The angel of his presence saved them…(Isaiah 63:9). Inasmuch as Christ accompanied Israel in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4), and is the `image of God’ (2 Cor. 4:4,6; Col. 1:15) and `the effulgence of his glory’ (Hebrews 1:3), the angel of God’s presence here is probably the Word of God that became flesh (John 1:1).

David Guzik’s Commentaries on the Bible – And the Angel of His Presence saved them: This refers to the presence and work of Jesus among ancient Israel, especially among those delivered from Egypt.

i. “The angel of His presence is the Messiah. Of this Angel it is said that He by His love and pity saved Israel; this can hardly be said of a created angel. It is the Christ who is meant here.” (Bultema)
ii. “Angel of his presence: literally ‘of his face’. We recognize people by face; ‘face’ is the Lord’s very one presence (Psalm 139:7), among them in the person of his angel – that unique ‘Angel of the Lord’ (as in Genesis 16:7ff; 21:17; 22:11, 15; Exodus 3:2; 14:19; 23:20-23; Malachi 3:1) who speaks as the Lord and is yet distinct from him.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – angel of his presence–literally, “of His face,” that is, who stands before Him continually; Messiah (Ex 14:19; 23:20, 21; Pr 8:30), language applicable to no creature (Ex 32:34; 33:2, 14; Nu 20:16; Mal 3:1).

Matthew Henry Commentary on the Bible – “this is rather to be understood of Jesus Christ, the eternal Word, that angel of whom God spoke to Moses (Exodus 23:20,21), whose voice Israel was to obey. He is called Jehovah, Exodus 13:21,14:21,24. He is the angel of the covenant, God’s messenger to the world, Malachi 3:1. He is the angel of God’s face, for he is the express image of his person; and the glory of God shines in the face of Christ. “

John Wesley – “The angel – The same that conducted them through the wilderness; the Lord Jesus Christ, who appeared to Moses in the bush.”

*****************

 A reader asks a question about Lucifer and the Greek and Latin translations.

 Yosef H. writes: I’ve been inwardly adamant the past few years about the KJV being the best or inspired english translation.  I have trouble accepting any other translation considering the incompleteness of the texts and if it’s not the KJV which one (or which ones if there are completely agreeing multiples) is the preserved word of God? 

Well every time I come to the lucifer issue I’m left off with frustration.

I read your page concerning Lucifer and I still have questions. Perhaps I missed something. 

You talk about how ἑωσφόρος is signifigant as lucifer is signifigant in the KJV and Latin Vulgate. 

My question is, if I am to accept the translation of “Lucifer” in the KJV, why would “Lucifer” be wrong in the following?

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) “et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer”

Job 38:32 (Latin Vulgate) “numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis”

Psalms 109(110):3 (Latin Vulgate) “tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum genui te”

2 Peter 1:19 (Latin Vulgate) “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”

Secondly why is ἑωσφόρος in the septuigent signficant as compared to Job 3:9 for example in the septuigent?

σκοτόω ὁ ἄστρον ὁ νύξ ἐκεῖνος ὑπομένω καί εἰς φωτισμός μή ἔρχομαι καί μή ὁράω ἑωσφόρος ἀνατέλλω

Yet on the flip side claims such as these (as the follwing from wikipedia) leaves me scratching my head:

To speak of the morning star, lucifer is not the only expression that the Vulgate uses: three times it uses stella matutina: Sirach 50:6 (referring to the actual morning star), and Revelation 2:28 (of uncertain reference) and 22:16 (referring to Jesus).

So, conclusively, could you answer me as to why the KJV didn’t translate the other instances from the Latin Vulgate of “lucifer” to “lucifer” in the KJV? Why are the alternate uses of “Lucifer” in the Latin Vulgate not referring to Satan (and likewise the greek “Esophorus”)?

Perhaps I missed something in your article on this.

I’m constantly praying to God concerning these KJV issues, and that furthermore he does not give me in to grand delusions (which I have faith he won’t considering Christ is an anchor for my soul), leading me to truth and protecting me from lies. I ask him if the traditional view of lucifer turns out wrong, what does that mean for my faith, and what does that mean for my acceptance of the KJV as the inspired english translation of God. I think, as of far, this is the only issue I have ran in with the KJV that I’ve been frustrated with. 

Thanks in advance.

Yosef. 

Shalom and God bless. 

Hi Yosef. Thanks for writing. This is a very good question you bring up.  I think I may be able to help explain why the King James Bible is right, as I believe it always is.

As you pointed out, the Latin translation is a mixed bag that is not consistent on how it uses the word Lucifer nor on how it translates “morning star”.

Nor is the Greek Septuagint.

The Latin Vulgate uses the word lucifer (notice the small L) in Job 11:17 where the word is simply “morning”.

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) “et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer”

KJB  – “And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday; thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as THE MORNING.”   There is no word for “star” in the verse.

In Job 38:32 the Latin Vulgate has “numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis”  

But this is a bad translation of the Hebrew text which does NOT say anything about “morning star”, but rather reads like the KJB has it – “Canst thou bring forth MAZZAROTH in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?”

Here the Greek Septuagint has – η διανοιξεις μαζουρωθ εν καιρω αυτου και εσπερον επι κομης αυτου αξεις αυτα = 

Or wilt thou reveal MAZUROTH in his season, and the evening star with his rays? Wilt thou guide them? 

And in 2 Peter 1:19 the Latin Vulgate has lucifer (again, a small L) for what the KJB called “the day star” –  et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”

So the Latin uses ‘lucifer’ to translate several different Hebrew words – “morning”, Massaroth” and the Hebrew word Halel in Isaiah 14:12. 

The only time we can say the Latin Vulgate uses “lucifer” to translate the Greek text is in 2 Peter 1:19 where the KJB says “until the DAY STAR arise in your hearts.” –   και φωσφορος ανατειλη εν ταις καρδιαις υμων 

Most significantly we see both the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint differ from the Hebrew text and create more inconsistencies in Job 38:7.

 The Hebrew text actually has the words “MORNING STARS” in the text as we see in Job 38:7 where we read in the King James Bible – “When THE MORNING STARS sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”  

But neither the Latin Vulgate nor the Greek Septuagint use the word for “lucifer” here. The Latin Vulgate has the literal “morning stars”- astra matutina and the LXX just has the word “stars” αστρα

Latin Vulgate in Job 38:7 –  7 cum me laudarent simul astra matutina,

et jubilarent omnes filii Dei ?

Here in Job 38:7 the LXX does not use the Greek word – φωσφορος  but rather the common word for “stars” (άστρα) – οτε εγενηθησαν αστρα ηνεσαν με φωνη μεγαλη παντες αγγελοι μου

Septuagint –  When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice.

Then when we get into the New Testament, the Greek text does not use the word φωσφορος for “the morning star” in Revelation 2:28 “I will give him the morning star” or in Revelation 22:16 “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” but rather the normal word for “star”.

Revelation 2:28 – και δωσω αυτω τον αστερα τον πρωινον

Revelation 22:16 – ο αστηρ ο λαμπρος και ορθρινος

So what I believe happened with the King James Bible is that they saw Lucifer (with a capital L), which literally means “light bearer”, as being a perfectly good translation of the Hebrew word that is found only once in the entire Bible – Helel – and as depicting the fall of Satan.  And the King James Bible never uses the word “lucifer” as a translation for “morning star” as found in the book of Revelation.

I hope this is of some help to you.

God bless,

Will Kinney

The Grace of God Destroyed

Via Will Kinney, with permission:

THE GRACE OF GOD DESTROYED

Many Christians have been deluded into thinking that the new Bible versions flooding the market today teach the same things with updated words.

In this brief study, we shall examine just four verses found in the Old Testament. In the King James Bible they are precious verses which teach sound doctrine concerning the truly amazing grace of our loving Father towards His children. These precious truths have been distorted and even denied in the new versions- which include the NKJV, NASB, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, and the NIV.

Numbers 23:21

In the book of Numbers chapters 22 – 24, the false prophet Balaam had been called by Balak the king of Moab to curse Israel. God allowed Balaam to go with Balak, but rather than cursing the people of God, Balaam was compelled to bless them instead.

In Numbers 23:19-21 we read these beautiful truths: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.”

The next verse, 21, expresses a great truth in the KJB, but this is where the error of the new versions occurs. Verse 21: “He hath NOT BEHELD INIQUITY in Jacob, NEITHER HATH HE SEEN PERVERSENESS in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them”.

God has always dealt with His people according to the everlasting covenant of grace revealed to Abraham and his spiritual seed, confirmed to them and fulfilled in Christ.

Galatians 3:12-29. “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

God had redeemed His people out of Egypt (Exodus 6:6) and forgiven their sins, even though they were a stiffnecked people (Num. 14: 19, 20).

Just as God sees us as blameless, holy, and without spot (Eph. 1:4; I Cor. 1:8), not because of our own obedience or righteousness, but because we are covered with the righteousness of Christ, so too, were His people in the wilderness.

But see how this truth has been lost in the NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, Catholic, Jehovah Witness NWT and the NIV “bibles”.

The NASB, RSV, ESV say: “He has not observed MISFORTUNE in Jacob; Nor has He seen TROUBLE in Israel.”

The Jehovah Witness New World Translation has: “He has not looked upon ANY UNCANNY POWER AGAINST Jacob, And NO TROUBLE has he seen against Israel.”

There is no idol in Jacob, neither is there an image god to be seen in Israel.
 The NIV has: “No MISFORTUNE is seen in Jacob, NO MISERY observed in Israel.”

There had been misery and misfortune in Israel, as well as sin and rebellion.  And there certainly were many idols and “images of god” among them too.

The Holman Standard has: “He considers NO DISASTER for Jacob; He sees NO TROUBLE for Israel.” (Yet the footnote gives the correct meaning as found in the King James Bible).

The Catholic versions are their usual confused mess of contradictions.  The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like no others with: “There is NO IDOL in Jacob, NEITHER IS THERE AN IMAGE GOD to be seen in Israel.” 

The 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible is closest to the other Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB in that it says: “MISFORTUNE is not observed in Jacob, nor MISERY seen in Israel.” 

But the 1985 New Jerusalem bible is much closer to the truth as found in the King James Bible with: “I have perceived NO GUILT in Jacob, have seen NO PERVERSITY in Israel.”

But then again the latest Catholic version, the 2009 Public Domain Version has gone back to something along the lines of the previous Douay saying: “There is NO SOOTHSAYING in Jacob, NOR ANY DIVINATION in Israel.”

But in this section of Holy Scripture here in Numbers 23-24 God is speaking a blessing through Balaam upon His redeemed people and stating how He sees them because they are His own peculiar people. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Romans 8:33. This truth of great comfort is lost in the ESV, NASB and NIV .

I personally do not believe any other English bible contains all of God’s perfect, preserved, inspired words except the King James Bible. But frequently, the new version proponents like to gang up on the KJB, as though it were the only Bible to read a certain way.

Other versions which agree with the KJB here are the Hebrew into English versions of 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) – “None hath beheld INIQUITY in Jacob, neither hath one seen PERVERSENESS in Israel; the LORD his God is with him”, 1936 Jewish Publication Society of America, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901, Geneva Bible 1587, Young’s translation, Darby 1890, Hebrew Names Bible, the NKJV 1982, and the Amplified Bible 1987.

The Jewish translation of 2004 called the Judaica Press Tanach reads like the KJB with “He does not look at evil in Jacob, and has seen no perversity in Israel”.  

Other English Bibles that read like the King James Bible in Numbers 23:21 are The Word of Yah 1993, the Revised Webster’s Bible 1995, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, the Context Group Version 2007 – “not beheld INIQUITY neither seen PERVERSENESS in Israel”,  Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 – “He has not beheld INIQUITY in Yaakov, neither has he seen PERVERSENESS in Yisrael”,  Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 – “He has not beheld INIQUITY in Jacob, neither has he seen PERVERSENESS in Israel”, Conservative Bible 2011, and The World English Bible 2012 and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 – “He has NOT SEEN INIQUITY in Jacob. NEITHER HAS HE SEEN PERVERSENESS IN ISRAEL.”

The Natural Israelite Bible 2012 – “He has not observed INIQUITY in Jacob, Nor has He seen WICKEDNESS in Israel.”

Foreign Language Bibles 

Among foreign language bibles that have the same meaning as the KJB are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, and Reina Valera 1909 – 2011 -“No ha notado INIQUIDAD en Jacob, Ni ha visto PERVERSIDAD en Israel.”, the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1998 -“Il n’a point aperçu d’INIQUITE en Jacob, ni vu de PERVERSITE en Israël”, the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 2009 – “Näo viu INIQUIDADE  em Israel, nem contemplou MALDADE em Jacó” and the Italian Diodati 1649 and the Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006, and La Nuova Diodati 1991 – “Egli non ha scorto INIQUITA in Giacobbe e non ha visto PERVERSITA in Israele.”  

The King James Bible is right, as always, and it consistently reveals and magnifies the saving grace of God towards His people. The false versions pervert these doctrines to varying degrees.  

If you want a good example of this, see the study on Revelation 19:8 KJB – “The fine linen is the righteousness of saints” or ESV (NKJV, NIV, NASB) – “ “the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints”?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev198finelinen.htm

Deuteronomy 32:5 – God’s children or Not God’s children?

Tremendous error and contradiction have been introduced into this section of Scripture by the NKJV, NIV, RSV, Holman, ESV and NASB “bibles”. This is part of the song of Moses which says in verses 3-5: “I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”

The next verse is where the lies of the modern versions enter. The true Holy Bible says: “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?”

If you look at the context, in the previous chapter God told Moses that the people would enter the promised land and would go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land and turn to other gods. God knew this before He brought them into the land, so their entering the land did not depend on their foreseen obedience to the law, but rather because of the covenant of grace made with Abraham.

They are still His children whom He bought (verse 6), His people and His inheritance (verse 9) and verse 19 still refers to them as “his sons and daughters”. They ARE His children even though disobedient, just as your child is still your child no matter what he does.

Many verses bring out this truth that God’s redeemed people, His own children, are capable of corrupting themselves with the spot of idolatry. Here are just a few found right here in the book of Deuteronomy.

In Deuteronomy 4:15-20 God tells His people: “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye CORRUPT yourselves, and make you a graven image…But the LORD hath taken you…to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.”

In Deuteronomy 9:12 Moses rehearses how he had been 40 days and 40 nights in Mount Horeb where God gave him the tables of the covenant. While Moses was in the mount, God spoke to him and said: “Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt HAVE CORRUPTED themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.”

Yet in the rest of chapter nine, Moses asks God not to destroy “thy people and thine inheritance which thou hast redeemed…they are thy people and thine inheritance.” Though they had corrupted themselves with false gods, they were still His children and His redeemed people.

In Deuteronomy 31:29 Moses tells the children of Israel even before they enter the promised land: “For I know that after my death, ye will utterly CORRUPT yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you…ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.”

John Gill comments on Deuteronomy 32:5: “their spot is not the spot of his children – Christ the rock has children given him by his Father, in whose adoption he has a concern, and by whose Spirit they are regenerated: these have their “spots”; by which are meant sins, and by those men are stained and polluted;… by nature they are as others, and while in an unregenerate estate, and indeed after conversion; though they are washed from their sins by the blood of Christ, and are justified by his righteousness, and so without spot, yet in themselves they are not without spots or sins, as their confessions and complaints, and all experience testify.”

God’s children DID corrupt themselves with strange gods, and the spot or blemish they had was the idolatrous practices of other people, but they are still His children, bought by God and belonging to Him as the rest of Deuteronomy chapter 32 shows.

Other versions that agree with the King James Bible in Deuteronomy 32:5 in teaching they are still His children are Webster’s 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the Hebrew-English JPS translation of 1917, the 2004 Judaica Press Tanach, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, and  the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

Other English Bible that read like the KJB in Deuteronomy 32:5 and tell us that though they had spotted and stained themselves with the sin of idolatry, yet there were still His children, are The Word of Yah 1993, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Conservative Bible 2011 – “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.”,

Even Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 (though a paraphrase) got it right, saying: “His people have been unfaithful to him; they have not acted like his children – this is their sin. They are a perverse and deceitful generation.”

The Judaica Press Tanach 2004 reads this portion as: “it is His children’s defect you crooked and twisted generation.” They are still His children.

The modern Complete Jewish Bible agrees that the children of Israel are still the children of God, saying: “He is not corrupt; the defect is in his children, a crooked and perverted generation.”

the Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005 is pretty good, with: “They have sinned, not pleasing Him; spotted children, a crooked and perverse generation.”

The Lesser Bible 1853 – “The corruption is not his, it is the defect of his children, of the perverse and crooked generation.”

The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, and Reina Valera versions 1602, 1909, 1960, 1995 all clearly say that they are His children, even though they have the stain of sin. “La corrupción no es suya; de sus hijos es la mancha, generación torcida y perversa.” Translation- “Corruption is not His; of His children is the stain, a twisted and perverse generation.”

The 1917 Jewish Publication Society reads differently but retains the correct meaning saying: “Just and Right is He. Is corruption His? No; His children’s is the blemish.”

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 has: “Destruction is not His; IT IS HIS CHILDREN’S DEFECT you crooked and twisted generation.”

The 1989 NRSV is different from all other versions, including the RSV and the ESV. It says: “just and upright is he; yet his degenerate children have dealt falsely with him…Is not he your father?”  At least the NRSV still teaches that they are His children, though degenerate ones at that. 

The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 has – He has not corrupted Himself; HIS SONS; IT IS THEIR BLEMISH; they are a crooked and perverse generation.”

Now look at the NKJV in Deut. 32:5. “They have corrupted themselves: THEY ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN, Because of their blemish.”

The NASB is similar with: “THEY ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN BECAUSE OF THEIR DEFECT.”

The Holman Standard says: “this is their defect – THEY ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN.”

And the Jehovah Witness New World Translation joins these bogus bible versions and says: “THEY ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN, the defect is their own.”

The Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610 and Douay Version 1950 both say: “The have sinned against him, AND ARE NONE OF HIS CHILDREN in their filth: they are a wicked and perverse generation.”

These versions tell us they are NOT His children, and then in the very next verse tell us they ARE His children because He is their Father and He bought them!

Once again we can see the purification of God’s words in the English language until we get to its “purified seven times” perfection in the King James Bible.  Both the earlier Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the later Geneva Bible 1587 had it wrong.  The Bishops’ Bible read: “Frowardly haue they done agaynst hym by their vices, NOT BEYNG HIS OWNE CHILDREN, but a wicked and frowarde generation.”

The Geneva Bible also had it wrong by telling us that the children of Israel were NOT His children, and this again contradicts with the very next verse, even in the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible reads: “They haue corrupted them selues towarde him by their vice, NOT BEING HIS CHILDREN, but a frowarde and crooked generation.”

The NIV, RSV, and ESV are even worse with: “to their shame THEY ARE NO LONGER HIS CHILDREN”.

This teaches the doctrine that one can be a child of God and then lose it and no longer be His child, yet verses 6 and 19 still refer to them as His children.

The RSV, NIV, ESV and Holman Standard further confuse correct doctrine and hide the truth by mistranslating verse six where we read: “Is not he thy father that HATH BOUGHT thee?”

The correct reading that God had BOUGHT them is found in the Revised Version, the ASV, NKJV, NASB and MANY others. The Hebrew word means “to buy, to purchase, to redeem, and to possess.” It does not mean “Creator”.

It refers to such passages as Exodus 15 where Moses and the children of Israel sang the great song of deliverance from Egypt saying: “The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation…Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast REDEEMED…till the people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over, which thou HAST PURCHASED.”

However instead of saying: “Is not he thy father that hath BOUGHT thee?”, the NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman say: “Is he not your father, YOUR CREATOR, who made you?”

This rendering destroys the meaning of God buying or redeeming them, and merely teaches that He created them. 

Perverted bible versions pervert the truths of God.

“Ye have perverted the words of the living God” Jeremiah 23:36

2 Samuel 23:5  “Although my house BE NOT SO WITH GOD; YET he hath made with me an everlasting covenant”

The last words of David, the sweet psalmist of Israel, are recorded in 2 Samuel 23: 1-5.

The KJB says in verses 2,3,5 : “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God…Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure; for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.” (“not to grow” probably refers to David’s house)

But the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT and Holman Standard have changed this into a question rather than a statement).

He that rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. David, for the most part, did fairly well, yet he failed miserably in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah, whom he murdered. Yet, even though David had not lived up to the divine standard, (only Christ as the true Son of David could do that) God had established the everlasting covenant of the “sure mercies of David” with him and He does the same thing with us. See Isaiah 55:3 KJB.

Yet notice the subtle but deadly changes made in this verse by the NAS, RSV, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT and NIV. Instead of “Although my house be not so with God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant…” the NIV has: “Is not my house right with God? Has he not made with me an everlasting covenant arranged and secure in every part?

The Holman Standard has: “Is it not true my house is with God? For He has established an everlasting covenant with me ordered and secure in every detail.”

The NAS, RSV, ESV read: “Truly is not my house so with God? For He has made an everlasting covenant with me, ordered in all things and secured.”

The Common English bible 2011 goes so far as to say: “Yes, my house is this way with God! He has made an eternal covenant with me, laid out and secure in every detail.”

And the Names of God Bible 2011 affirms: “Truly, El considers my house to be that way, because he has made a lasting promise to me, with every detail arranged and assured.”

Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 affirms: “My dynasty is approved by God, for he has made a perpetual covenant with me, arranged in all its particulars and secured.”

These readings do not agree with each other, yet they all unite in implying that God made a covenant with David BECAUSE his house was so upright. This is a works salvation theology and denies the true facts regarding David’s life and the covenant of the sure mercies granted to David.

English Bibles that agree with the King James reading where king David admits that his house is NOT so faithful ruling in the fear of God, YET God had made an everlasting covenant with him, are Webster’s Translation 1833, Darby 1890 – “Although my house be NOT SO before God, YET he hath made with me an everlasting covenant”, Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890 – “Although my house be NOT SO before God, YET he hath made with me an everlasting covenant”, the ASV 1901 – “Verily my house is NOT SO with God; YET he hath made with me an everlasting covenant”, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, The Word of Yah 1993, KJB 21st Century Version 1994, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001 – “Verily my house IS NOT SO with El; YET he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, Ordered in all things, and sure”, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 – “For my house IS NOT SO with God”,  Context Group Version 2007, Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 – “Although my house IS NOT SO with the Mighty God, YET He has made with me a perpetual covenant, ordered in all things and secure.”, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012.

The World English Bible reads: “MOST CERTAINLY MY HOUSE IS NOT SO WITH GOD, YET he has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure, for it is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he doesn’t make it grow.”  

The Bible Commentators

As usual, the commentators are all over the board with multiple translations and explanations about what 2 Samuel 23:5 means.  Here are some that agree with the King James Bible reading.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary – “Although my house be not so with God; although God knows that neither I nor my children have lived and ruled as we should have done, so justly, and in the fear of the Lord; and therefore have not enjoyed that uninterrupted prosperity which we might have enjoyed; but our morning light, or the beginning of that kingdom promised to me and mine for ever, hath been overcast with many black and dismal clouds, and my children have not hitherto been like the tender grass springing out of the earth, and thriving by the influences of the sun and rain; but rather like the grass that withereth away, or is cut off before its due time.

Yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant: not-withstanding all our transgressions whereby we have broken covenant with God, and the confusions and civil wars. which have threatened our dissipation and utter destruction; yet I comfort myself with this, that God, to whom all my sins were foreknown before I committed them, was graciously pleased to make a sure covenant, to give and continue the kingdom to me and to my seed for ever, 2 Samuel 7:16,  until the coming of the Messias, who is to be my Son and successor, and whose kingdom shall have no end.”

John GillAlthough my house be not so with God,…. So bright, and flourishing, and prosperous as the government of the just ruler before described; or is not “right” with God, meaning his family, in which great sins were committed, and great disorders and confusions brought into it, as the cases of Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah showed; or “not firm” or “stable”, through the rebellion of one, the insurrection of another, and the usurpation of a third; yet he believed it would be firm and stable in the Messiah that should spring from him, promised in the everlasting covenant”

John Trapp Commentary – “in case it be not, as the truth is, “In many things we offend all,” and keep not touch with God, – which is a hindrance to our complete happiness, – yet the foundation of God remaineth sure; neither shall our unbelief make the faith of God of none effect. Romans 3:3 We change often, but he changeth not, Malachi 3:6  and his covenant is firm and immutable, “ordered and established in everything,” by him who will “not suffer his faithfulness to fail, nor alter the thing that is gone out of his mouth.”

Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary – “Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow. How natural and proper was it for David, when speaking of JESUS, and his salvation, to make an immediate transition to his own personal interest in both; and to take comfort from this delightful assurance, amidst all the outward circumstances which had arisen through life to distress him. Reader! as this verse of David’s hath afforded comfort to thousands, and will continue to do so until time shall be no more, I would wish you not to pass it over hastily, but look into its several properties, praying over it, that the LORD may grant you to adopt (if it be his blessed will) the same precious assurance on the same precious grounds.

Do observe the confession David makes of his personal calamities. Although, (says he) my house be not so with GOD . Poor man! what a scene of sin and evil did the walls of his house furnish in his graceless children. To say nothing of the great miscarriages he had wrought himself; his day was a day of clouds, from morning even to the evening. How many of his children died in their sins! But what saith David under these trying circumstances? Although my house be not so with GOD yet hath he made with me an everlasting covenant. As if he had said, JESUS is mine, though he be not my childrens’. GOD hath given me JESUS, and that is enough; for in him I have all things. He is better to me than a thousand sons. Sweet consolation, and a glorious relief, under all afflictions.”

Coffman’s Commentary – “That everlasting covenant that God made with David concerning the bringing in of the Messiah to mankind through David’s posterity, was not conditional nor was it premised upon the righteous rule of David’s posterity; because, the following kings in David’s dynasty were as wicked (generally) as any rulers who ever lived. God brought in the Messiah via David’s descendants in spite of the wickedness of both the kings and the people. Certainly David had failed in the realization of the better purposes of his heart. “So it was God’s good pleasure that the covenant in spite of this personal failure remained firm and secure.”

The King James Bible is right, as always, and magnifies the amazing grace of God toward His people.

Isaiah 35:8 – “THE WAYFARING MEN, THOUGH FOOLS, SHALL NOT ERR THEREIN.”

“And an highway shall be there, an a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: THE WAYFARING MEN, THOUGH FOOLS, SHALL NOT ERR THEREIN. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there.”

This verse teaches that there will be an highway for the redeemed to walk on and EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE FOOLS, THEY SHALL NOT ERR FROM THE HIGHWAY OF THE REDEEMED. If we are among the redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, He will keep us secure even though we, in and of ourselves, are at times foolish.

What a comfort and encouragement to our souls. We are all foolish at times. All of us make dumb mistakes and do not think clearly nor act with wisdom all too often.

But praise God He chose the foolish things of this world to confound the wise – I Cor. 1:27 and even though “the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light”- Luke 16:8

John Gill comments: “they may not have that sharpness of wit, and quickness of natural parts, as some men have; and though they may not have that clear and distinct knowledge of Gospel truths as others, at least of some of them, yet shall not err as to the way of salvation; and though they may err or mistake in some things, yet not in the main, not fundamentally, nor finally; the way of salvation by Christ is so plain a way, that he that has any spiritual understanding of it shall not err in it.”

David Guzik states in his Bible commentary: “Whoever walks the road, although a fool, shall not go astray: When we stick on God’s Highway of Holiness, even though His work in us isn’t complete yet – we may still be in some ways a fool – yet we are safe because we are on His highway!”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: “though fools–rather, “And (even) fools,” that is, the simple shall not go astray, namely, because “He shall be with them” (Mt 11:25; 1Co 1:26-28). 

John Wesley comments: “Though fools – The way shall be so plain and strait, that even the most foolish travellers cannot easily mistake it. ” And finally…

Matthew Henry tells us: “though fools, of weak capacity in other things, shall have such plain directions from the word and Spirit of God in this way that they shall not err therein; not that they shall be infallible even in their own conduct, or that they shall in nothing mistake, but they shall not be guilty of any fatal misconduct, shall not so miss their way but that they shall recover it again, and get well to their journey’s end.”

Bibles that agree in Isaiah 35:8 with the KJB in sense or the exact reading are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535 – “the ignorant shall not err”, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 “and the wayfayer nor ignorant shall not err”,  the Geneva Bible 1587 – “and walke in the way, and the fooles shall not erre.”, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the ASV 1901 -“the wayfaring men, yea fools, shall not err therein.” 1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, Living Bible 1971 – “God will walk there with you; EVEN THE MOST STUPID CANNOT MISS THE WAY.”, the RSV, NRSV 1989 – “but it shall be for God’s people; NO TRAVELER, NOT EVEN FOOLS, SHALL GO ASTRAY.”, ESV 2001-2011 -“EVEN IF THEY ARE FOOLS, THEY SHALL NOT GO ASTRAY.” the Holman Standard 2009 -“The unclean will not travel on it, but it will be for him who walks the path. EVEN THE FOOL WILL NOT GO ASTRAY.“, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century Version 1994,  the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Jubilee Bible 2010 – “and for those in it there shall be someone to go with them, IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE FOOLISH SHALL NOT ERR THEREIN.”The Common English Bible 2011 – “ but it will be for those walking on that way. EVEN FOOLS WON’T GET LOST ON IT.”

Other English Bible that read like the KJB with “THE WAYFARING MEN, THOUGH FOOLS, SHALL NOT ERR THEREIN.” are the Amplified Bible 1987 – “the wayfaring men, YES, THE SIMPLE ONES AND FOOLS, SHALL NOT ERR IN IT AND LOSE THEIR WAY.”, The Word of Yah 1993, God’s First Truth 1999, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 – “and it shall be for them; the traveler, even fools shall not go astray therein.”, Green’s Literal 2005 – “even foolish ones shall not go astray.”, Context Group Version 2007, the Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 – “Whoever travels on it, though a fool, shall not go astray.”,  Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011,Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) – “and fools shall not go astray”, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 – “Whoever walks the road, ALTHOUGH A FOOL, SHALL NOT GO ASTRAY.”, and the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 – “And it is for them, the one going in the way; yea, fools shall not go astray.”, International Standard Version 2014 – “but it will be for whomever is traveling on that Way—NOT EVEN FOOLS WILL GET LOST.”

However in the NASB we read: “And a highway will be there, a roadway, and it will be called the highway of holiness, but it will be for him (the Hebrew is them- not him) who walks that way, AND FOOLS WILL NOT WANDER ON IT.”

The NASB “fools will not wander on it” seems to be saying fools will not get on it occasionally but the NIV is even clearer in its false teaching.

The NIV has: “And a highway will be there, it will be called the Way of Holiness, The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way, WICKED FOOLS WILL NOT GO ABOUT ON IT.”

There is no word for “wicked” in Hebrew, and the NIV is teaching that there will be no fools on the highway – the exact opposite meaning of that found the KJB and many others.

Dan Wallace and company’s NET version is very much like the NIV, NASB with: “it is reserved for those authorized to use it – FOOLS WILL NOT STRAY INTO IT.” 

Wallace’s NET version teaches that fools will not walk on this path. Proving that this is the view of Dan Wallace and company, the NET footnotes – “those authorized to use the Way of Holiness would be morally upright people who are the recipients of God’s deliverance, in contrast to the morally impure and FOOLISH WHO ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMUNITY.” 

(Well, Dan Wallace better hope that’s not true, for his own sake.)

The Names of God Bible 2011 (Critical text version) says: “A highway will be there, a roadway. It will be called the Holy Road. SINNERS WON’T TRAVEL ON IT. It will be for those who walk on it. GODLESS FOOLS WON’T WANDER ONTO IT.”

If you are a Christian, and can honestly admit that you are sometimes foolish, then there is no comfort or assurance that you are a child of God and among the redeemed if you believe the NIV, NASB, Names of God Bible or Dan Wallace’s NET perversion. Corrupt bible versions DO pervert sound doctrine.

According to the NIV, RSV, ESV in Deuteronomy 32:5 you may once have been a child of God, and then no longer be His child – gone is the eternal security of the believer who has been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. You had better watch your step!

This is just some of the confusion wrought by the versions that are so popular among present day Christiandom.  Most do not read their bibles anyway, so few would probably notice.

There is a famine in the land today, as prophesied in Amos 8:11 “Behold the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.”

I ask you to consider these four examples of how the grace of God is being lost in the new “bibles.” There are hundreds of other things seriously wrong with these versions, and they are well documented at many sites on the internet and in many books that have come out recently defending the King James Bible as God’s preserved, inspired words.

Some will have ears to hear and will turn back to the old ways where you will find rest for your souls, but others will go on trusting in the scholarship of modern Bible critics. May God give us grace to grow in the true knowledge of His Son and our blessed kinsman redeemer who purchased us to be eternally and securely His own.

God bless you, a brother in Christ,

Will Kinney

Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

The Deity of Christ

Via Will Kinney, with permission:

The Deity of Christ
3 Verses

There are three verses which are frequently brought up by those who believe the King James Bible has mistranslated references to the deity of Jesus Christ. They are Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1. We will examine each of the three, and show that the first two verses are not only correct but more accurate, and the third is just as valid as other versions.

#1 – Romans 9:5 says regarding the Jews: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.”

Those who criticize the KJB say the rendering here does not declare the deity of Christ, but only says He is over all, and that God is blessed forever. I and many others believe they are correct in their understanding of the verse as it stands in the KJB. However, if you understand this particular verse as teaching the deity of Christ, even as it stands in the King James Bible, I would have no problem with that view. I fully believe that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh; He is JEHOVAH God of the Old Testament.

But, as I understand this particular verse, it is not expounding that truth here. The phrase “who is over all, God blessed for ever” in the Greek reads: “ καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.” This is the text as it appeared even by Westcott and Hort.

See laparola.net http://www.laparola.net/greco/

This is what the KJB correctly says. Christ is over all, and it is God the Father Who placed Him there, after He finished His work of redemption.

Ephesians 1:20 -22 tells us of the mighty power of God “which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.” This is what God the Father has done in Christ, and God is to be blessed and praised for ever for having done this.

Other versions that read exactly as does the KJB are Daniel Mace’s N.T. 1729 – “and of whom as to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”, Whiston’s Primitive N.T. 1745, Webster’s Bible 1833,  the Living Oracles 1835 – “and from whom the Messiah [descended], according to the flesh; who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”, Noyes Translation 1869 – “and from whom, as to the flesh, was the Christ. He who is over all, God, be blessed for ever! Amen.”,  the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901 – “and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”, the New American Standard Bible 1963 – 1995 – “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”, Young’s  literal 1898 – “and of whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.” Darby 1890 – “and of whom, as according to flesh, is the Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”, the Jerusalem Bible 1969, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the 21st Century KJB 1994, the RSV 1952 and the NRSV 1989 – “and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”, Douay-Rheims1582, the Douay 1950, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, The American Bible Union N.T.,  Worrell N.T.1904, The N.T. Translated from the Sinaitic  Manuscript 1918 – “and from whom is Christ according to the flesh: who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen.”

Other Bible that read like the KJB are World English Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Weymouth’s N.T. 1912 – “To them the Patriarchs belong, and from them in respect of His human lineage came the Christ, who is exalted above all, God blessed throughout the Ages. Amen.” Goodspeed’s N.T. 1943- “and from them physically Christ came—God who is over all be blessed forever! Amen.”, Montgomery N.T., the 1969 Berkeley Version, the New American Bible St. Joseph 1970, the 1989 Revised English Bible, The Word of Yah 1993, Tomson N.T. 2002, The Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, Context Group Version 2007, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) – “whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh the Mashiyach came, who is over all, Elohim blessed forever. Amen.”, World English Bible 2012 – “of whom are the fathers, and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen.

Other versions that read in a similar way, as saying that Christ is over all, and that God is to be blessed or praised for ever for this victory are the New English Bible 1970, New Life Version, Contemporary English Version, the Twentieth Century new testament 1904 – “as far as his human nature was concerned, from them came the Christ—he who is supreme over all things, God for ever blessed. Amen.”, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Williams translation and J.B. Phillips, James Moffatt N.T. – “and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)”, Williams New Testament,  Riverside N.T. – “whom by physical descent the Christ came. God who is over all be blessed through the ages! Amen.”, The Voice of 2012 – “and from their bloodline comes the Anointed One, who reigns supreme over all things, God blessed forever. Amen.” So the King James Bible is hardly alone in its rendering of this verse.

French Louis Segond of 1902 and of 2007, and the 1999 La Bible du Semeur both equal the King James Bible meaning with:  – “et les promesses, et les patriarches, et de qui est issu, selon la chair, le Christ, qui est au-dessus de toutes choses, Dieu béni éternellement. Amen!”

Spanish La Biblia de las Américas 1997 – de quienes son los patriarcas, y de quienes, según la carne, procede el Cristo, el cual está sobre todas las cosas, Dios bendito por los siglos. Amén.

The Portuguese Ferreira de Almeida Actualizada equals the KJB – “de quem são os patriarcas; e de quem descende o Cristo segundo a carne, o qual é sobre todas as coisas, Deus bendito eternamente. Amém.”

The Italian Conferenza Episcopale Italiana– “da essi proviene Cristo secondo la carne, egli che è sopra ogni cosa, Dio benedetto nei secoli. Amen.”

The Romanian Fidela Bible of 2009 also equals the KJB – “conform carnii este Cristos, care este peste toate, Dumnezeu binecuvantat pentru totdeauna. Amin.” 

The German Schlachter Bible of 2000 is translated like the KJB – “und von ihnen stammt dem Fleisch nach der Christus, der über alle ist, hochgelobter Gott in Ewigkeit. Amen!”

To accuse the KJB of not showing the deity of Christ in a verse which does not teach this truth is hardly a fair argument. The  versions which are usually cited in this attack on the KJB are the New KJV , the ESV and the NIV. None of these versions follow the Greek word order, but have altered it to teach the deity of Christ, and then blame the KJB for not doing the same. The NKJV says: “of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, [the] eternally blessed God.”

The NKJV has added the word “the” to the text. It changes the meaning and there is no justification for adding the word “the”. The phrase “for ever” has wrongly been altered in the NKJV to read “eternally”. It is rather the NKJV which has added to God’s word and changed the meaning of this verse.

Likewise the NIV has an almost complete paraphrase of the whole verse and has altered its meaning. The NIV says: “Theirs are the partriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”

The NIV has changed the order of the Greek words to come up with a different meaning than what I believe the Holy Ghost who inspired this text intended. In fact, the NIV has a footnote here that recognizes the KJB and NASB rendering. It says: ‘or, “Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised.” 

The ESV does a similar thing by re-arranging the Greek word order. It says: “To them belong the partiarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”  There are zero words here in the Greek for “their race” and the literal word order in all Greek texts is “of whom the Christ according to the flesh who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.”

This is how the King James Bible and many others have correctly translated the verse.  The King James Bible translators were being honest about what the verse actually says. They certainly believed in the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and did not have an agenda to either deny or promote His deity when it was not warranted by what was actually written in the Holy Scriptures.

Christ is not “ God over all” because this would exalt Christ above the Father. Christ was, is, and shall always be the second Person of the triune God, in submission to the Father. John 5:30 “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”

1 Corinthians 11:3 “the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

1Cor. 15:28 “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

#2 James White and his criticism of Titus 2:13 in the King James Bible

Titus 2:13 – ” Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” 

James White has a lot to say in his book, The King James Version Controversy, about how badly he thinks the King James Bible mangles the meaning of this verse and obscures the Deity of Christ.  On page 81 he says: “the KJV is shown to be wanting in Titus 2:13.” On page 201 he says, regarding Titus 2:13 in the KJB: “The simple fact is that the KJV provides an inferior translation, one that unintentionally detracts from the presentation of the full deity of Jesus Christ. The unwillingness of KJV defenders to overlook this fact is most disturbing.”

James White is entitled to his personal opinions, but there are a couple of things you should know about this man. He SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God, but if you ask him to show you a copy of this infallible Bible he professes to believe in, he will never tell you. He will immediately try to change the subject.

Secondly, I believe he and many like him have been deceived when it comes to the Bible version issue. The modern version he promotes like the ESV, NIV, NASB are all in fact the new Vatican Versions. The Vatican has made a formal agreement with the United Bible Society to create an “inter confessional” text to unite “the separated brethren” and one of the main editors of this text was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini.  Nobody seriously believes any of these modern versions are the inerrant words of God; certainly not the people who put them together.  Don’t believe it? Then please see my article and the links found in it called James White – the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions 

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

And thirdly, James White is completely wrong in his understanding and analysis of Titus 2:13 as it stands not only in the King James Bible but in many others as well.  The King James Bible is actually the most literal translation of the Greek text here and it brings out a special truth that apparently is hidden from Bible correctors like James White.

Titus 2:13 “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ”

Here the critics like James White and others say the KJB rendering does not fully bring out the deity of Jesus Christ. I don’t really understand what they are talking about, because when I read this passage, it clearly declares that Jesus Christ is both the great God as well as our Saviour.  

Even a basic Greek grammar book like Dana and Mantey in their book A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, on page 147 when discussing the definite article with nouns connected by kai, give Titus 2:13 as one of the examples – του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου – and then states in no uncertain terms – “After the same manner, του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος  ιησου χριστου, ASSERTS THAT JESUS IS THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR.”

Dr. Larry Bednar, who also addresses this passage at his KJV Textual Technology site correctly asks: “One wonders if White thinks saints and faithful brethren (Col.1:2) separates saints and faithful brethren, as if they were two different types. Or does he think God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col.1:3) separates God from the Father, as if the Father were not God?”

http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/kjv-classical-language-of-emphasis.php 

The NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB translate this verse in different ways.  They don’t even agree with each other.  The NKJV is not quite as bad as the NIV, NASB, ESV in that it says: “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of OUR great God and Savior Jesus Christ”. The NKJV does not follow the literal Greek word order as does the King James Bible and it obscures the full and wonderful truths we see in the King James Bible.

But the NIV, NASB, ESV don’t have us looking for THE APPEARING OF GOD AND OUR SAVIOURJesus Christ” but instead looking for THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”  God’s glory and His actually appearance can be two different things.  The heaven declare the glory of God, but it is not God Himself.

However, it is necessary to point out two very important things in this verse. Number one is that the Greek reads exactly as it stands in the KJB, and not as it is in the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB.

The Greek in all texts reads “the great God and OUR Saviour.”  This is one of the few verses in the N.T. that has no textual variants; they all read the same and the King James Bible is the most literal by far. All Greek text read -προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου

This is the important part here – της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου = the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

The crucial difference in meaning is this. When Christ appears again in glory, He is the God of everybody – every man, woman and child, believer or unbeliever – but He is OUR Saviour. He is the Saviour of only those who are true Christians, but He is the God and creator of all, and He will be the judge of those who have not believed on Him.  Jesus Christ is BOTH the Great God AND OUR Saviour.  We are looking for Him to appear as such, and this truth is fully brought out in the King James Bible and many others that have likewise translated it this way by following the literal Greek text. 

Another big difference in meaning between the KJB and such modern versions as the NASB, NIV and ESV is this which was pointed out to us recently on a Facebook King James Bible club. The Bible believing brother wrote the following: “The glorious appearing of our great God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ is taught by Paul in one single text in Titus 2:13. Modern bibles twisted and denied it!

Titus 2:13 (King James Version) “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” Comment: You see the words glorious appearing of the great God?

Titus 2:13 (New International Version) “while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,“ Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!

Titus 2:13 (New American Standard Bible) “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!

Titus 2:13 (English Standard Version) waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!

Comment: Where are the words “the glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!” At first glance you may think modern bibles say the same as KJV says, but they are not!”  (end of comments by this Bible believer. And he is right!)

Titus 2:13 (New International Version) “while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,“ Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!
Titus 2:13 (New American Standard Bible) “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!
Titus 2:13 (English Standard Version) waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!
Comment: Where are the words “the glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!” At first glance you may think modern bibles say the same as KJV says, but they are not!”  (end of comments by this Bible believer. And he is right!)

So the KJB is actually more accurate here than the NIV, ESV, NKJV or the NASB.

Other Bible translations that read as does the KJB are Wycliffe’s 1380, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 – ” appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ”, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishop’s Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582 – ” the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”, the Geneva Bible 1599 – “that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ”, Mace’s N.T. 1729, Whiston’s Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s translation 1755, Worsley Translation 1770, Etheridge Translation 1849, Murdoch’s translation 1851 and Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 – “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English – “the revelation of the glory of The Great God and Our Lifesaver, Yeshua The Messiah”, the Emphatic Dioglott 1865, the Living Oracles 1835, Julia Smith translation 1855, Noyles Translation 1869, the ASV of 1901 – “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”, Webster’s Bible 1833, J.B. Phillips 1962, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902 “the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus”,  Worrell N.T., Alford N.T. for English Readers, James Moffatt N.T. – “the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus”, Riverside N.T., the World English Bible – ” appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”, Hebrew Names Version,  the New American Bible 1991, the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 – “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Many foreign language Bible translate the passage exactly as the King James Bible has it. Among these are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000, and Spanish La Palabra 2010 – “la manifestación gloriosa del gran Dios y Salvador nuestro Jesucristo.”, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 – “l’apparition de la gloire du grand Dieu, et notre Sauveur, Jésus-Christ”, the Italian Diodati 1649, and La Nuova Diodati 1991 – “della gloria del grande Dio e Salvatore nostro, Gesú Cristo.”, the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués –  o aparecimento da glória do grande Deus e nosso Salvador Jesus Cristo”, the Russian Zhuromsky New Testament, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 – “og åpenbarelsen av den store Guds og vår frelser Jesu Kristi herlighet,” the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible – “van den groten God en onzen Zaligmaker Jezus Christus;” = “of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” 

Martin Luther’s German translation of 1545 also reads just like the King James Bible as does the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 with: “großen Gottes und unsers Heilandes Jesu Christi”.  = “the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Matthew Henry comments – “Jesus Christ, that great God and our Saviour, who saves not only as God, much less as Man alone; but as God-man, two natures in one person. He loved us, and gave himself for us.” 

John Gill comments – “and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; not two divine persons, only one, are here intended.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment – “the great God and our Saviour Jesus—There is but one Greek article to “God” and “Saviour,” which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being.

Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible – “Of the great God –  There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus…No one, accustomed to Paul‘s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God”  

Matthew Henry comments – “The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ for they are not two subjects, but one only, as appears by the single article”  

Matthew Poole comments – “And the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; and in order thereunto, looking for the coming of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the last judgment. The same person is here meant by the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

James White, who is now promoting the modern Vatican Versions and who SAYS the Bible is the infallible words of God but will NEVER tell you where to get one, is dead wrong in his criticisms of this verse, and the King James Bible is absolutely correct and infallible, as always.  

All of grace, believing the Book – the King James Holy Bible.

See also Dr. Larry Bednar’s explanation of Titus 2:13 in the KJB and why it is absolutely correct and better than the ESV, NIV, NASB and NKJV at his KJV Textual Technology site here –

http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/kjv-classical-language-of-emphasis.php

The King James Bible is right, as always.

#3 – The third verse that critics cite against the KJB is 2 Peter 1:1. Here we read

2 Peter 1:1 – “To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Again they say the verse, as it stands in the KJB, does not clearly show the deity of Jesus Christ. The NKJV, NIV and NASB read: “through the righteousness of OUR God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

First, it needs to be pointed out that there are several textual differences in the Greek of verses one and two. One of the “oldest and best” manuscripts called Sinaiticus reads “righteousness of the Lord” or kurios instead of righteousness of God. But the NASB and NIV didn’t follow this, but rather the majority reading of “God”.

In the next verse we read: “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge OF GOD AND OF JESUS OUR LORD.”

Here several texts omit “of God and of Jesus” – The Expositor’s Greek Testament does this. Other texts omit just “of God”, and Sinaiticus adds the word CHRIST and so says: “of God and of Jesus CHRIST our Lord”.

Other Greek manuscripts read “Jesus our Saviour” instead of “Jesus our Lord”, and others still reverse the word order and add Christ and end up with “of our Lord Jesus Christ” instead of “of Jesus our Lord”, while a few others say “of OUR God” instead of “of God”.

You can verify all this information by looking carefully at the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 4th edition.  There is thus a wide variety of different readings found in these first two verses of 2 Peter. 

Secondly, the text followed by the King James Bible seems to be that of Scrivener, Beza and Elziever.

2 Πετερ 1:1 εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου = This text has the literal “righteousness of the OUR God and OUR Saviour Jesus Christ.

Several Bible translations actually read this way.  Among these are the Worsley Version of 1770 “the righteousness of OUR God and of OUR Saviour Jesus Christ”, the New Simplified Bible – ” the righteousness of our God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ”,  Green’s KJV lll of 1993, the French Sainte Bible of 1759 and La Bible du Semeur of 1999 – “notre Dieu et notre Sauveur”. 

Likewise the Weymouth translation of 1912 has “righteousness of OUR God and of OUR Savior Jesus Christ.”  Etheridge’s 1849 translation of the Syriac has “righteousness of OUR Lord and OUR Redeemer Jeshu Meshiha. Lawrie Translation 1998 – “through the righteousness of OUR God and OUR Savior Jesus Christ”

The ASV of 1901 DOES seem to distinguish between God and the Lord Jesus saying: “in the righteousness of our God and the saviour Jesus Christ”

See also the article on 2 Peter 1:1 at KJV Today where he discusses both the textual variations found in this verse and the use of the Granville Sharp Rule.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/god-and-our-saviour-or-our-god-and-saviour-in-titus-213–2-peter-11

As I understand it, the King James Bible translators saw both words “our” as referring to the same Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is both God and our Saviour.

It is a distinct possibility that they wanted to maintain this single identity of the full Deity of Christ, and so they chose to not translate one of the words “our” so as to avoid a translation that would suggest the passage is speaking about two different persons.  

Had they translated the passage in a strict literal sense (rather than the meaning) the rendering of “the righteousness of our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” far more easily lends itself to the interpretation that it is speaking of two persons rather than one.  I don’t know this for sure. I wasn’t there when they talked about it. But this seems like a very good possibility.

Bible Translations that agree with the King James Bible reading –

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible by Frederick Scrivener 1873 – through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”   http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/thecambridgeparagraphbible/2peter/1.html

The  Italian Diodati of 1649 reads like the KJB with “righteousness of God and OUR Saviour, Jesus Christ.” – “giustizia dell’Iddio e Salvator NOSTRO, Gesù Cristo.” The 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible reads this way too – “de preţioasă prin dreptatea Dumnezeului şi Salvatorului nostru Isus Cristos”. 

So too do The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston’s Primitive N.T. 1745 – “through the righteousness of God, and OUR Saviour Jesus Christ.”, the Clarke N.T. 1795, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Pickering N.T. 1840 – “the righteousness of God and OUR Saviour Jesus Christ”, the Hammond N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848 –  “to those obtaining like faith, in the righteousness of God, and OUR savior Jesus Christ, with us.”, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Dillard N.T. 1885 – “of God and OUR Saviour Anointed Jesus.”, The Word of Yah 1993 – “through the righteousness of God and OUR Saviour Yahshua the Christ”, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995,  the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, the Bond Slave Version 2012, the Revised English Version of 2010, The Conservative Bible 2011 – “through the righteousness of God and OUR Savior Jesus Christ”. 

The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005, the Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible 2000, the Evidence Bible 2003, the Heritage Bible 2003, and the Urim-Thummin Version of 2001 by Dallas James all read the same with “through the righteousness of God and OUR Saviour Jesus Christ.”

The reading as it stands in the KJB “the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” can easily be seen as stating that He is both God and our Saviour; but the difference is this – Jesus Christ is God but He is not every body’s Saviour.  He is OUR Saviour and 2 Peter is written to born again, blood bought Christians. 

Compare other verses with similar wording. In Isaiah 44:6, 24 we are told “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, AND his redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God…Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, AND he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things…” Even though there is the word “and” in between the two nouns, we know there is only one person who is being referred to – God.

The same thing is found in 1 Thessalonians 3:11 “Now God himself AND our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you.”; Galatians 1:4 “according to the will of God AND our Father.” The “and” is not implying another person, but is bringing out another aspect of the same one. He is both God and our Father.

So too, in 2 Peter the “God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” can be seen as showing another aspect of the same divine Person, just as 2 Peter 1:11 “kingdom of our Lord AND Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Even the reading of the NKJV, NIV and NASB could be looked upon as describing two distinct persons; it all depends on how one reads it.

“Righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”, can be compared to statements like “our Mom and Dad won’t let us go to the party” or “our boss and manager will be at the meeting”.

In Scripture we have “ye are our glory and joy” 1 Thessalonians 2:20, and Acts 15:25 “our beloved Barnabas and Paul”. Both Barnabas and Paul were beloved but they obviously were two different people. You see, if you wish to see a declaration of Christ’s deity in this verse, it is there. Likewise, it can be explained away by those who do not wish to see it in either rendering.

The Jehovah Witness New World Translation reads much the same way as the NKJV, NIV, NASB – “by the righteousness of OUR God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ” (NWT) and yet they manage to explain away the full deity of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Dr. Thomas Holland has written a very good article refuting James White’s groundless criticism of the King James Bible, and these three verses. He addresses Titus 2:13 and the others about two-thirds down in his article here: http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson12.htm

I hope this has been of some help to those who believe that we have all of God’s inspired, pure words today, and that they are found in the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney

Return to Articles –  http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

Seven Easy Ways to Tell the True Bible from the False bibles

Via Will Kinney, with permission:

Seven Easy Ways to Tell the True Bible from the False bibles

True Bible or False bible?  You don’t need to be a scholar to tell which Bible is the true one. God never intended His words of truth to be known or understood only by the scholars. They don’t agree among themselves as to which text to follow or how to render it in English once they agree as to the text – as it witnessed by the conflicting NAS, NIV, ESV and NKJV.Jesus tells us “Beware of the scribes…” and in 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 “It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

There is an easy way for every Christian to test the multitude of conflicting Bible versions flooding the market today. Are they a true or a false witness? Mark 14:56 tells us: “For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.”

In a court of law a false witness will sometimes or even usually tell the truth, but he betrays himself as a false witness by saying something either false, contradictory or absurd. 

So it is with the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV and all the other modern Bible versions competing for your money and your mind. So Christian friend, I ask you to sit for a little while in the jury box, listen to the testimonies, and determine which one is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Example #1

What is your righteousness before a holy and just God? Is it your own works or the imputed righteousness of our precious Lord Jesus Christ?

The imputed righteousness of Christ is illustrated and clearly taught in the King James Bible of 1611. In the beginning, after Adam and Eve had sinned and hid themselves from God because they were naked, we are told in Genesis 3:21: “Unto Adam also and to is wife did the LORD God make coats of skin, and clothed them.” An innocent animal was slain, and its coat was made a covering for the naked, guilty pair. God has to cover us; we cannot cover ourselves acceptably before Him.

Isaiah 61:10 beautifully expresses this truth: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness…as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.”

Zechariah 3:1-4 illustrates the same truth. Satan stood at the right hand of Joshua the high priest to resist him. The Lord rebuked Satan. The Bible tells us that: “Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.” But God said: “Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.”

In Matthew 22 our Saviour gives us a parable about a wedding where the guests were bidden to the feast. But the king saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. “And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.” Then the man was bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness.

You and I have no righteousness of our own doing. “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” – Isaiah 64:6. But praise our God for his wonderful Son, Jesus Christ. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21. “and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Philippians 3:9.

All the preceding information was given to show the true doctrine so that the false teaching of the new versions will be seen more clearly.

Revelation 19:7-9 tells us again of the wedding feast. V.7 “the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; FOR THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS.”

This last phrase is consistent with the rest of Scripture that it is not our righteousness that makes us acceptable unto God, but the robe of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Versions that read just like the King James Bible are Tyndale’s New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishop’s Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Green’s interlinear, Whiston’s Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley’s 1755 translation, Worsley Version 1770, Daniel Webster’s of 1833, Etheridge Translation 1849, Murdock Translation 1851, Noyes Translation 1869, New Testament translated from the Sinaitic mss. 1918, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (el lino fino son las justificaciones de los santos), the 1744 French Martin – (“ce fin lin désigne la justice des Saints.”), Luther’s 1545 German Bible, Darby’s translation 1890, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the 21st Century KJB version 1994, and even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message which reads: “She was given a bridal gown of bright and shining linen. The linen is the righteousness of the saints.”

However, the Catholic Douay, New American (St. Joseph of 1970), and the Jehovah Witness Bibles read in a similar way to many modern versions. St. Joseph: “the linen dress is THE VIRTUOUS DEEDS of God’s saints.” The Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 reads: “because her linen is made of THE GOOD DEEDS of the saints.”

The NKJV, NASB, ISV (2003 International Standard Version), the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version), the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the NIV, and the Jehovah Witness NWT have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (NIV 1984 edition) or “the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS DEEDS of God’s people”.

The Holman Standard and Jehovah Witness NWT read: “For the fine linen represents THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” That is the Catholic doctrine of works salvation and it is now taught in the NKJV, NIV, and NASB too. If our righteous acts or righteous deeds are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered, don’t you think? At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same truth in this verse. So which one is right?

For a further development of the theology of this verse as it stands in the King James Bible please see my article here:  

 http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev198finelinen.htm

Example #2

God is sovereign and in control of his universe. Daniel 2:21 “he changeth the times and the seasons”. Acts 1:7 “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power,”; Acts 17:31 “he hath appointed a day (already done) in the which he will judge the world in righteousness”; Revelation 9:15 “And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.” God alone is in control of time, even to the very hour. John 7:30: “Then they sought to take him; but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.”

2 Peter 3:12 KJB – “Looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God”

The King James Bible along with Tyndale, the Great Bible 1540 – “lokyng for, and hastinge vnto the commynge of the daye of God”, Matthew’s Bible 1549 -“lokynge for and hasting vnto the comminge of the daye of God”, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva 1587 – “Looking for, and hasting vnto the comming of that day of God”, Douay, Webster’s 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Young’s 1898, and the Spanish Reina Valera correctly translate 2 Peter 3:11,12 “Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God…”,  Douay – hasten towards; Young – hasting to; Spanish – apresurándoos para la venida.

While the RV, 1885 and ASV of 1901 have -“earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God”.  The Holman Standard of 2003 is similar to these last two, in that it reads: “as you wait for AND EARNESTLY DESIRE the coming of the day of God.”

But something has definitely changed in many new “bibles”. The NKJV,  NASB and ESV have “hastening the coming” and the NIV has “speed its coming”.

The Catholic bible versions teach the same false doctrine as do the NKJV, NASB, NIV and ESV.  The 1970 St. Joseph New American bible says: “looking for the coming of the day of God AND TRYING TO HASTEN IT.” while the Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 has: “while you wait for the Day of God to come, and TRY TO HASTEN its coming.” We cannot  hasten or hurry up Gods timetable or affect it in any way. The new versions teach the opposite and contradict the rest of Scripture. For a further development and explanation of the theology of this verse as it stands in the King James Bible please see my article here:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2peter312hastingunto.htm

Example #3

In 2 Samuel 14, Joab enlists the help of a wise woman to change David’s attitude toward his son Absalom. David apparently received the woman’s message as from the Lord, because he allowed Absalom to return to Jerusalem. Part of the message is v.14; “For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON.” In other words, we all die, regardless of wealth or social position.

The Geneva Bible, Youngs translation, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America Version all agree with the KJV – “NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON.”

However, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and ESV say “God does not take away life.” This is a false statement. It contradicts 2 Samuel 12:15 just two chapters before where the Lord struck the child and he died. 1 Samuel 2:6 says: “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up…” and God himself testifies in Deut. 32:39; “I kill, and I make alive.”

This is not a case of the NKJV, ESV or NASB honestly examining the Hebrew, because all three have rendered the same words in other places just as the KJB has them here. Why change what this wise woman said from the truth into a lie?

For a further explanation of this verse please see my article here: Does God Take Away Life?  

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam14luke24.htm

Example #4

A false witness can say something so utterly ridiculous that you know he is lying. Let’s look at the NAS – the rapidly fading star of the scholarly types. Is it possible to deceive God? He knows our every thought and the words before they come out of our mouths. Of course, you say, no one can deceive God.

Stupid statement #1 . Psalms 78 tells us of Israel’s rebellion and sin against their God and of his continued compassion towards them. One of the people’s many recorded sins is found in v.36: “they did FLATTER him with their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongue.” We can flatter God – say all kinds of nice things about him yet not really mean them. God is not fooled by mans false words of adoration. The ASV, NIV, NKJV, ESV, Darby, Geneva, RSV and NRSV all agree with the KJV that they flattered God. But the NASB says they DECEIVED him. That, my Christian friend, is an impossibility. I hope you aren’t deceived into thinking the NASB is the true Bible.  

To see more on this verse – Can God be Deceived?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/eze149ps7836deceive.htm

Stupid statement #2. Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS.” In other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture.

The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. The NIV is good here saying: “in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” Older English Bible are good here like the Great Bible of 1540 – “nether is God in all his thoughtes.” or Matthew’s Bible of 1549 – “neither is God before his eyes.”

But the NASB and ESV have “All his thoughts are ‘There is no God.'” Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day long thinking; “there is no god, there is no god, there is no god.”  The NASB, ESV are very similar to the Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 which says: “”There is no God”, is his only thought.”

Stupid statement #3 Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV 1984 edition, ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish: “But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT.” In other words, the light of God’s truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them.  

The ESV is pretty good here. It says: “But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible.”

But the NASB would have us believe “EVERYTHING THAT BECOMES VISIBLE IS LIGHT.”  Oh, really? But now the “new” NIV of 2011 has come out and it has changed the meaning of this verse to now mean something utterly ridiculous. 

The “old” NIV of 1984 read: “But EVERYTHING EXPOSED BY THE LIGHT BECOMES VISIBLE.”  

However the NIV 2011 now says: “and everything THAT IS ILLUMINATED BECOMES A LIGHT.”!!!  The ‘new’ NIV is now much closer to it’s Catholic counterpart, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 which also says: “and anything illuminated is itself a light.”

Example #5

As a false witness will contradict himself; so too will a false bible. Hebrews 3 tells of the children of Israel who didn’t believe God and hardened their hearts so as not to enter the promised land. Verse 16 says; “For some, when they had heard, did provoke; howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.”

Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 – “For some, when they hearde, rebelled, how be it not al that came out of Egypte vnder Moyses.” the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Young’s and Reina Valera of 1602 agree with the King James Bible.

However the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV say: “For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt by Moses?”

You would naturally answer “Yes, it was all” to the new versions. But that is a lie, a contradiction and contrary to the whole sense of the passage. Joshua and Caleb believed God and eventually did enter the promised land along with thousands of the children of the parents who refused to believe God. The whole point of the passage is to believe God and enter into his rest. Be like Caleb and Joshua. 

The earlier Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay were right and also agreed with the King James Bible.  The 1950 Douay says in Hebrews 3:16 – “for some who heard gave provocation, BUT NOT ALL those who came out of Egypt under Moses.” 

However the newer Catholic versions like the St. Joseph of 1970 reads exactly the same wrong meaning like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV with “who were those that revolted when they heard that voice?  Was it not all whom Moses had led out of Egypt?”, while the New Jerusalem of 1985 has “who was it who listened and then rebelled? Surely all those whom Moses led out of Egypt.”  

To see more on this verse 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/heb316someprovokenot.htm

Example #6

Who is in control of the world? Is it God or Satan? Jesus Christ said: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Matthew 28:18. The Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:13 ends with :”For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever, Amen.”

This phrase is in brackets in the NASB and removed in the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT and Dan Wallace’s  NET version.  Jesus either said it or he didn’t; they can’t all be right.

See my article on this verse here – Matthew 6:13 & Luke 11:2-4  – Is your bible a “Catholic” bible?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/matthew613.htm

In Ephesians 1:20-22 it is said of Christ that God “raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet.”

Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us that “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” II Cron. 20:6: “O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?”

Satan is a liar from the beginning. When he told Jesus, during the temptation, that all the kingdoms of the world were his and that he gave them to whomsoever he would, he was lying. His statement directly contradicts Daniel 4:17 and the other Scriptures.

But the NIV, NASB, ESV and NKJ have bought Satan’s lie and are passing it off on to God’s children.

In 1 John 5:19 the KJV along with the Geneva, Tyndale, Young’s and the Spanish of 1602 say: “And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS.” We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin; but God is still in control and ruling even though it may not appear that way. But the eye of faith sees his sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.

However the NIV says: “The whole world is under the control of the evil one.” (Before you rush to your school boy Greek, check out your own version on the presence or lack of the definite article.) The NASB and ESV have “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”

Likewise the Catholic versions are in agreement with the NIV, NASB, ESV reading: “and the whole world is in the power of the Evil One.” (New Jerusalem bible 1985). The NKJV tries to strike a medium with its: “lies under the sway of the wicked one” but it is also wrong when it calls Satan the “ruler of this world” in John 16:11.

For further discussion of who rules the world, please see –   

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

Example #7

WORDS and NUMBERS

I believe God is very serious about his words and those who would tamper with them. Deuteronomy 4:2: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.” Proverbs 30:5,6 “Every word of God is pure…Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Also Rev. 22:18,19.

The NASB, ESV and the NIV are guilty of adding to, diminishing from and changing the words of God. This is not just my opinion, but documented facts from their own “bibles” and concordances.

I will give just a few of the many examples I have found. In Judges 16:13-14 the NASB, ESV & NIV add 33 EXTRA WORDS to the text, which are not found in any Hebrew manuscripts, but according to the NIV footnote are found in some Greek copies.

In 2 Samuel 13:34 the NIV adds another 21 WORDS from the Greek. They are not found in the NASB or even the ESV. And again the NIV and the ESV both add another 15 WORDS to Psalm 145:13 from the Syriac – which are not in the NASB.

In Genesis 4:8 the NIV adds from the Greek: “let us go out into the field.”, but they are not found in the NASB or the ESV.

I have found well over 40 examples in the NASB and more than 80 in the NIV and ESV where they do not follow the Hebrew text but go with the Greek, Syriac, Targum etc. Here are documented facts about some of the many places where versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard and other modern Bible versions reject the inspired Hebrew texts. See –  

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

 http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew2.htm

  2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. All Hebrew texts, plus the Revised Version, the ASV, Geneva, Darby, Young, Spanish, NKJV, and even the RSV & NRSV say 42.

Yet the NASB, ESV & NIV change this number to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. This information is in a footnote in the Scofield NIV of 1984. It is recorded in 2 Kings 8:26 that he was 22 years old.

There is a rather easy solution to this apparent contradiction. Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab – 2 Chronicles 22:7. Ahaziah was son in law to Ahab – 2 Kings 8:27. So if you count how long each king related to Ahab reigned, you come up with exactly the 42nd year as a son of Ahab (related by marriage) when Ahaziah began to reign, though physically he was only 22.

Ahab 1 Kings 16:29 – 22 years reigned, Jehoram of Israel 12 years 2 Kings 3:1 and Jehoram of Judah 8 years 2 Chronicles 21:5. Thus 22 + 12 + 8 =42. The new versions are based on unbelief. They say “This is a scribal error.” They don’t believe God has preserved his word without error. They do not have an inspired, inerrant Bible in their hands. Ask them and you will see.

For a more in depth discussion of the 22 versus 42 “problem” please see – How old was Ahaziah?

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

A riddle is found within a riddle in Judges 14:12-18. Verse 15 says “it came to pass on the SEVENTH day”. This is in all Hebrew texts, Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Geneva, Young, Darby, Douay, NKJ (but with misleading footnote) and Spanish.

The NIV and ESV change this to the FOURTH day with a footnote that says some LXX, Syriac 4th; Hebrew 7th.

The NASB also has FOURTH but no footnote. NASB, ESV and  NIV still have a contradiction because of v.17, 18. Can you solve the riddle? Hints: Could any days have intervened between v.12 and v.15? And what would the first 7th day of v. 15 have meant to the Jewish Samson? There is no need to doubt God’s Holy word. Get the King James Holy Bible and stick with it.

I have also developed a fuller explanation of the riddle within a riddle found here:

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

 One last example dealing with numbers – though I have many more. In 1 Samuel 13:1 the KJV, NKJV, Geneva and Spanish say: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel…”

The NASB editions 1972 to 1977 said: “Saul was FORTY years old when he began to reign and he reigned THIRTY-TWO years over Israel.”  

But then the NASB 1995 changed this to match the NIV and now says: “Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned FORTY TWO years over Israel.”  

The ESV 2001 and 2007 editions both read: “Saul was….years old when he began to reign, and he reigned…..and TWO years over Israel.”  

But now the ESV 2011 edition says: “Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned for TWO years over Israel”

The NIV has: “Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years.”

Gleason Archer, one of the translators of the NIV, says in his book Bible Difficulties on page 171 that the Hebrew text here has been lost. How is that for God preserving his word?! The NASB & NIV and ESV not only disagree with each other (The ESV disagrees with other ESVs!) but contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned for 40 years. The Hebrew text is not lost.

For further development of the truth of this verse as it stands in the King James Bible, please see my article here: Some Words Lost?

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

 “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.”

The NIV complete concordance tells us that they have not translated THOUSANDS of Hebrew and Greek words. Here are just a few examples.

Zechariah 1:7 NIV omits “saying”. The NIV number for this word is #606. Their own concordance tells us they have “not translated” this word 878 times.

Zechariah 1:11 “Behold” is gone. NIV #2180 not translated 550 times.

Zechariah  1:18 omits “mine eyes” #6524 – 36 times not translated; “saw” and “behold” also are gone from this same verse.

“Children” #1201 not translated 237 times

Zechariah 8:17 omits “in your hearts”, Zechariah 8:19 omits the word “fast” 3 of the 4 times it occurs in this verse.

Zechariah 9:1 omits “burden”. All of these words are in the NASB, NKJ, and of course the KJV.

The NIV has over 64,000 fewer words in it than the KJV. It does not translate the words “it came to pass” (also, to be, happen, occur) #2118 –  887 times.

The words “I pray thee” #5228 in NIV are not translated 297 times out of the 405 times it occurs in the Hebrew text.

See how the omission of this simple phrase changes a request into a demand. In Exodus 33:18 Moses speaks to God: “And he said, I BESEECH THEE, shew me thy glory.”

NIV: “Then Moses said, ‘Now show me your glory.'”

This type of “bible” may appeal to the blab it and grab it crowd, but it is not the pure word of God.

The NASB 1995 edition omits almost 8000 WORDS that were found in the previous NASB 1977 edition.

To see many examples of how the NASB continues to change both its Hebrew and Greek underlying texts, as well as their English translation over and over again from one edition to the next, see “The ever changing ‘literal’ NASB”

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

The King James Bible is the only English Bible believed by thousands of God’s redeemed people to be the complete and inerrant words of the living God. And that is exactly what it is.

No one seriously believes any other Bible in any language is or ever was the inerrant words of God.  Just ask them.  

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

Will Kinney  

Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

President Ronald Reagan speaking about the King James Bible

Here is a very interesting 3 minute video recording of President Ronald Reagan talking about the King James Bible and the modern versions on his radio program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08_KByUwH6c&feature=share 

 Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

Brother Joshua Alvarez has done a wonderful job in this 30 minute video of refuting the false claims and ignorance of a very confused young “pastor” regarding the Bible version issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed7PGUt6VXE&feature=youtu.be&t=19m50s

 RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING 

Which Bible Version is God’s Word?

By: Edward Hendrie

http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/Which_Bible_Version_is_God’s_Word.htm

Fact filled article showing the Jesuit Conspiracy to pervert and change the Bible to fit the “new” religion of the masses. 

 Part of what you will see in this article is the following:

  In apparent reference to Satan’s corruption of God’s word in the Garden of Eden, Jesus admonished Satan: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4 AV) Just as Satan did in the Garden of Eden, he now tries to confuse people about what God has said: “Yea, hath God said . . . .” Pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Dunegan attended a lecture on March 20, 1969 at a gathering of pediatricians at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. The lecturer at that meeting was a Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989). At the time of the lecture Dr. Day was Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously, Dr. Day had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Dr. Dunegan was well acquainted with Dr. Day and described him as an insider in the “order.” Dr. Dunegan did not explain what the “order” was, but from the lecture it was clear that it was a very powerful secret society made up of minions in service to Satan. During the lecture Dr. Day revealed many of the satanic plans that the members of the “order” had agreed upon that would change the United States from a Christian society to a pagan society. One of the strategies was to introduce new bible versions. By the time of the lecture in 1969, that strategy had long previously been implemented. Dr. Day was indicating that the final success of that strategy was in sight as henceforth it would be implemented with new vigor. Dr. Dunegan explains:

 Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he [Dr. Day] said, “Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it’s mysteries and rituals – so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won’t be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don’t need it.

 In order to this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word – and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with another word.” I don’t know if I’m making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won’t know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, “the few who do notice the difference won’t be enough to matter.” 

            In accordance with the aforementioned conspiracy, Satan and his minions now offer people a whole assortment of different bible versions, which change and twist God’s word. God’s word is with us today in the Authorized (King James) Version (referred to as AV or KJV). All other bible versions are tainted by the hands of Satan and his minions, including the New King James Version (NKJV). “Ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.” Jeremiah 23:36. The corrupted bible versions are essentially Roman Catholic bible versions. Sadly, most of the so called church leaders of today have accepted Satan’s counterfeit bibles.

NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions Reject the Hebrew – Part Two

Via Will Kinney, with permission:

NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions Reject the Hebrew  – Part Two

Proverbs through Malachi

Proverbs 30:5,6 “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 7:22-23 KJB – Speaking of a young man void of understanding who is deceived by a strange woman:

“He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as A FOOL TO THE CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS; till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.”

This is the meaning found in such versions as Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible, Webster’s, the NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Young’s, Spanish Reina Valera, Darby, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936 and 1998.

However, the NIV says: – “like an ox going to the slaughter, LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE.” Then the NIV footnotes: Syriac; Hebrew – a fool. (It comes right out and tells us that the Hebrew says “a FOOL”, NOT “a deer”).

Then the NIV says to see the LXX. However the LXX is little help because it says: “as a DOG to bonds or a hart shot in the liver with an arrow.”

Likewise the Syriac is of no help either. Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac says here: “as an ox to the slaugher, or A DOG TO BE MUZZLED.”

The NIV reading is most like the Catholic St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 that reads: “like an ox is led to the slaughter; LIKE A STAG THAT MINCES TOWARD THE NET.”

But the Catholic New Jerusalem of 1985 has: “ox to the slaughterhouse, LIKE A MADMAN ON HIS WAY TO THE STOCKS.”

The NKJV gives the same translation to this verse as do the King James Bible and many others, but then footnotes that the Greek Septuagint, Syriac and Targum read “as A DOG to bonds” and that the Vulgate reads: “as A LAMB…to bonds”.

The Catholic Douay version is of interest in that it does follow the Vulgate to a degree, but then agrees with the KJB and others in the remainder of the verse. It says: “Immediately he followeth her as an ox led to be a victim, and AS A LAMB PLAYING THE WANTON, and not knowing that he is drawn LIKE A FOOL TO BONDS.”

Other corrupted versions are the RSV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman Standard. The ESV reads: “as an ox to the slaughter, or AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST.” Then it footnotes: “Probable reading; See Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate.”

But as we have seen, neither the Septuagint nor the Syriac read anything like what is found in the NIV or the ESV. The Holman also joins this mess and says: “like a deer bounding towards a trap”, then footnotes – “TEXT EMENDED – Hebrew obscure – “like shackles for the discipline of a fool”.

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, does his usual goofball translation and commentary on this verse in his NET version. He has: “Suddenly he went after her like an ox that goes to the slaughter, like A STAG PRANCING INTO A TRAPPER’S SNARE.”

Then he footnotes: “The translation is Scott’s. This third colon of the verse would usually be rendered, “fetters to the chastening of a fool.” But there is no support that  (’ekhes) means “fetters.” It appears in Isaiah 3:16 as anklets. The parallelism here suggests that some animal imagery is required. Thus the versions have “as a dog to the bonds.”

Aren’t scholars funny? Dr. Wallace neglects the clear fact that all Hebrew texts here read “fool” and not “stag”, but then goes into some length to give us his personal opinion that the other Hebrew word has no support for being rendered as “stocks” or “fetters”, even though scores of other Bible translators, with just as much learning as he has, have done this very thing. It looks like the faculties of most modern seminaries have lost their faculties.

Folks, the Hebrew reading is not obscure at all. The phrases “as an ox to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks” simply means that the fool is doing something that will lead to his being punished. It is not that hard to figure out.

Proverbs 8:16 KJB – “By me judges rule, and nobles, even all the judges OF THE EARTH.”

This is an interesting case in that the Hebrew manuscripts differ from each other. Even the NIV, RV, ASV, Geneva, Young’s, Darby and the RSV read as does the KJB.

However the NASB follows a different text and reads as the NRSV and says: “all who judge RIGHTLY” instead of “all the judges OF THE EARTH.”

The Catholic versions are likewise is total disarray. The Douay has: “By me princes rule, and THE MIGHTY DECREE JUSTICE.” But then the St. Joseph NAB 1970 goes back to the Hebrew of the KJB and says: “…all the rulers OF THE EARTH.”, but then the 1985 New Jerusalem changes their texts once again and now reads: “by me rulers govern, so do nobles, THE LAWFUL AUTHORITIES.”

Ecclesiastes 2:8 “I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, AND THAT OF ALL SORTS.”

This is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Webster’s 1833 translation, Third Millennium Bible, KJV 21, Spanish Reina Valera, and the Italian Diodati.

However the NIV says: “AND A HAREM AS WELL”, while the NASB and Holman have “and many concubines”; and the LXX says: “A BUTLER AND FEMALE CUPBEARERS.”

The NIV tells us in a footnote that the meaning of the Hebrew phrase is uncertain. Instead of “musical instruments” (KJB and others) the Douay 1950 has “CUPS AND VESSELS TO SERVE TO POUR OUT WINE”, while the St. Joseph has “all human luxuries” and the New Jerusalem bible has “every human luxury, chest upon chest of it.”

Ecclesiastes 2:25 “For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, MORE THAN I?”  

So read the Hebrew texts as well as Wycliffe 1395, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Darby, Youngs, the Jewish translations JPS 1917, Hebrew Publishing Company translation 1936, Judaica Press Tanach, the Hebrew Names Version, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, the NKJV, Greens, Douay, Spanish Reina Valers, Italian Diodadi 1998, the French and the Portuguese Bibles to name but a few.  

However the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV and NET versions reject the majority Hebrew reading and have instead: “For who can eat and who can have enjoyment WITHOUT HIM?”

Then versions like the RSV footnote that the reading “WITHOUT HIM” comes from the Greek and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads “more than I”  

Daniel Wallace footnotes: “The MT reads מִמֶּנִּי (mimmenni, “more than I”). However, an alternate textual tradition of מִמֶּנּוּ (mimmennu,“apart from him [= God]”) is preserved in several medieval Hebrew mss, and is reflected in most of the versions (LXX, Syriac, Syro-Hexapla, and Jerome).” 

Here the older Catholic Douay followed the Hebrew reading found in the KJB, but the more modern Catholic versions like St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem read like the NIV, NASB, ESV and NET versions.

Ecclesiastes 8:10 KJB – “AND THEY WERE FORGOTTEN in the city where they had so done: this also is vanity.” So read the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, but the NIV, ESV, and Catholic Douay and St. Joseph say: “AND RECEIVE PRAISE in the city where they did this” with a footnote telling us some Hebrew manuscripts and the LXX so read but that most Hebrew mss. read “and are forgotten”.  Dan Wallace’s NET version says “THEY BOASTED” and then footnotes that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads “and they were forgotten”.

The NIV adds “and the bad” to Eccl. 9:2 from the LXX, Vulgate and Syriac but admits it is not in the Hebrew nor in the NASB.

Song of Solomon 4:12 “A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; A SPRING SHUT UP, a fountain sealed.” The Hebrew text as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, ESV and the Jewish translations all agree with the King James reading of “a spring shut up”. However the NASB along with the RSV follows the Greek Septuagint reading here and says: “A garden locked is my sister, my bride A ROCK GARDEN LOCKED, a spring sealed up.”

Song of Solomon 7:9 KJB ( NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV) “And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, CAUSING THE LIPS OF THOSE THAT ARE ASLEEP TO SPEAK.”

NIV – “flowing gently OVER LIPS AND TEETH.”

The NIV Footnote says this comes from the LXX, Vulgate and Syriac, but the Hebrew says “lips of sleepers”. The ESV also reads as does the NIV but it footnotes that the Hebrew literally reads: “causing the lips of sleepers to speak”, just as the KJB has it!

Guess which other bible reads like the ESV. The Catholic St. Joseph NAB says: “spreading over the lips and the teeth.”  The New Jerusalem bible notes that this reading of “lips and teeth” comes from the Greek Septuagint.

Dan Wallace’s NET version reads: “gliding gently over our lips as we sleep together.” And then he footnotes -“The MT reads שִׁפְתֵי יְשֵׁנִים (shifte yÿshenim, “lips of those who sleep”). However, an alternate Hebrew reading of שְׂפָתַי וְשִׁנָּי (sÿfata vÿsinna, “my lips and my teeth”) is suggested by the Greek tradition (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus): χείλεσίν μου καὶ ὀδοῦσιν (ceilesin mou kai odousin, “my lips and teeth”). This alternate reading, with minor variations, is followed by NAB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, NLT.

Isaiah 5:17 KJB (NASB, NKJV) – “Then shall the lambs feed after their manner, and the waste places of the fat ones SHALL STRANGERS EAT.”

Agreeing with the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible are the following Bible versions: The Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Bible, the Geneva Bible, Bishops’ Bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, Young, Darby, Douay, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 – 1995, the Modern Greek translation (not to be confused with the so called LXX) the NASB, Holman Standard, and the NKJV.

However the NIV reads “The sheep will graze as in their own pasture, LAMBS WILL FEED among the ruins of the rich.” – instead of “and the waste places of the fat ones shall STRANGERS eat.” Then in a footnote the NIV tells us that “LAMBS” comes from LXX but the Hebrew says “strangers will eat”. So too do the liberal RSV, the NRSV,  NET, The Message (“KIDS AND CALVES right at home in the ruins”) and the new revision of the old NIV called Today’s NIV.

The older RSV, NRSV follow the alleged Greek Septuagint here, but now the new revision of the revision called the ESV has now gone back to the Hebrew reading (more or less) and says “and NOMADS shall eat among the ruins of the rich.”

The older Douay version followed the Hebrew text and says “shall strangers eat” but the the newer Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem follow the Septuagint reading just like the NIV. The Catholic St. Joseph, on the other hand, completely omits all of verse 5:17!

Why didn’t the NIV go with the Syriac as it frequently does? Well, maybe because Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac reads differently than them all saying: “and the waste places THAT SHALL BE REBUILT SHALL BE THE PROPERTY OF THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS.”!!

Hey, “strangers eat”, “Lambs eat” “fatlings and kids shall eat” (RSV, NRSV), or “shall be the property of the rightful owners”, it all means the same thing, right? The message hasn’t been changed. Don’t worry. Be happy. (sarcasm intended).

Isaiah 21:8 KJB ( NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young’s, Jewish translations and many others)- “And he cried, A LION: My lord…”

The NIV says: “And THE LOOKOUT shouted” then tells us “lookout” comes from the Syriac and Dead Sea Scrolls, but the Hebrew says “a lion”. The NASB of 1977 says: “then the SENTRY called like a LION”, combining both the Syriac and the Hebrew, but the 1995 NASB omits “lion” altogether and says: “Then the lookout called, O Lord…” One NASB is not the same as the next NASB. There are literally thousands of changes between the 1977 edition and the 1995 update edition. Agreeing with the NIV once again is the Catholic New Jerusalem bible and the St. Joseph NAB. The older Douay had “lion”.

The NIV also changes Isaiah 23:10 from “PASS THROUGH” to “TILL YOUR LAND” from Syriac and DSS.  Here the St. Joseph sticks with the Hebrew reading like the KJB but the New Jerusalem bible goes along with the NIV reading of “cultivate your country”.

Isaiah 33:6 – Isaiah 33:6 “the fear of the LORD is HIS treasure.” So reads the Hebrew text as well as the NKJV and NASB, but the ASV says “THY treasure”, then footnotes that the Hebrew reads HIS, and the RSV, ESV and Holman say: “the fear of the LORD is ZION’S treasure”, then footnote that the Hebrew reads HIS treasure, and the NIV says: “the fear of the LORD IS THE KEY TO THIS treasure”, apparently having just made it up out of thin air. By the way, the DSS says “YOUR treasure”, but nobody followed this reading so far.

Daniel Wallace’s NET version changes this to: “he gives all this to those who fear him.” and then footnotes – “Heb “the fear of the Lord, it is his treasure.” Hope this clears everything up for you all 😉

Isaiah 33:8 “he hath despised THE CITIES”.

So read the Hebrew Masoretic texts and the Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, NASB and the ESV and Holman, but the RSV, NRSV, NET and the NIV change this to “ITS WITNESSES are despised” from DSS. But wait! The Dead Sea Scrolls also change verse 33:3 which reads “AT THE LIFTING UP OF THYSELF the nations were scattered” (found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NET, NIV, NASB and NKJV) to “AT YOUR SILENCE nations scattered.”

Why don’t any of these conflicting modern versions follow the DSS reading here? They just willy-nilly pick and choose at random among the various readings whenever some spirit leads them to do so and not one of them agrees all the way through with the others. By the way, the New Jerusalem bible follows the reading found in the NIV “witnesses” and then footnotes that the Hebrew reads “towns (cities)” like the KJB has it.

Isaiah 37:25 – here the NIV adds the words “in foreign lands” taken from the DSS but not found in Masoretic nor the NASB, RSV, NRSV; and the NIV departs from the Hebrew in 45:2; 49:12; 51:19; 52:5, 14; and 66:19.

Isaiah 48:1 “waters”, “loins” or “seed”?

Isaiah 48:1 KJB – “Here ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are ome forth out of the WATERS of Judah…”

The word here in the Hebrew Masoretic text is cleary WATERS of Judah, and is so rendered by the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible – “Heare yee this, O house of Iaakob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come out of THE WATERS of Iudah“, the Douay-Rheims of 1610, The Family Jewish Bible 1864,  the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Young’s, Webster’s 1833, Douay of 1950, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Word of Yah 1993, Green’s literal 2005, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004 – “and who emanated from THE WATERS of Judah“, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot 2003, the Context Group Version 2007, the Concordant Literal Version 2009, the New Heart English Bible 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham Bible 2012, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 – “are come forth out of the WATERS of Yehudah”, The New European Version 2010 – “the WATERS of Judah”, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 – “the WATERS of Yisroel”, the English Standard Version 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013 and The Modern English Version 2014.

The NKJV needlessly alters this to the WELLSPRINGS of Judah, but at least retains the idea of water.

BUT the NASB 1995, RSV, NRSV and ISV 2014 say ‘the LOINS of Judah” with a footnote in the RSV and the ISV telling us this is a correction to the text and that the Hebrew reads ‘waters’. The reading or interpretation of ‘loins’ comes from some Targum commentators but it is not what the Hebrew actually says.

John Gill says the ‘seed of Judah’ is a Targum interpretation.

The NIV likewise says “from the LINE of Judah.” 

The Holman Standard of 2003 is a bit weird in that it just omits the phrase altogether and reads:who are called by the name Israel and have DESCENDED FROM [1]  Judah”, but then in their Footnote they tell us “Literally ‘have come from the WATERS of Judah”.  Perhaps the Holman is following the so called Greek Septuagint here because the LXX likewise omits the phrase altogether and simply says “are come from Judah”.

Dan Wallace and company’s NET version likewise omits the phrase and has “and are descended from Judah.”  He then footnotes “The Hebrew text reads literally “and from THE WATERS of Judah came out.” 

The Latin Vulgate of 405 A.D. follows the Hebrew text in this place and says -“et de AQUIS Juda existis” = “waters of Judah”.

Once again we see the purification process in the previous English Bibles. Wycliffe 1395 correctly has “the waters of Judah” but Coverdale 1535 and the Bishops’ Bible 1568 erroneously have “the STOCK of Judah”.

The Geneva Bible the went back to the Hebrew reading of “the WATERS of Judah”.

The Catholic Connection

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both followed the Hebrew text and say “the WATERS of Judah”.

But then the 1969 Jerusalem bible and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible both changed this to “the STOCK of Judah”.  Oh, but wait!  Now the 1985 New Jerusalem bible and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version have gone back to the Hebrew reading of “the WATERS of Judah”.  Nothing like consistent inconsistency, is there.

Foreign Language Bibles

Foreign language Bibles that also read “the WATERS of Judah” are Luther’s German bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlacher Bible – “aus dem Wasser Juda’s“, the Spanish Reina Valers 1960 – 1995 – “los que salieron de LAS AGUAS de Judá“, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel  – “e saístesDAS AGUAS de Judá“, the Italian Diodati of 1649 – “e siete usciti DELLE ACQUE acque di Giuda“, and the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible – “en uit DE WATEREN van Juda“.  The Modern Greek Bible reads “the fountain of Judah” – “και εξελθοντες εκ της πηγης του Ιουδα·”

Isaiah 49:17 “children” or “builders”?

King James Bible (NIV, NET, NKJV)- “Thy CHILDREN shall make haste; thy destroyers and they that made thee waste shall go forth of thee.” 

ESV, NASB – “Your BUILDERS make haste; your destroyers and those who laid you waste go out from you.”

In this verse the NASB and ESV depart from the Hebrew Masoretic text and this time the NIV doesn’t go along with them. The modern version “scholars” have really got their act together, don’t they?

In the KJB we read: “Thy CHILDREN shall make haste: thy destroyers and they that made thee waste shall go forth of thee.” ‘Children’ is the reading of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the KJB, NKJV 1982, Revised Version of 1881, Darby, the ASV of 1901 – “Thy CHILDREN make haste”, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, Hebrew Publishing Company version 1936 and the 2004 Judaica Press Tanach,  Hebrew Names Version 2014, World English Version, Webster’s 1833, Amplified Bible 1987, Lexham English Bible 2012, Green’s literal of 2000 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998. 

Even the NIV 1984 edition says “Your SONS hasten back” and the 2011 NIV now says: “Your CHILDREN hasten back.” This time even Daniel Wallace and company’s NET version sticks with the Hebrew text and says: “Your CHILDREN hurry back”.

The  Hebrew word is # 1121 Ben, which means “sons” or “children” and the context of Isaiah 49 is God bring children taken from among the Gentile nations and bringing them to Israel. See verses 6, 12, 20-22.

Among foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew Masoretic text and say “Thy CHILDREN make haste” are the Modern Greek translation – “Τα τεκνα σου θελουσιν ελθει μετα σπουδης·”, the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond of 2007 – “Tes enfants viendront à grande hâte”, the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati of 1991 and the 2006 Nuova Riveduta – “I tuoi figli accorrono”, the German Schlachter of 2000 – “Deine Söhne eilen herbei”,  and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Almeida Actualizada -(modern Portuguese version) as well as the NIV 1999 Nova Versão Internacional – “Os teus filhos pressurosamente virão”

However the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 (English Standard Version), Holman Standard 2003 and The Message say “Your BUILDERS make haste” instead of ‘children’. Young’s “literal” has this time rejected the Hebrew for some strange reason and reads: “Hastened have THOSE BUILDING THEE.”

The NASB never tells you when they depart from the Hebrew Masoretic text, but the ESV tells us in a footnote that the word “BUILDERS” comes from a Dead Sea Scroll manuscript, but that the Hebrew reads ‘children’.

The Holman Standard footnotes that the word “builders” comes from one DSS manuscript and the Latin Vulgate, but that both the Hebrew and the Syriac reads “sons” or “children”. Yet there are NUMEROUS readings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls copies of the book of Isaiah that NONE of these modern versions have adopted.  There IS no method to their madness; it’s just random madness.

Even these versions are confused among themselves.  The RSV has- “Your builders outstrip your destroyers”; the NRSV says – “Your BUILDERS outdo your destoyers” and the ESV has – “Your BUILDERS make haste.”  The Douay-Rheims and Douay say – “Thy BUILDERS ARE COME.” but the newer Catholic versions like the St. Joseph and New Jerusalem read: “Your REBUILDERS are hurrying.”

The NIV presents us with contradiction and confusion when they translate it into other languages. In English NIV  and the NIV Portuguese version of 1999 they correctly read “Your CHILDREN hasten back” – “Os teus filhos pressurosamente virão”, but the Spanish NIV of 1999 has rejected the Hebrew Masoretic text and says “Your BUILDERS make haste” – “Tus CONSTRUCTORES se apresuran.”

The Spanish versions have not done very well with this verse. The early Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and the Reina Valera of 1909, 1960 and 1995 and even the R.V. Gómez of 2010 have followed the Latin Vulgate instead of the Hebrew and read – “Tus edificadores vendrán aprisa;”= “Your BUILDERS WILL COME QUICKLY”. However the 2010 paraphrase called Nueva Traducción Viviente is pretty close with “Dentro de poco tus descendientes regresarán” = “Within a little while your DESCENDANTS will return.” and the 2012 Palabra de Dios para Todos (The Word of God For Everybody) is a lot better with: “Tus hijos se apresuran a regresar a ti” = “Your CHILDREN will hurry up to return to you.”

The Catholic versions have followed the Latin Vulgate here instead of the Hebrew and also read “your BUILDERS”. These are the Douay-Rheims, Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.  The Latin Vulgate of 405 A.D. itself reads: ” venerunt structores tui” = “your BUILDERS  are come”.

The so called Greek Septuagint (Benton’s translation) is a bit confused in that it reads – “Thou shalt soon be built by whom thou wast destroyed.”!! Not at all the same as any modern version.

Once again we can see the gradual purification process of the words of God in the English translations. Wycliffe 1395 followed the Latin Vulgate and his translation said “The BUILDERS are come”.  Both Coverdale’s translation of 1535 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 likewise did not follow the Hebrew text but said: “They that haue broken the downe, shal make haist to buylde the vp agayne.” Not even the Geneva Bible of 1587 got it right, but also followed the Latin Vulgate and says: “Thy BUILDERS make haste.” 

It wasn’t till God finally finished the purification process that we get perfection and infallibility in the King James Bible that reads: “Thy CHILDREN shall make haste, thy destroyers, and they that made thee waste, shall go forth of thee.” 

Get yourself the true “book of the LORD”, the King James Holy Bible. It is always right and you will never go wrong.

Isaiah 49:24 KJB (RV, ASV and others) “Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or THE LAWFUL CAPTIVE delivered?”

Both the NIV, NASB say: “captives rescued FROM THE FIERCE” which the NIV footnote tells us comes from the DSS, Vulgate and Syriac. The Catholic New Jerusalem bible also follows this reading like the NIV.

Isaiah 53:11 KJB (RV, ASV, RSV, NKJV) “He shall see THE TRAVAIL OF HIS SOUL, and shall be satisfied.”

NIV – “After the suffering of his soul, he will see THE LIGHT OF LIFE and be satisfied.” Footnote tells us this comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls but the Masoretic text does not have “light of life”.  The Catholic versions like the St. Joseph and New Jerusalem also follow this reading like the NIV does.  The NIV does not always follow the DSS either for sometimes they mention the DSS reading in the footnotes but do not use it in their text. There is no pattern to when they choose to follow the DSS, LXX, Syriac, Vulgate or whatever. It is all a willy – nilly process, totally at random.

Jeremiah 9:3 “And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: BUT THEY ARE NOT VALIANT FOR THE TRUTH UPON THE EARTH; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.”

“But they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth” is the reading of the NKJV 1982, Webster’s 1833, Green’s literal,  the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, New York Jewish translation, 

The meaning in the KJB is pretty straight forward – they do not stand for and defend the truth.  Adam Clarke comments: “They are not valiant for the truth They are bold in sin, and courageous to support their lies; but the truth they neither patronize nor support.”

John Gill remarks: “but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth;which a man should do everything for, and nothing against; and which he should earnestly contend for, and not part with or give up at any rate.”

The Geneva Bible of 1587 is like the King James Bible in that it says: “And they bende their tongues like their bowes for lyes: BUT THEY HAVE NO COURAGE FOR THE TRUETH UPON THE EARTH: for they proceede from euill to worse, and they haue not knowen mee, sayth the Lord.”

Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac is very much like the KJB with – “And they bend their tongues like their bow; in falsehood and not in truth they are valiant upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know me, says the LORD.” 

 The French  Ostervald 1996 reads exactly like the KJB with – “ce n’est pas pour la vérité qu’ils sont vaillants”, as does the Italian Diodati – e non si fortificano in verità, the Portuguese Almeida, and the Spanish Reina Valera – “y no se fortalecieron por verdad en la tierra.”

However several modern versions reject the Hebrew reading and instead follow the so called Greek Septuagint (LXX), which reads: “FALSEHOOD AND NOT FAITHFULNESS HAS PREVAILED UPON THE EARTH.”

The RSV reads: “They bend their tongue like a bow; FALSEHOOD AND NOT TRUTH HAS GROWN STRONG IN THE LAND; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know me, says the LORD.”  Then it footnotes that this reading comes from the Greek, but that the Hebrew reads: “and not for truth they have grown strong”. The Catholic New Jerusalem has also followed this Septuagint reading and rejected the Hebrew texts. It reads: “not truth but falsehood holds sway in the land.” Then it footnotes that this reading comes from the Greek but the Hebrew reads “but they are not strong for the truth” as the KJB has it.

 The NASB is very much like the RSV and reads: “They bend their tongue like their bow; LIES AND NOT TRUTH PREVAIL IN THE LAND; For they proceed  from evil to evil, And they do  not know Me,” declares the LORD. This is the Greek reading; not the Hebrew text.

The Holman Standard is much like the NASB/LXX reading: “lies and not faithfulness prevail in the land, for they proceed from one evil to another” 

NET has – “They have become powerful in the land, but they have not done so by honest means.”

The NIV changes the meaning from both the KJB and the NASB with – “They make ready their tongue like a bow, to shoot lies; IT IS NOT BY TRUTH THAT THEY TRIUMPH IN THE LAND. They go from one sin to another; they do not acknowledge me,” declares the LORD. “  Then they footnote : “Or, they are not valiant for the truth”., which would be the meaning found in the KJB.

 Darby is a little skewed but still more like the KJB with – “and not for fidelity are they valiant in the land” 

Jeremiah 27:1 JEHOIAKIM or ZEDEKIAH? Has the Hebrew text been corrupted?

Jeremiah 27:1 – Is there a scribal error in the King James Bible and in the Hebrew Masoretic text?

Jeremiah 27:1 KJB –  “In the beginning of the reign of JEHOIAKIM the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying….”

ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 – “In the beginning of the reign of ZEDEKIAH the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD.”

Jeremiah 27:1 “In the beginning of the reign of JEHOIAKIM the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying…”. Here versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET version and Holman all reject the Hebrew text as being “corrupt” and follow the Syriac version which reads ZEDEKIAH instead of JEHOIAKIM.  Dan Wallace of the NET version says the Hebrew text has been corrupted here. The Catholic versions are interesting in that the earlier Douay and even the St. Joseph NAB 1970 stick with the Hebrew reading of Jehoikim, but the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 goes with “ZEDEKIAH” and then footnotes that the Hebrew reads “Jehoiakim”.  

The King James Bible is right, as always. And here is why. See the whole study here  –

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jer271jehoiakimzedekiah.htm

Jeremiah 31:3  “unto ME”, “unto HIM”, “unto THEM”, “unto US” or “to ISRAEL”? (Hey, it’s all the same meaning, right?)

Jeremiah 31:3 KJB – “The LORD hath appeared of old UNTO ME, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

NASB (ESV, RSV, Holman Standard, Catholic St. Joseph NAB) says: “The LORD appeared TO HIM from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.”

NIV – “The LORD appeared to US in the past, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness.” 

The Lord hath appeared of old UNTO ME, is the Hebrew text reading and is found in Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the KJB 1611, the NKJV 1982, the Revised Version 1885, the 1901 ASV – “Jehovah appeared of old unto ME, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn THEE.”, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society version, the 1936 Jewish translation, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Complete Jewish Bible 1988, the Judaica Press Tanach of 2004, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Hebrew Names Bible 2014, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 – “From afar Jehovah hath appeared TO ME, With love age-during I have loved thee, Therefore I have drawn thee with kindness.” Douay 1950, New Berkeley Version in Modern Speech 1969, The Koster Scriptures 1998, World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green’s interlinear 2000, Third Millennium Bible 1998, New Heart English Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, Lexham English bible 2012, and the Tree of Life Version 2015 (just to name a few).

The word “thee” seen twice in this verse, is the SINGULAR you, as opposed to the plural English “you” found in the KJB, Geneva Bible, RV, ASV and JPS 1917 – “the LORD appeared unto ME, Yea, I have loved THEE with an everlasting love; Therefore with affection have I drawn THEE.”, and the only reading that grammatically makes sense is the Hebrew reading found in the KJB – the Lord appeared to ME, saying, I have loved THEE…

Foreign Language Bibles

Foreign language translations that follow the Hebrew text and read like the KJB are Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta – “The LORD has appeared TO ME from afar, saying, Yea, I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn you.”, the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada – “De longe o Senhor ME apareceu, dizendo: Pois que com amor eterno te amei, também com benignidade te atraí.” = “to ME…therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Reina Valera 1909 – “El SEÑOR se manifesto A MI hace ya mucho tiempo, diciendo : Con amor eterno te he amado , the Italian Nuova Diodati of 1991 – “Molto tempo fa l’Eterno MI è apparso, dicendo: «Sí, ti ho amata di un amore eterno; per questo ti ho attirata con benevolenza.” = “appeared TO ME…I have drawn thee with lovingkindness.”, the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 – “De loin l’Éternel M’EST apparu, et m’a dit: Je t’ai aimée d’un amour éternel”, Luther’s German Bible 1545

and the Modern Greek Bible – “Ο Κυριος εφανη παλαιοθεν εις εμε, λεγων, Ναι, σε ηγαπησα αγαπησιν η αιωνιον· δια τουτο σε ειλκυσα με ελεος” = “The Lord appeared to me of old, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love. Therefore with mercy (lovingkindnes) HAVE I DRAWN THEE to me.”

However the NASB says: “The LORD appeared TO HIM from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.”

The RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard read the same as the NASB (to HIM), but they all have a footnote that says GREEK – TO HIM; HEBREW – TO ME. The NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV have all followed the LXX and rejected the clear Hebrew text.

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text and says: “The LORD appeared TO ME long ago, saying: I have loved you with an everlasting love, so I have drawn you…”

The ESV has not only rejected the Hebrew reading of “to ME” and changed it to “to HIM” but has changed the meaning of the verse. 

The ESV reads ” the Lord appeared to HIM [1] from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore  I have CONTINUED MY FAITHUFLNESS TO YOU.” instead of “I HAVE DRAWN THEE.” 

The Hebrew word is “to draw” (as even the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV have it) and is used in “heifer which hath not DRAWN in the yoke” (Deut. 21:3); “a certain man DREW a bow” (1 Kings 22:34); “when he DRAWETH him into his net” (Psalm 10:9), “DRAW me, we will run after thee” (Song of Solomon 1:4); “and they DREW Joseph out of the pit” (Genesis 37:28); “Canst thou DRAW OUT Leviathan with an hook?” (Job 41:1), “So they DREW up Jeremiah with  cords, and took him up out of the dungeon.” (Jeremiah 38:13) etc.

Furthermore, the ESV says they got their reading of “TO HIM” instead of “TO ME” from the so called Greek Septuagint, but they don’t mention the fact that the LXX has chapter 31 not in 31 but in chapter 38 of Jeremiah, AND even the Greek LXX reads “The Lord appeared TO HIM from afar, saying, I have loved THEE with an everlasting love, therefore I HAVE DRAWN THEE”!!!

This is how modern “scholarship” works, folks.

The Catholic Connection

The Catholic bible versions present us with their typical ever-changing textual changes. The older Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both agree with the Hebrew text and the KJB saying “to ME”, but the St. Joseph  New American bible of 1970 and the Jerusalem bible of 1968 say “to HIM”, but then the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 has now gone back to reading “to ME”.

Dan Wallace’s NET version is so messed up it is unrecognizable. It says: In a far-off land the Lord will manifest himself TO THEM. He will say to them, ‘I have loved you with an everlasting love. That is why I have continued to be faithful to you.”

This goofy version is much like the ESV and changes the Hebrew “to thee” to “TO THEM” and has altered so many things in the Hebrew text that it is beyond recognition. Also reading “to THEM” is the New English Version 1970 and the Revised English Version of 1989.  

Where did they get this “TO THEM” from? NO WHERE. Not from the Hebrew or the Greek or even the Syriac. THEY JUST MADE IT UP!

The “ever dependable” NIVs

The NIV has something even different with its “The LORD appeared to US in the past, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness.

The NIV has “TO US” instead of the Hebrew “to me” or the Greek “to him”, and just makes up their own text as they go along.

However, the NIV Spanish edition follows the Hebrew and says “to ME” – La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 – “Hace mucho tiempo se ME apareció el Señor y ME dijo…”

The 2007 New Living Translation now has:  “Long ago the LORD said TO ISRAEL: “I have loved you, my people, with an everlasting love. With unfailing love I have drawn you to myself.”

Let’s see – to ME, to HIM, to US, to THEM or to ISRAEL...Yep, pretty much the same thing, right? 

Lamentations 3:22 KJB – “It is of the LORD’S mercies THAT WE ARE NOT CONSUMED, because his compassions fail not.”

ESV 2001 (printed edition hard copy ) – “The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER CEASES;  [2] his mercies never come to an end.”  Footnote: “Syriac, Targum; Hebrew – Because of the steadfast love of the LORD, we are not cut off.”

To see much more about this verse and how several modern versions reject the Hebrew reading in favor of something found in the Syriac see my article here  –

http://brandplucked.webs.com/lam322arenotconsumed.htm

The Selective Silliness of the “Science” of Textual Criticism in Action

Ezekiel 8:2 “Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance OF FIRE: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire.”

So read Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, the NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Douay-Rheims, Darby, Young’s and Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta. You can also cross reference this verse to Ezekiel 1:27 where the prophet sees a vision “as it were the appearance of fire”.

However beginning with the liberal RSV, and now in the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, and NET version, these modern versions reject the Hebrew reading and follow the Greek Septuagint saying: “Then I looked and behold, the likeness as the appearance OF A MAN.”

The NASB and NIV don’t give any footnotes, but the RSV, ESV and Holman and NET do list a footnote telling us the reading of “a man” comes from the LXX, but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads “of fire”. Likewise among the Catholic bible versions, the older Douay-Rheims and the Douay of 1950 read “a likeness as the appearance of FIRE” but the more modern Catholic bibles like the Jerusalem bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem of 1985 read like the NASB, ESV, NIV and say “the appearance of a HUMAN BEING” (or MAN), and then footnote that this reading comes from the Greek but that the Hebrew reads “fire”.

But How consistent are they?  Let’s take a closer look at this so called Greek Septuagint and other verses in this same chapter of Ezekiel 8. 

In the very first verse the Hebrew text and the King James Bible says: “And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the SIXTH month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand the Lord GOD fell there upon me.”

However the Greek LXX says “in the FIFTH month” instead of “in the SIXTH month”.  Even Dan Wallace’s NET version follows the Hebrew reading here, but he footnotes: “The LXX reads “In the sixth year, in the FIFTH month, on the fifth of the month.” Do any of these modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV or NET follow this reading here? No, they do not. 

In Ezekiel 8:7 we read in the Hebrew text and the KJB: “And he brought me to the door of the court; AND WHEN I LOOKED, BEHOLD, A HOLE IN THE WALL.”  However the LXX OMITS all of the capitalized words “and when I looked, behold, a hole in the wall.”  And again we see that all these modern versions followed the Hebrew text and NOT the so called Greek Septuagint here.

In Ezekiel 8:16 we read in the Hebrew and the KJB – “And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD’s house, and behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about FIVE AND TWENTY men, with their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.” 

However the LXX actually says: “were about TWENTY men”.  Again, Dan Wallace’s NET version notes: “The LXX reads “twenty” instead of twenty-five, perhaps because of the association of the number twenty with the Mesopotamian sun god Shamash.” But do any of these modern versions that rejected the Hebrew reading “of fire” in verse two and opted for the LXX reading “of a man” now chose to follow the LXX?  Of course not. They all go with 25 men instead of 20 men. 

Then again in Ezekiel 8:17 the last part of the verse reads: “…for they have filled the land with violence AND HAVE RETURNED TO PROVOKE ME TO ANGER; AND, LO, THEY PUT THE BRANCH TO THE NOSE.” However the so called Greek Septuagint completely rejects the Hebrew reading here and instead reads: “…for they have filled the land with iniquity: AND, BEHOLD, THESE ARE AS SCORNERS.” 

Even Dan Wallace footnotes: “The LXX glosses the expression as “Behold, they are like mockers.”  But do any of these modern versions adopt the LXX reading here? Of course not. They just pick out a word here and there from among the THOUSANDS of differences that are found in the various SeptuagintS (there are several of them, and they do not agree with each other) and put them in their “bibles”.  This is the true nature of what they like to refer to as their “science” of textual criticism.

NASB rejects the Hebrew texts.

Ezekiel 11:15 “Son of man, thy brethren, even THY BRETHREN, the MEN OF THY KINDRED, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the LORD: unto us is this land given in possession.”

The phrase “even THY BRETHREN, THE MEN OF THY KINDRED” is the reading of all Hebrew texts, and that of the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Geneva Bible, Young’s, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the Third Millenium Bible. Even the ESV follows this reading saying “even your brothers, your kinsmen”.

The NKJV is different by still fairly close with: “Son of man, your brethren, YOUR RELATIVES, YOUR KINSMEN…” They changed the second “brethren” to “your relatives” and omitted the Hebrew word for “men”, but it still basically has the same meaning.

The NASB rejects the Hebrew reading, along with the RSV and NRSV and says: “Son of man, your brothers, your relatives, YOUR FELLOW EXILES, and the whole house of Israel…”

The NASB doesn’t tell you when they reject the Hebrew texts (which it does scores of times), but if you look at the RSV, NRSV, and Holman Standard footnotes, they tell us that the reading of “your fellow exiles” comes from the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads “the men of thy kindred”.

The NIV gives us a made up paraphrase saying: “Son of man, your brothers – your brothers who ARE YOUR BLOOD RELATIVES and the whole house of Israel…” There is no word for “blood” in any text, but at least it is closer to the Hebrew reading than the NASB.

The Holman Standard puts a different twist on this verse by saying: “Son of man, your own relatives, THOSE WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO REDEEM YOU, and the entire house of Israel…” Then in a footnote tells us the LXX and Syriac read “your fellow exiles” (as the NASB has it).

Actually even the footnote of the RSV, NRSV, and Holman Standard is inaccurate. The NIV footnote tells us to see or compare the LXX and the Syriac, whereas the RSV, Holman say the LXX and Syriac read “your fellow exiles”. This is not true. The LXX actually says: “thy brothers, AND THE MEN OF THY CAPTIVITY”; whereas Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac reads: “your brethren, your KINDRED, WHO ARE IN YOUR CAPTIVITY…”

In any case, the NASB has not followed the Hebrew texts, but reads as do the previous RSV and NRSV  and the Catholic St. Joseph by following the so called Greek Septuagint.  The Catholic bibles are interesting in that the older Douay read like the KJB and the Hebrew; then the 1970 St. Joseph went with the bogus LXX reading and has “your kinsmen, YOUR FELLOW EXILES”, but then the New Jerusalem of 1985 went back to the Hebrew reading. There’s nothing like true “scholarship” to clear things up for us, right? And this is “nothing like true scholarship”;-)

It should be of interest to see that the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version), which is a revision of the previous RSV, NRSV, has now gone back to the Hebrew reading. It says: “Son of man, your brothers, even your brothers, your KINSMEN…”

Ezekiel 11:19 – KJB – “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within YOU; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and will give then an heart of flesh.”

The Hebrew Masoretic Text reads “within YOU” and so do the Revised Version 1881, Webster’s 1833 translation, the American Standard Version of 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible of 1902, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) of 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the Complete Jewish Bible (as seen at Studylight.com), the Hebrew Names Version, Darby, Youngs, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and Green’s “literal” translation of 2000. The Modern Greek (as opposed to the so called LXX) also reads as does the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible.

However the NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB and Holman Standard all reject the Hebrew reading in this place and change it to read: “Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within THEM” (NKJV).  Then the NKJV footnotes: “literally YOU”.  The NASB online edition gives more information in that it tells us that YOU comes from the Greek LXX and “many manuscripts” but that the Hebrew reads YOU. Likewise the Catholic versions like the Douay, St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 read “them”, but then footnote that the Hebrew texts read “you” just as the King James Bible has it.

The NET version also rejects the Hebrew reading and says “THEM” but then footnotes “The MT reads “you”; many Hebrew mss along with the LXX and other ancient versions read “within them.”

Several previous English and foreign language versions followed the Latin Vulgate reading here instead of either the Hebrew Masoretic texts or the so called LXX, and they read something like “in their bowels” – Douay-Rheims –  instead of “within YOU”.

Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Bishops’ bible and even the Geneva bible, along with the early Douay-Rheims, all followed the Latin Vulgate here and read “within their bowels” (Geneva)  or “in the entrails of them” (Wycliffe).  So the King James Bible was the first English Bible to follow the God inspired Hebrew reading of “within YOU”.

Most Spanish versions like the Reina Valera and Gomez translation also got it wrong and read “within them” (ellos), though the French Louis Segond got it right as did Luther’s German bible of 1545, reading “within YOU” as do the Hebrew and the King James Bible.

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

Another example of the “science” of textual criticism in action – 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ezekiel 17:21 “And ALL HIS FUGITIVES with all his bands shall fall by the sword.” So read the King James Bible, Geneva bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Youngs, Darby, Douay-Rheims, Latin Vulgate 425 A.D., Green’s MKJV, Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, the 2003 Holman Standard. The NIV paraphrases this as “all his fleeing troops will fall by the sword”, but still follows most Hebrew manuscripts.

However the NASB, RSV and ESV say: “All HIS CHOICE MEN in all his troops will fall by the sword.” As usual, the printed NASBs don’t tell you when they depart from the traditional reading, (though the online edition footnotes “So many ancient mss and versions; M.T. fugitives “, but the RSV and ESV footnote that this reading comes from “some Hebrew mss. and the Syriac, but that most Hebrew mss. read: “all his fugitives”. The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims and Douay followed the Hebrew texts and have “fugitives” but the newer Catholic versions like St. Joseph and New Jerusalem go with the Syriac reading, just like the NASB, RSV, ESV.  

None of these different versions mention the LXX here. Perhaps because the Septuagint reads differently than them all with: “In every battle of his they shall fall by the sword.”

Likewise Daniel Wallace’s NET version with his usual “anything but the KJB” slant on things, reads like the NASB with “All the CHOICE MEN among his troops will die”, but then he footnotes: “Some manuscripts and versions read “choice men,” while most manuscripts read “fugitives”.

Ah, but wait. Even though the NIV stuck with the traditional Hebrew reading of “fugitives” (fleeing troops), now the new TNIV of 2005, put out by many of the same men who gave us the old NIV, has decided to adopt this other variant reading: “all his CHOICE TROOPS will fall by the sword.” And this is now the reading too of the “new” New International Version of 2012 reading: “All HIS CHOICE TROOPS” instead of the Hebrew and the 1984 NIV “fugitives”.

The Jewish translations themselves are in disagreement. The 1917 JPS reads “his MIGHTY MEN”, while the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version and the 2004 Judaica Press Tanach both follow the traditional text with “his FUGITIVES shall fall by the sword.” The fugitives were the men who accompanied king Zedekiah when he fled from the city. See Ezekiel 12:12-14; and Jeremiah 52:7-8.

Likewise the Catholic versions are all confused. The earlier Douay-Rheims reads “fugitives”, while the latest Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB, the Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem versions have adopted the variant reading of “the choice men.”

This is the fickle nature of modern scholars; none of whom believes in an infallible Bible in any language.

Ezekiel 18:17 KJB ( NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Geneva, Young, Darby, Holman, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta) – “That hath taken off his hand from THE POOR, that hath not received usury nor increase”.

NIV 1978 and 1984 editions – “He withholds his hand from SIN…” Footnote LXX, Hebrew reads “the poor”. The RSV, NRSV and ESV also follow the Greek Septuagint here instead of the Hebrew texts, reading “withholds his hand from INIQUITY”.  The ESV then footnotes that this reading comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew text reads “from the poor”.  Oh, but wait. Now the “new” NIV of 2012 has come out and it has once again changed its underlying O.T. text.  It now says: “He withholds his hand FROM MISTREATING THE POOR”!  This time the NIV editors decided to go back to the Hebrew text.  

The Catholic versions likewise are in disarray. The older Douay-Rheims and the Douay of 1950 say “the POOR”, but the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 has “holds off from EVILDOING” and the 1985 New Jerusalem  rejects the Hebrew and follows the LXX reading “”abstains FROM EVIL”.  BUT, now the latest 2009  Catholic Public Domain Version has come out, and it too goes back to the Hebrew and now reads: “who has averted his hand from injuring THE POOR”. 

Daniel Wallace and company’s goofy NET version reads “refrains from WRONGDOING” and then he footnotes: “<note=493>This translation follows the LXX. The MT reads “restrains his hand from the poor,” which makes no sense here.”.   Well, it may not make sense to  bible correctors like Daniel Wallace and company, but it seems perfectly obvious that the meaning of the passage is that the righteous man does not oppress or take advantage of the poor.

 Ezekiel 19:7 the context is speaking of a lion who “knew their desolate palaces.” The KJB and the Hebrew say: “he KNEW their desolate palaces”. This simply means that the lion whelp was familiar and acquainted with these areas. So too read the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the NKJV, Darby, Young, the Jewish translation of 1917, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version and others.

However the NASB changes this to “he DESTROYED their fortified towers”, while the NIV says “He BROKE DOWN their strongholds.” Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from a Targum (a Jewish interpretation) but that the Hebrew reads “he KNEW”. Dan Wallace’s NET version also says: “HE BROKE DOWN their strongholds” and then informs us in a footnote – “rew text reads “knew””  Likewise the Catholic versions like the St. Joseph and New Jerusalem follow this same bogus reading and have “RAVAGED” (St. Joseph) and “TORE DOWN” (New Jerusalem).  Now the ESV has come out and it reads differently than them all. The ESV says “he seized THEIR WIDOWS”, while Green’s MKJV says “He knew their widows”, and the new Complete Jewish bible says: “He RAPED their widows”.

The NKJV text reads as does the King James Bible, but the online NKJV tells us in their footnote: “The LXX reads “he stood in insolence” (my copy of the LXX says “he prowled in boldness); the Targum reads: “He destroyed its palaces”; and the Vulgate reads: “He learned to make widows”.

Let’s see, “he knew their desolate palaces”; “he knew their widows”; “he broke down their strongholds”, and “he seized their widows”. Yep, looks pretty much like the same meaning;-)

In Ezekiel 19:10 we read: “Thy mother is like a vine in thy BLOOD”. The inspired prophet is changing metaphors from a lion and her whelps to that of a vine and its branches. The blood merely represents the same life and likeness that comes from the mother. It’s not that hard to understand.

The Geneva Bible notes: “He speaks this in the reproach of this wicked king, in whose blood, that is in the race of his predecessors, Jerusalem would have been blessed according to Gods promise and flourished as a fruitful vine.”

The reading of “blood” is that found in the Hebrew texts, the Vulgate 425 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, Bishops’ bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, the Douay-Rheims, Young’s, Green’s MKJV, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac, the earlier Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1909. The NKJV says “bloodline”, which is acceptable, but the RSV, ESV, NASB and the NIV change this to “your mother is like a vine in your VINEYARD”. The NIV then footnotes that “vineyard” comes from two mss. but most Hebrew mss. read “blood”. Wallace’s NET version also reads like the NIV but then footnotes: “The Hebrew text reads “in your blood,” but most emend to “in your vineyard.”  The Catholic versions follow their typical pattern. The older Catholic translations like the Douay-Rheims, Douay followed the Hebrew texts and say “a vine in thy blood” but the more modern Catholic versions like St. Joseph and New Jerusalem bible omit this phrase, as do the NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, but footnote that the Hebrew does read “in thy blood”.

Why didn’t the modern versions follow the alleged LXX here? Well, perhaps because this fake bible version actually reads: “your mother was as a vine AND AS A BLOSSOM ON A POMEGRANATE TREE…” Now, that’s pretty close, right?

Darby’s fantasy version has: “Thy mother is like a vine IN THY REST…” And then he footnotes that the “reading is uncertain.” No, the reading is not uncertain. The only uncertainty is that these Bible correctors can’t think straight to figure out the simple meaning of the verse.

In Ezekiel 22:24 we read: “Son of man, say unto her, Thou art the land that is not CLEANSED nor RAINED UPON in the day of indignation.” So read the KJB, NKJV, NASB, and even the RSV, ESV and Holman Standard. However the NIV ALONE follows the Greek Septuagint and says: “you are a land that HAS NO RAIN OR SHOWERS in the day of wrath.” Then in a footnote tells us this comes from the LXX, but that the Hebrew reads “not cleansed or rained upon”. Again, guess which other versions read the same as the NIV. You got it. The older Catholic Douay-Rheims and Douay read as does the Hebrew and the KJB, but the St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem Catholic versions have likewise adopted the reading from the Greek and rejected the Hebrew texts.  The New Jerusalem says “a land that has NOT RECEIVED RAIN OR SHOWER”. Then it footnotes that this reading comes from the Greek but that the Hebrew reads “has not been cleansed”.

Likewise Dan Wallace’s goofy NET version also reads this way saying -“‘You are a land that RECEIVES NO RAIN OR SHOWERS  in the day of my anger.” And then he footnotes – “The MT reads “that is not cleansed”; the LXX reads “that is not drenched,” which assumes a different vowel pointing as well as the loss of a מ (mem) due to haplography.”

In Ezekiel 22:25 we read: “There is a conspiracy of her PROPHETS in the midst thereof…” So read the RV, ASV, Geneva, NASB, NKJV and even the newest ESV and Holman Standard. However the NIV went along with the previous RSV, NRSV and says there is a conspiracy among HER PRINCES. Then footnotes that the reading of “princes” comes from the Greek, but that the Hebrew says “prophets”. Again, the train wreck called the NET version by Daniel Wallace and company also reads “HER PRINCES” and then he footnotes – “Heb “a conspiracy of her prophets is in her midst.” The LXX reads “whose princes” rather than “a conspiracy of prophets.” AND as usual, the older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay followed the Hebrew and read “there is a conspiracy of prophets”, but the newer Catholic St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem read “PRINCES” and then tell us in a footnote that this reading comes from the Greek but that the Hebrew reads “the conspiracy of her prophets”. It’s all there in black and white, folks.

 Ezekiel 24:14 “…according to thy ways and according to thy doings, shall THEY judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.” God was going to bring the Babylonians against the land of His rebellious people. As He said in the previous chapter: “For thus saith the Lord GOD: I will bring up a company upon them…And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.” Ezekiel 23:46-47.

In Ezekiel 24:14 the reading of “THEY shall judge thee” is that found in the traditional Hebrew Masoretic texts and in the following translations: the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Hebrew Names Version, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Young’s, Darby, the NKJV 1982, Green’s, Third Millenium Bible and the Spanish Reina Valera.

However the Holman Standard, along with the NASB, NET and the RSV change the text and say: “And ‘I’ will judge you”. Then in a footnote the Holman Standard informs us that this different reading comes from “some Hebrew mss., the LXX, Syriac, Targum and the Vulgate, while other Hebrew manuscripts read ‘they’.”

But, the NIV, ESV and TNIV have changed even this to read: “YOU will be judged”. Need it be pointed out that “they”, “I” and “you” are not the same thing? The older Catholic Douay read “I will judge you” (like most Hebrew texts and the KJB) but the St. Joseph and New Jerusalem say “YOU will be judged” just like the NIV.

Ezekiel 32:5 – Here God compares Pharoah king of Egypt to a whale in the seas, whom He will cast forth upon the open field and cause the fowls of heaven to be filled with his flesh. In 32:5 The Hebrew texts as well as the King James Bible say: “I will lay thy flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with thy HEIGHT.”

The Hebrew word here is “height” and it comes from the verb “to lift up, to be lofty, be exalted, to be high.” So read not only the King James Bible but also Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Green’s MKJV, Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible and the Third Millenium Bible.

However beginning with the RSV and then the NRSV, ESV they changed this verse to read: “I will fill the valleys with YOUR CARCASS.” Then in a footnote, these versions tell us that the word “carcass” supposedly comes from the Syriac and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew reads “height”. The LXX is not much help to these people who would mould the Bible like they would a piece of putty, because the LXX says “blood” and not “height” nor “carcass”. However this didn’t prevent Rotherham’s Emphasized bible of 1902 from following the LXX reading and his version says “blood”.

The New English Bible says “I will fill the valleys with the WORMS that feed on it.” The Douay and  the New Jerusalem say “with your CORRUPTION”, but the St. Joseph NAB has “YOUR CARCASS”  and the Holman says “with your GORE”.

But wait! Now the NKJV also joins the old RSV and says “I will fill the valleys with your CARCASS”, while the NASB reads “with your REFUSE”, and the NIV says “with your REMAINS.”

In typical fashion, Daniel Wallace and his NET version reads: “fill the valleys with your MAGGOT-INFESTED CARCASS.” Then he footnotes this revealing comment: “The Hebrew text is difficult here, apparently meaning “your height.” Following Symmachus and the Syriac, it is preferable to emend the text to read “your maggots.”   These guys are a hoot, aren’t they.

The NIV rejects the Hebrew readings in Ezekiel 27:15; 29:7; 40:6, 8, and 9. Then in 40: 44 the NIV changes “east” to “south, and in 40: 49 changes “eleven cubits” to “twelve cubits” from LXX; 41:1 NIV, NASB both omit “which was the breadth of the tabernacle” though in most Hebrew mss. and in the RV, ASV, NKJV; 41:22; 42:10; the NIV changes “east” to “south” 42:16; in 43:3 both NIV, NASB change “when I came to destroy the city” to “when HE came to destroy” based on the Vulgate. See Eze. 9:1 for the correct explanation in the Hebrew and the KJB. 

Ezekiel 37:23 KJB – Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their DWELLINGPLACES, WHEREIN THEY HAVE SINNED, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.”

NIV –  They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their SINFUL BACKSLIDING,[a] and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.

Footnotes:

  1. Ezekiel 37:23 Many Hebrew manuscripts (see also Septuagint); most Hebrew manuscripts all their dwelling places where they sinned

The Catholic Connection

The previous Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both followed the same Hebrew texts as does the KJB saying – “and I will save them out of ALL THE PLACES in which they have sinned, and I will cleanse them”

However now the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985 have adopted the other reading and say “I will save them from THE ACTS OF INFIDELITY which they have committed” (New Jerusalem – Footnote “Manuscripts ‘acts of infidelity”, Hebrew – ‘dwellings’ ) or “I will deliver them from ALL THEIR SINS OF APOSTASY, and cleans them” (St. Joseph NAB)

Also adopting this different text are the Holman Standard – “I will save them from ALL THEIR APOSTASIES by which they sinned, and I will cleanse them.”, The ESV, RSV, NRSV –  “But I will save them from ALL THE BACKSLIDINGS in which they have sinned” and Dan Wallace’s NET version.

Wallace and company’s NET version says: “I will save them from all THEIR UNFAITHFULNESS  (20)  by which they sinned.”  Then he footnotes – “Heb “their dwellings.” The text as it stands does not make sense. Based on the LXX, a slight emendation of two vowels, including a mater, yields the reading “from their turning,” a reference here to their turning from God and deviating from his commandments. “

So our resident Bible corrector and esteemed “scholar” tells us that the Hebrew text reading just like the KJB and so many others have it – “dwelling” but that to him “It doesn’t make sense.”, in spite of the fact that it makes perfect sense. So, he and his group of highly respected scholars simply change the text.

The Amplified Bible 1987 combines BOTH readings with: “I will save them out of all THEIR DWELLING PLACES  and FROM ALL THEIR BACKSLIDINGS in which they have sinned”

Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible – “I will save them out of all their DWELLINGPLACES, WHEREIN THEY HAVE SINNED” are Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta,  the NASB “all their dwelling places in which they have sinned”, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, The Complete Jewish Bible, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Jewish Publication Society O.T. 1917, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, The New European Version 2010, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Common English Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, The World English Bible 2012 – “I will save them out of ALL THEIR DWELLINGPLACES wherein they have sinned”,The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, International Standard Version 2014 and the  Modern English Bible – “I will save them out of ALL THEIR DWELLING PLACES in which they have sinned”

Ezekiel 40:49 – “The length of the porch was twenty cubits, and the breadth ELEVEN CUBITS” 

So read the Hebrew texts as well as Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, NASB 1995, the NKJV 1982, the Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917, Darby, Youngs, World English Bible, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950. 

However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV along with the more modern Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985 all reject the clear Hebrew reading of “ELEVEN cubits” and here follow the so called Greek Septuagint and say “the breadth TWELVE CUBITS.”  Then they footnote that this reading comes from the LXX but that the Hebrew text reads “ELEVEN cubits.”

The confusion is seen further in Ezekiel 40:49 in that the Holman Standard says: “21 feet deep” and then footnotes “Literally 12 cubits”. But this means the Holman followed the Septuagint reading and not the Hebrew text. This is seen by comparing Dan Wallace’s NET version which says “the width 19 1/4 feet”, and he then footnotes “Hebrew – ELEVEN cubits.”  So the Holman paraphrased the LXX and not the Hebrew while Dan Wallace paraphrased the Hebrew and not the LXX.  Then the Common English bible of 2011 says: “the porch was EIGHTEEN feet wide”, not 191/4 or much less 21 feet wide. 

One would have to ask that if the ESV and NIV liked the so called Septuagint so much here, why they didn’t follow it in Ezekiel 40:7 where the Hebrew texts as well as the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV etc. all say “and between the little chambers were FIVE cubits”, but this same LXX says “SIX cubits”.

Or perhaps we could look at this same chapter of Ezekiel 40:14 where the Hebrew text says: “He made also posts of THREESCORE (SIXTY)  cubits” but the LXX says “TWENTY cubits”. Oh wait!  The Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, JPS 1917, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV and the previous Douay-Rheims and Douay all follow the Hebrew texts and  read “THREESCORE (SIXTY) CUBITS” BUT the RSV, NRSV, ESV and the modern Catholic New Jerusalem DO follow the LXX reading here and have “TWENTY cubits”, and the ESV doesn’t even tell you in a footnote that they did this. 

And again both the Holman Standard and Dan Wallaces NET version paraphrase the number and say “105 feet high” and then footnote that the Hebrew is literally “60 cubits”, but at least this time the Holman and NET followed the same Hebrew texts whereas in Ezekiel 40:49 they both went their separate ways, with the Holman following the LXX and Wallace the Hebrew. And they like to call these shenanigans the “science” of textual criticism.

Ezekiel 42:4

Here we read: “And before the chambers was a walk of ten cubits breadth inward, A WAY OF ONE CUBIT, and their doors toward the north.”

So read all Hebrew texts and the Jewish translations, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Geneva Bible, and the Spanish Reina Valera.

The walkway of 10 cubits was ONE cubit wide. The NKJV changes the meaning by saying: “a distance of one cubit”.

The NASB says: “a way of 100 cubits”, the NIV has “100 feet” and the Holman Standard says “175 feet long”. The RSV and ESV say “100 cubits long”, but then in a footnote tell us the reading of “100” comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew literally reads “a way of one cubit”.  Here the Catholic Douay and even the St. Joseph follow the Hebrew text and say “one cubit” but the New Jerusalem goes with “a hundred cubits long”, and then informs us in a footnote that the Hebrew reads “a cubit”.

Wallaces’s NET version says: “at a distance of one and three-quarter feet”, then he footnotes “Heb “one cubit”. The Septuagint and the Syriac read “one hundred cubits.”

Ezekiel 45:1 “…the length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be TEN thousand. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about.”

TEN thousand is the reading of all Hebrew texts and that of Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917, NKJV 1982, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa’ translation of the Syriac, the NASB 1972, 1973 and 1977 editions. The Modern Greek Bible reads like the KJB and the Hebrew text with “10,000” – και το πλατος δεκα χιλιαδων

However the NIV, RSV, ESV and now the NASB 1995 edition all say “TWENTY thousand”, then in a footnote tell us the 20,000 comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads 10,000.  So the NASB has once again changed from a previous Hebrew text to the LXX text in this place. Likewise the earlier Catholic versions (Douay-Rheims, Douay) follow the Hebrew “10,000” but the newer St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 both go with the Septuagint reading of  “20,000” and reject the Hebrew text.

The Daniel Wallace NET version says: “three and one-third miles”. But wait! The Holman Standard says: “six and two-thirds miles.” Now I’m really confused. No wonder the Muslims mock at the Christians’ “inspired Bible”!  Dan Wallace is paraphrasing the Hebrew text, which he footnotes as reading 10,000 cubits and the Holman Standard is paraphrasing the Greek Septuagint.  But there is more to this story of the shifting shenanigans of the “science” of textual criticism.

Not only does the so called Greek Septuagint change the Hebrew number of 10,000 cubits into 20,000 cubits in verse one, but it does the same thing in verses three and verse five! All three places have been changed in the LXX from 10,000 to 20,000.  But did the ESV, NIV, RSV and now the NASB 1995 edition follow the LXX in verses 3 and 5 and change the 10,000 to the LXX’s 20,000 there? No, they did not; they still read 10,000 cubits in verse 3 and 5. How is that for being consistent? 

Not only this, but this same Greek Septuagint also radically changes the number in verse 15. There we read in the Hebrew text – “And one lamb out of the flock, out of TWO HUNDRED”. However the LXX reads “And one sheep out from the flock out of TEN”, not 200.  So did any of these modern versions go with the Septuagint reading in that verse? No, they did not. They still read “out of 200”.  Such is the fickle nature of the so called “science” of textual criticism.  They reject the Hebrew and pick out a LXX reading from verse 1 and do the same thing in part of verse five, but reject the LXX readings in verses 3, part of 5 and 15.

Ezekiel 45:5 “And the five and twenty thousand of length, and the ten thousand of breadth, shall also the Levites, the ministers of the house, have for themselves, for a possession for TWENTY CHAMBERS.

“for a possession for twenty chambers” is the reading of the Hebrew texts and that of Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version and Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac. And once again, the Modern Greek Bible now agrees with the Hebrew text and says “TWENTY CHAMBERS” – μετα εικοσι θαλαμων.

However the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET and Holman Standard say: “as their possession CITIES TO DWELL IN.” Then the RSV, ESV footnote that “cities to dwell in” comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads “twenty chambers.” Again, the older Catholic Douay-Rheims and Douay stuck with the Hebrew and read “twenty chambers” but the newer Catholic versions (St. Joseph and New Jerusalem) go with “CITIES TO DWELL IN”

Daniel Wallace’s NET version reads: “the Levites, who minister at the temple, as the place FOR THE CITIES IN WHICH THEY LIVE.” Then he mentions in his footnote: ” The translation follows the Septuagint here. The MT reads “twenty.” 

Folks, these are the modern perversions people are being deceived into using and that NOBODY seriously believes are the true and infallible words of the living God. Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and stick to it. 

Hosea 4:7 KJB – (Geneva bible, NASB, NKJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard) – “As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore WILL I CHANGE their glory into shame.”

NIV – follows the Syriac and says “THEY EXCHANGED their Glory for something disgraceful.”  So too do the NRSV, the Message and Wallace’s NET version.  The NIV footnotes that “they exchanged” comes from the Syriac, but that the Hebrew texts read “I will exchange”. Notice that the RSV stayed with the Hebrew, then the NRSV went with the Syriac, but then the ESV had now gone back to the Hebrew reading once again.  And among the Catholic versions the older Douay stayed with the Hebrew and read: “I will change” but the more modern New Jerusalem went with “THEY have bartered their Glory for Shame” and then informs us that the Hebrew reads “I will change their glory for shame”, just as the KJB has it.  The modern versionists are nothing but consistently inconsistent.

Hosea 6:5 “Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: AND THY JUDGMENTS ARE AS THE LIGHT THAT GOETH FORTH.”

So read the Hebrew texts, as well as the following Bible translations: Geneva Bible 1599, (“THY” is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Bishops’ Bible, and Coverdale); the Revised Version 1881 “and THY judgments are as the light that goeth forth.”, ASV 1901, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, Darby, NKJV, Green’s MKJV, Third Millenium Bible 1998, and the Spanish Reina Valera – “y TUS juicios serán como luz que sale.”  

However the NASB says: “And the judgments ON YOU are like the light that goes forth.” The NASB merely omits the Hebrew word THY, or else changes it to “on you” and changes the meaning of the verse. The judgments spoken of were the words of truth, light and doctrine that went forth by the prophets and were given to the nation of Israel. The verse does not refer to “punishments for their sins”, as the NASB implies.

The NIV has changed the Hebrew text and reads: “MY judgments FLASHED LIKE LIGHTNING UPON YOU.” Among the Catholic versions the older Douay follows the Hebrew and reads like the KJB with “thy judgments shall go forth as the light”; the St. Joseph just omits the phrase altogether, and the New Jerusalem adopts the bogus reading of “MY sentence will blaze forth as the dawn”, but then mentions in the footnote that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads as we have it in the King James Bible.

The Holman Standard similarly rejects the Hebrew texts and says: “I have killed them with the words of My mouth. MY judgment strikes like lightning.” However the Holman at least does us the service of noting in their footnote that the reading of MY comes from the LXX and the Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads “YOUR judgments go out as light”. By the way, the Hebrew word means “light” and not “lightning”.

Not even the RSV, NRSV, or the 2001 ESV went as far as the NIV and Holman in perverting the Hebrew texts. They all read: “MY judgment goes forth as the light.” (ESV). Then again they footnote that MY comes from the Greek and Syriac, but the Hebrew reads YOUR.

What is fascinating to watch is how each “scholar” goes about setting up his own mind as the final authority. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is a prime example of today’s “every man for himself bible version” mentality.

Wallace’s NET version reads: “for MY judgment will come forth like the light of the dawn.” . Then the good doctor informs us in his footnotes: “The MT reads “and YOUR judgments are a light which goes forth” which is enigmatic and syntactically awkward (cf. KJV, NASB). The LXX reads “my judgment goes forth like light”. Here Wallace recognizes the Hebrew reads “your” (or thy), yet he thinks it is enigmatic, and so corrects the Hebrew text with the Greek LXX.

But then in the very same verse he now criticizes the NIV reading and says: “The noun “light” is used here in reference to the morning light or dawn rather than lightning (cf. NIV).”

“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25

Hosea 11:2 “As THEY called them, so they went from THEM: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.”

Here, the “they” who called them, and the “them” from whom the children of Israel went, are the prophets God sent to call His people to repentance, and urge them to return to the true worship. Compare 11:7.

The reading of “as THEY called them, so they went from THEM” is found in the KJB, NKJV, RV, NASB, Geneva, Youngs, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish Reina Valera, and even the ESV.

However the NIV, RSV, NET and NRSV say: “The more I called Israel (“Israel” is not in any text), the more they went FROM ME.” Then the NIV, RSV footnote that the “I” and the “ME” come from some Septuagint versions, but that the Hebrew texts read “they” and “them”. Daniel Wallace’s goofy NET bible version also reads like the NIV, thus rejecting the Hebrew readings.    The Holman Standard confuses things even further by saying: “The more THEY called them, the more they departed from ME.” Then it footnotes that “ME” comes from the LXX but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads “THEM”. Again, among the Catholic versions we see the same degeneration of the text. The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay followed the Hebrew “they/them” but the St. Joseph and New Jerusalem go with the Greek and have “I/me” but then tell us in a footnote their reading comes from the Greek while the Hebrew reads “they called them, so they went away from them.” 

Hosea 11:4- This one is almost too much to believe. In the King James Bible we read: “I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as THEY THAT TAKE OFF THE YOKE on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.” This was also the reading of the old Catholic Douay-Rheims -“to them as one that taketh off the yoke on their jaws”. It is also the reading of the Revised Version, the ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NKJV, NET and Holman Standard. It WAS the reading of the former NIVs which said – “I LIFTED THE YOKE from their neck” (NIV 1984).  However the NRSV and now the NIV 2011 have changed this verse to read -” I was like ONE WHO LIFTS A LITTLE CHILD to the cheek” (NIV 2012). This is also like the Catholic St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem which say “I was like someone LIFTING AN INFANT TO HIS CHEEK.” Then the New Jerusalem informs us in a footnote that the Hebrew text reads “YOKE”.

Here the words “THEY/THEM” refer to the prophets God sent to call Israel back to Himself (See verse 7). So read the Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, Spanish Reina Valera and the new ESV.
 
However the NIV, RSV, NRSV read: “But the more “I” called Israel, the further they went from ME.” (NIV)  Then these versions footnote that “I” and “ME” come from “SOME Septuagint manuscripts, but the Hebrew reads “they” and “them”.  The Holman Standard confuses things even further by saying: “The more THEY called them, the more they departed from ME.” Then it footnotes that “ME” comes from the LXX but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads “THEM”.

Hosea 12:4 “Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake WITH US.”

“WITH US” is the reading of the Hebrew texts, as well as that of the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Geneva Bible, Young’s, Darby, and the 2001 ESV. However, the RSV, NIV, NET and Holman Standard all follow the Greek Septuagint and Syriac, instead of the Hebrew texts. The NIV and Holman Standard say: “and talked WITH HIM there.” Daniel Wallace and company’s NET version also changes this to “there he spoke WITH HIM.” and then he footnotes – “The Leningrad Codex and the Allepo Codex both read 1st person common plural עִמָּנוּ (’immanu, “with us”). The LXX and Peshitta both reflect an alternate Hebrew Vorlage of 3rd person masculine singular עִמוֹ (’imo, “with him”). The BHS editors suggest emending the MT in favor of the Greek and Syriac.” Well, the Catholic versions do the same thing with the older Catholic versions following the Hebrew and reading “he spoke WITH US.” but the newer Catholic versions like the St. Joseph and New Jerusalem reading “with HIM”

13:10 God says to Israel “I WILL BE YOUR KING” in the KJB, NKJV, Webster’s, Third Millenium Bible, but the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB ask “WHERE IS your king?” The RSV, NRSV, and Holman Standard all have an interesting footnote here. Their footnotes reads ” Greek, Syriac and Vulgate read “Where is your king?”, while the Hebrew Masoretic text says “I will be your king.”

Once again we see the same thing happening with the Catholic versions.  The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay read “I will be your king” (following the Hebrew texts) but the more recent St. Joseph and New Jerusalem ask “Where is your king?”

Daniel Wallace’s idiotic NET bible version says: “WHERE THEN IS your king, that he may save you in all your cities?” Then he footnotes: “The Masoretic Text reads the enigmatic “I want to be [your king]”… which makes little sense…All the versions (Greek, Syriac, Vulgate) read the interrogative particle “where?” which the BHS editors endorse. The textual corruption was caused by metathesis of the y (yod) and h (hey). Few translations follow the MT: “I will be thy/your king” (KJV, NKJV). Most emend the text: “Where is your king?” (RSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, CEV).”

There it is, right before your eyes in black and white. This “eminent textual scholar” openly admits that the Hebrew texts say “I will be your king”, but says it makes little sense, and that it is better to “emend” (change) the text, as do many modern versions!!!

Other textual scholars take the opposite view. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown remark: ” I will be thy king;–the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, “Where now is thy king?” [MAURER]. English Version is, however, favored both by the Hebrew, by the antithesis between Israel’s self-chosen and perishing kings, and God, Israel’s abiding King (compare Ho 3:4, 5).”

Hosea 13:14.

“O death, I WILL BE thy plagues; O grave, I WILL BE thy DESTRUCTION.”

The reading of “I WILL BE” (found twice in this one verse) is the reading of the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Douay, Webster’s, Hebrew Names Bible, Darby, Young’s, Third Millenium Bible, Spanish Reina Valera.

However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, and Holman all unite in saying: “WHERE ARE your plagues? WHERE …”. What is found in both the RSV and NRSV footnotes is that the reading of “WHERE ARE your” comes from the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads “I WILL BE your..I WILL BE your…” Likewise the older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims read like the Hebrew and the KJB saying – “O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite: comfort is hidden from my eyes.”  But the newer Catholic versions like St. Joseph and New Jerusalem change this to “WHERE are your plagues..WHERE is your STING?”

Furthermore, regarding the phrase “O grave, I will be YOUR DESTRUCTION”, we find that the word “DESTRUCTION” is the reading of the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, Spanish Reina Valera, Darby, Young’s, and even the NIV and TNIV, but that the NASB, ESV, Holman Standard and the newer Catholic versions have all changed this to: “Where IS YOUR STING” instead of “your destruction”. The NKJV footnote informs us that the words “where is your STING” come from the Greek Septuagint. So we see that it is the more recent NASB, ESV, Holman and more modern Catholic versions that have even further departed from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hosea 14:2 “…so will we render the CALVES of our lips.” The Hebrew word here is calves or bullocks, and is the rendering found in the Geneva Bible, RV, ASV, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, NET, Darby, Spanish and now the ESV.

However the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV say: “so will we render the FRUIT of our lips.” The RSV, NRSV footnotes tell us that “fruit” comes from the LXX, but that the Hebrew reads bullocks or calves. Even the new ESV has gone back to the Hebrew reading, but the NASB, NIV are still following the Greek Septuagint.

Joel 3:21  KJB – “For I will CLEANSE their blood that I have not CLEANSED: for the LORD dwelleth in Zion.

ESV – “I will AVENGE their blood, blood I have not AVENGED, for the Lord dwells in Zion.”

RSV, NRSV 1989 – “I will AVENGE their blood, and I WILL NOT CLEAR THE GUILTY, for the LORD dwells in Zion.”

Footnote – Greek, Syriac;  Hebrew “I will hold innocent their blood that I have not held innocent.”

The RSV and NRSV both tell us that their reading of “I will AVENGE their blood” comes from the Syriac and the so called Greek LXX and not the Hebrew. Then they mislead us by telling us the Hebrew reads “I will HOLD INNOCENT”.

The fact is the Hebrew word has several meanings, none of which is “to avenge”, but it can be translated as “cleanse” as here, or as “CLEANSE thou me from secret faults” (Psalm19:12), or “to be clear” as in “Then thou shalt be CLEAR from this my oath” (Genesis 24:8 and 41), “and by no means CLEARING the guilty” (Num. 14:18) or “to hold guiltless” (Exodus 20:7) and “to be innocent” as in “And I shall be innocent from the great transgression.” Psalm 19:13

You will also notice that the RSV, NRSV do not agree with the ESV.  The RSV says: “I will AVENGE their blood, and I WILL NOT CLEAR THE GUILTY, for the LORD dwells in Zion.”

While the revision of the revision of the revision – the ESV – says: “I will AVENGE their blood, BLOOD I HAVE NOT AVENGED, for the Lord dwells in Zion.”

Neither are their footnotes totally accurate. The RSV and NRSV tell us that their reading comes from the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but there are at least two different Greek translations that are called the Septuagint and the most common one reads“ And I WILL MAKE INQUISITION FOR their blood, and will by no means leave it UNAVENGED”, while another one does read “I will AVENGE their blood”.

The RSV and NRSV have followed the Syriac and not the Hebrew.  Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac reads: “For I will AVENGE their blood, and I WILL NOT ABSOLVE THE OFFENDERS; and the LORD will dwell in Zion.”  But the ESV follows the Syriac in the first part of the verse and then just makes up the second part saying: ““I will AVENGE their blood, (Syriac) BLOOD I HAVE NOT AVENGED, (Who knows where they got this from) for the Lord dwells in Zion.”

Following the Hebrew text and the reading or meaning found in the King James Bible’s – “For I will CLEANSE their blood that I HAVE NOT CLEANSED: for the LORD dwelleth in Zion.” are Wycliffe 1395 – “And Y schal CLENSE  the blood of hem, which Y hadde not CLENSID; and the Lord schal dwelle in Syon.”, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 – “For I will CLENSE their blood, that I haue not CLENSED”, Webster’s 1833, Youngs, Darby – “And I will purge them from the blood from which I had not purged them”, the Revised Version of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 – “And I will CLEANSE their blood, that I have not CLEANSED”, the Hebrew Names Version – “I will cleanse their blood, That I have not cleansed”, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, World English Bible, Complete Jewish Bible and the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 – “I will cleanse them of bloodguilt which I have not yet cleansed”, Updated Bible Version 2004, Knox Bible of 2012, the Third Millenium Bible 1998,  Green’s literal translation – “And I will cleanse their blood which I did not cleanse.” and the Lexham English Bible of 2012 – “I will cleanse their bloodguilt that I did not cleanse”

The NKJV basically has the same sense by reading: “ I will ACQUIT them of bloodguilt, whom I had not acquitted; For the LORD dwells in Zion.”

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion.  The early Douay-Rheims Bible of 1610  read just like the KJB and so did the Douay of 1950 with: “And I will CLEANSE their blood which I did not CLEANSE.”  But then the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible read like many of the modern Vatican Versions and have: “I WILL AVENGE their blood, and NOT LEAVE IT UNPUNISHED.  The LORD dwells in Zion.”

But wait. They are not done yet. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and they have once again gone back to the Hebrew text and it says: “And I will CLEANSE their blood, which I had not CLEANSED. And the Lord will remain in Zion.”

Also departing from the Hebrew text is the NASB – “And I will AVENGE  their blood which I have not AVENGED.”, even though the previous ASV read exactly like the King James Bible.

The NIV is interesting in that the earlier NIV 1978 and 1984 editions actually made an attempt to follow the Hebrew text, and read: “Their bloodguilt WHICH I HAVE NOT PARDONED, I WILL PARDON. The LORD dwells in Zion!”

However in the recent 2011 NIV edition they went further astray and it now reads: “SHALL I LEAVE THEIR INNOCENT BLOOD UNAVENGED? NO, I WILL NOT.” The Lord dwells in Zion!

The NIV Spanish version, called La Nueva Versión Internacional, of 1999 says the exact opposite of the English NIV of 1984. The 1984 NIV Enlglish versions says “I WILL PARDON.” but the Spanish NIV says “I will NOT pardon.”

NIV Spanish edition – “¿Perdonaré la sangre que derramaron? ¡Claro que no la perdonaré!” = Shall I pardon the blood they have shed? Of course I will NOT pardon it!”

As usual, Dan Wallace and company depart from the Hebrew text and reads: “I will AVENGE (47) their blood which I had not previously ACQUITTED.”  Then he footnotes: (47) “The present reading follows “I will avenge” rather than the Masoretic Text “I will acquit”.

The 2003 Holman Standard has made an attempt to stick to the Hebrew reading and has: “I will PARDON their bloodguilt, which  I have not  PARDONED, for the Lord dwells in Zion.”

The 2012 International Standard Version also made an attempt to follow the Hebrew text and reads: “I will ACQUIT their bloodguilt that has NOT YET BEEN ACQUITTED. For the LORD lives in Zion!”

The goofy Amplified version of 1987, put out by the Lockman Foundation who also bring us the NASB, has put in ALL the readings from the Hebrew AND the Syriac and actually says: “And I will CLEANSE AND HOLD AS INNOCENT their blood AND AVENGE IT, blood which I have not CLEANSED, HELD INNOCENT AND AVENGED, for the Lord dwells in Zion.”  I guess they are trying to cover all their bases, but they end up perverting the true words of God in the process.

Foreign language versions that follow the Hebrew text and agree with the King James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and the Reina Valera of 1909, 1960 and 1995 – “Yo limpiaré la sangre de los que no había limpiado.” = “I will cleanse the blood of those that I had not cleansed.”, the Portuguese Almeida – “E purificarei o sangue que eu não tinha purificado; porque o Senhor habita em Sião.”, the  French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 – “Et je nettoierai leur sang que je n’avais point nettoyé” = “I will cleanse their blood”,  the  Italian Diodati – “Ed io netterò il lor sangue, il quale io non avea nettato; e il Signore abiterà in Sion.” = “I will cleanse their blood” and the Modern Greek Bible – “Και θελω καθαρισει το αιμα αυτων, το οποιον δεν εκαθαρισα· διοτι ο Κυριος κατοικει εν Σιων.” = “And I will CLEANSE their blood, which I had not cleansed; for the Lord dwells in Zion.”

Micah 5:6 Different meanings and different Texts. In the King James Bible we read: “And they shall WASTE the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod IN THE ENTRANCES THEREOF.”

According to Strong’s concordance the word for “waste” is # 7489 raw-ah, which means “to waste, to destroy, to break down, to harm, or to hurt.”

To “waste” or destroy, or to break is also the reading of the following Bible versions: Geneva Bible 1599, Bishops’ bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, NKJV 1982, Darby 1870, Young’s, New Century Version 1991, Bible in Basic English 1961, KJV 21, the 1917 Jewish translation, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, and the new Judaica Press Complete Tanach translation.

However some modern versions apparently confuse a different Hebrew word here and say: “And they shall SHEPHERD (or Rule) the land of Assyria with the sword…” These include the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Catholic and the NET versions, though both the NIV and the NET version tell us in their footnotes that this word may also be translated as “to crush” or destroy.

Another big problem for the NIV, TNIV, RSV, NRSV and Daniel Wallace’s NET version is that in this same verse they have rejected the Hebrew texts which say: “and the land of Nimrod IN THE ENTRANCES THEREOF” and replaced it with the Latin reading “WITH A DRAWN SWORD”. The Holman and the RSV and NRSV at least give a footnote telling us that this totally different reading comes from the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew masoretic text reads as does the KJB = “at it’s entrances”. In this case, the 2003 ESV at least went back to the Hebrew reading, whereas the NIV, TNIV and Holman still follow the Latin Vulgate instead.

The Catholic versions have perverted this verse too with the New Jerusalem bible 1985 reading much like the NIV saying: “they WILL SHEPHERD Assyria with the sword, the country of Nimrod WITH NAKED BLADE.”  Then it footnotes that “with naked blade” comes from the Greek but the Hebrew reads “IN ITS ENTRANCES”.  The NIV has “who will RULE the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod WITH DRAWN SWORD.”

Following the Hebrew texts and agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible of : “and the land of Nimrod IN THE ENTRANCES THEREOF” are the following Bible versions: The Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, THE modern Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach, Hebrew Names Version, the NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, Darby, Young’s, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Some question about the previous English Bibles and why God in His sovereignty has placed them on the shelf and now blessed the King James Bible far above any other Bible. There are many other examples of inferiour texts and translations in all previous English bibles, and here is just one of these examples. The Geneva Bible of 1599, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible of 1568 all followed the reading found in the Latin Vulgate here instead of the preserved Hebrew texts. These earlier English versions read like the modern NIV, RSV, and NET versions with: “…and the land of Nimrod WITH THEIR NAKED WEAPON” (or with a drawn blade), instead of the clear Hebrew reading of “in the entrances thereof”. The King James Bible is the right one – as always.

The NIV changes Micah 6:16 “ye shall bear the reproach of my people” to “the scorn of THE NATIONS”, and admits in their footnote that this reading comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads as does the KJB. Here the Catholic Douay reads “the people” but the Catholic St. Joseph has “the NATIONS”

Micah 7:19 – “HE will turn again, HE will have compassion upon us; HE will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all THEIR sins into the depths of the sea.”

 The modern bible versions are all over the board on this one willy nilly following different texts of all sorts.

 Reading HE three times in this verse are the Hebrew Masoretic texts as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the 1917 JPS, RSV, NRSV, ESV. (But not the NIV nor the NET version)

 The reading of “THEIR sins” (not OUR sins) is that of the Hebrew Masoretic texts, as well as the Geneva Bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902,  the RV, ASV, NASB, JPS 1917, Hebrew Names Version, the Complete Jewish Bible,  Darby, Youngs, and the Third Millenium Bible. By the way, the “their sins” refers to the people mentioned in the next verse where it says: “Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.” 

 However the NIV along with Daniel Wallace’s NET version has changed HE to YOU, and THEIR to OUR and reads: “YOU will again have compassion on us; YOU will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all OUR iniquities into the depths of the sea.”  Daniel Wallace even notes in his footnotes that the Hebrew reads “he, he, their” as the KJB has it.  The Catholic versions unite in changing the text here too and all have “OUR sins” instead of the Hebrew “THEIR sins”.

 The Holman Standard keeps the HE but changes “their” to “our” and says: “HE will again have compassion on us; HE will vanquish our iniquities. YOU will cast all OUR sins into the depths of the sea.” 

 Other versions that have changed “THEIR sins” to OUR sins based on the LXX and Syriac (while the NRSV, ESV footnote that the Hebrew reads THEIR sins), are the RSV, NRSV, ESV AND the NKJV!  Then the NKJV footnotes “literally THEIR” sins.

 The NIV gets these changes from the Greek Septuagint, but even then neither the NIV nor the Holman Standard – (which don’t even agree with each other!), nor the RSV, ESV completely follow the so called Septuagint either.

 The Septuagint says: “HE will return and have mercy upon us, HE will SINK OUR iniquities, and THEY SHALL BE CAST (Not “You”) into the depths of the sea, (then it adds) even ALL OUR SINS.”

 So versions like the RSV, ESV follow the Hebrew texts in the first part of the verse, but then choose ONE of the readings from the so called LXX in the second part, while the NIV and Holman follow different parts of the LXX but not all of it, and not even the same parts. – And they call this “the science” of textual criticism!

 If it all sounds very confusing, that’s because it is.  Now, whom do you think would want to confuse God’s words like this?  Any ideas? 

More Shenanigans from the Bible Correctors Guild.

Habakkuk 1:12 KJB – “Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? WE SHALL NOT DIE. O Lord, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.”

“WE SHALL NOT DIE” = Geneva Bible, Jewish Publication Society 1917, ASV, RSV 1952-1971, NASB, ESV 2011, NKJV, NIV 1978 and 1984 editions, The Jewish Complete Tanach 2004, The New European Version 2010, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, ISV 2014, Modern English Version 2014 and the Amplified Bible 2015.

NIV 1984 edition – “My God, my Holy One, WE will not die.”

Habakkuk 1:12 – NIV 2011 edition – “Lord, are you not from everlasting?

My God, my Holy One, YOU WILL NEVER DIE. You, Lord, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.”

Footnote: “An ancient Hebrew scribal tradition; Masoretic Text WE”

The Catholic Connection.

The older Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1610 as well as the Douay Version 1950 both read “WE shall not die.”

However the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 changed this to “my holy God, IMMORTAL”.  

Then the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has “My God, my Holy One, YOU WILL NEVER DIE”. 

The  New Jerusalem bible then tells us in their footnote that the Hebrew text reads “WE shall not die”, but that this is (supposedly) “the result of a scribal correction.”

Not only does the NIV 2011 edition change the Hebrew text here, but so too do The Jehovah Witness New World Translation – “YOU do not die.”,  The New English Bible 1970, the NRSV 1989, Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 (Big surprise) – “my sovereign God, YOU ARE IMMORTAL.”, Holman Standard 2009 – “YOU will not die.”, Lexham English bible 2012, The Translator’s bible 2014 and the New Living Translation 2015. 

Dan “anything but the KJB” Wallace and company’s goofy NET version reads: “my sovereign God, YOU ARE IMMORTAL.”

Then our Bible correcting “scholar” footnotes: “The MT reads, “we will not die,” but an ancient scribal tradition has “you [i.e., God] will not die.” This is preferred as a more difficult reading that can explain the rise of the other variant. Later scribes who copied the manuscripts did not want to associate the idea of death with God in any way, so they softened the statement to refer to humanity.”

Does Dan Wallace believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS now or ever WAS the complete and inerrant words of God?  He SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God (just like James White does) but he will NEVER actually show you a copy of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES to (and lies about) believe in – and neither will James White.

Zephaniah 3:8 KJB –  “Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day THAT I RISE UP TO THE PREY.”

So read the Hebrew texts, as well as the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901 – “until the day that I rise up to the prey”, the NASBs from 1972, 73 and 1977,  the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), Darby, Youngs, Hebrew Names Version, the NKJV, the ESV and the Spanish Reina Valera.

However the NIV reads: – “for the day I WILL STAND UP TO TESTIFY”.  Then it footnotes that this reading comes from  the LXX and Syriac, but the Hebrew reads as the KJB. Both the RSV and the NRSV also read like the NIV, and they also tell us this reading comes from the LXX and Syriac but the Hebrew reads as does the KJB. But now the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the new ESV of 2001,  has now gone back to the Hebrew reading – ““for the day when I rise up to seize the prey.”

NET version – “Therefore you must wait patiently for me,” says the Lord “for the day WHEN I ATTACK AND TAKE PLUNDER.”  Then he footnotes: “Hebrew “when I arise for plunder.” The present translation takes (’ad) as “plunder.” Some, following the LXX, repoint the term  (’ed) and translate, “as a witness” (cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV).

The NASB keeps changing its underlying Hebrew texts.  The earlier NASB’s (1971 through 1977) all read as does the King James Bible and the Hebrew texts – “the day I rise up TO THE PREY” BUT the 1995 NASB now reads: “For the day when I rise AS A WITNESS” – thus following the so called Greek Septuagint in changing “for a prey” to “as a witness”.  So, were all the previous NASBs and the Hebrew texts wrong, but now they got it right in the late$t NA$B? The modern Catholic versions also follow this false reading and say: “when I rise AS ACCUSER”

 Zechariah 5:6 KJB – (NASB, NKJV) – “This is an ephah that goeth forth. He said moreover, This is THEIR RESEMBLANCE through all the earth.”

NIV – “This is THE INIQUITY OF THE PEOPLE throughout the land.” The LXX says “their iniquity”, but not the Hebrew. The NIV once again joins the modern Catholic bibles when they say “this is THEIR GUILT” (St. Joseph and New Jerusalem bible 1985)

These are by no means all the textual omissions of the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV nor every example of where they depart from the traditional Hebrew text, but they should give you some serious pause for thought about accepting  any of these modern  Vatican Versions as a true record of what God has inspired in the words of truth. Each of you can readily get an NIV,  NASB, ESV, Holman or NKJV and look up these verses for yourself and read the footnotes. It is all there in black and white.

The Holy Bible tells us there will be a falling away or an apostasy before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This falling away is happening right now today and few Christians seem to care or even know it’s happening.

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” Jeremiah 6:16

Will Kinney

 May I suggest you take a serious look at this article that shows numerous examples proving the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc are the new Vatican Versions.

It is called – Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are  the new “Catholic” bibles

“Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth..is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit…Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins” Revelation 17:5; 18:2-4

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

NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions reject Hebrew texts Part 1

Via Will Kinney, with permission:

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

 Part One – Genesis through Psalms

“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 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 – “ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς” – 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 – “ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς” – 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 – “τον δε λαον μετετοπισεν αυτον εις πολεις” = “he removed the people to the cities” and the Modern Hebrew Bible – ואת העם העביר אתו לערים מקצה גבול מצרים ועד קצהו׃

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 themFrom 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 – “Până va veni ŞILO”, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 – “SHILOH ay dumating”, the Czech BKR Bible – “dokudž nepřijde SILO”, the Afrikaans Bible 1953 – “uit totdat SILO kom”,

and The Modern Greek Bible – “εωσου ελθη ο Σηλω”. = “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 – “και εξεβαλε τους τροχους των αμαξων αυτων” = “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 – “εξεβαλε τους τροχους των αμαξων αυτων” = “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” – ἀγγέλων θεοῦ 

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

The reading of “according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL” is the reading found in all Hebrew Masoretic texts as well as the Syriac Peshitta -“according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL”, ALL Jewish translations like the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the Hebrew Names Version 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 – “εστησε τα ορια των λαων κατα τον αριθμον των υιων Ισραηλ.” = “He set the boundaries of the people according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL.”

The Modern Hebrew Bible – בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם יצב גבלת עמים למספר בני ישראל׃ = 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:

  1. 32:43a As in Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek version; Masoretic Text lacks the first two lines. 
  2. 32:43b As in Greek version; Hebrew text lacks this line.
  3. 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: Ευφρανθητε, εθνη, μετα του λαου αυτου· διοτι θελει εκδικησει το αιμα των δουλων αυτου, και αποδωσει εκδικησιν εις τους εναντιους αυτου, και καθαρισει την γην αυτου και τον λαον αυτου. = “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 consumeTHINE 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.”

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, Webster’s bible 1833, the New Life Version 1969, Darby, the Message, Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, the NASB – “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 and 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 1881, ASV, NASB 1995, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, NKJV, all Jewish translations like the 1917 JPS, Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, 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 Millenium 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 –  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…”

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 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 (יהוה) 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.

2 Samuel 6:21-22 – Consistently Inconsistent Modern Versions and the so called Greek Septuagint.  

In 2 Samuel 6:21 we read: “And David said unto Michal, (***) It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord.”

This is the reading of the Hebrew texts, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta,  and even that of the RV 1885, ASV 1901, NASB 1995, NIV 2011 and ESV 2011.

However the Holman Standard 2009 ADDS words taken from the LXX that not even the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NET, Tree of Life Version 2015, ISV 2014 or NASB do, and says: 

“David replied to Michal, “I WAS DANCING [a] before the Lord who chose me over your father and his whole family to appoint me ruler over the Lord’s people Israel. I will celebrate before the Lord”  

Then it footnotes that “I was dancing” comes from the LXX but that the Hebrew Masoretic Text omits these words.

Also following the LXX here and adding the words “I WAS DANCING” are the Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002, The Voice 2012 and New Living Translation 2015.

Consistently Inconsistent

And in 2 Samuel 6:22 we read: “And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base IN MINE OWN SIGHT: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.”

So reads the Hebrew text, the Syriac Peshitta as well as the RV, ASV, NRSV 1989, NASB, NIV 2011, Holman, Tree of Life Version 2015, ISV 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014.

HOWEVER, this time the ESV rejects the Hebrew text and instead of saying “I will be base IN MY OWN SIGHT”, it says: “I will be abased in YOUR [a] eyes.”

Then it tells us in a footnote that this reading comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew text reads MY.

The total inconsistencies are seen in that the ESV rejects many different LXX readings, but adopts  others. The RSV 1946-1971 also read “I will be abased in YOUR eyes”, but then the NRSV 1989 went back to the Hebrew and said “I will be abased IN MY OWN EYES”.

And then the ESV once again rejected the Hebrew reading in this verse and went back to the old RSV/Septuagint reading, BUT none of them followed the LXX reading of “I WAS DANCING” in the previous verse!

BUT the Holman DID follow the LXX’s “I WAS DANCING” in 2 Samuel 6:21 but NOT the LXX in the very next verse like the ESV did.  

Likewise the Message, The Voice and The New Living Translation previously chose to follow the LXX’s “I WAS DANCING” in verse 21 but they did NOT follow the LXX’s “in YOUR sight” in the very next verse.

While versions like the NIV, NASB, ISV stuck with the Hebrew in both these verses, though they do not in others.

The Catholic Connection

The previous Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1610 and Douay 1950 both followed the Hebrew texts and read like the KJB.  

BUT now the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 BOTH read “I WAS DANCING” in v. 21, taken from the Septuagint, AND reject the Hebrew reading of “in MY OWN sight” in v. 22 and go instead with the LXX reading of “in YOUR sight”.

And they call these shenanigans the “science” of textual criticism!

In 2 Samuel 7:16 the NIV, Holman CSB and NASB change the Hebrew “before THEE” (RV, ASV, NKJV) to “before ME”, according to the LXX, but the Hebrew says “thee”. So too do the modern Catholic bible versions, though the older Douay-Rheims followed the Hebrew text like the KJB does.

2 Samuel 7:16 Many modern versions reject the Hebrew text.

In 2 Samuel 7:16 God Himself speaks through the prophet Nathan to king David telling him: “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before THEE: thy throne shall be established for ever.”

King David then marvels at the grace of God and rehearses what He had promised him.  In v. 19 David says “Thou hast spoken of THY SERVANT’S HOUSE for a great while to come.”

In 2 Samuel 7:16 the Hebrew Masoretic text says “thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before THEE: thy throne shall be established for ever.”

However such modern versions as the liberal RSV 1952 (the first major bible translation to do so), the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET, ISV, Common English bible 2011 and The Voice 2012 changed the text based primarily on the so called Greek Septuagint and say “your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before ME. Your throne shall be established forever.”  ESV 2011.

Then the ESV 2011 footnotes “Septuagint;  Hebrew – you.

The 2011 Common English bible (another Critical text version) footnotes that this reading comes from the LXX but that the Hebrew reads “YOU”.

The NIV also reads “before ME” and then footnotes: “Some Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint; most Hebrew manuscripts (read) YOU.”

Dan Wallace’s NET version also reads “your house and your kingdom will stand before ME” and then footnotes – Hebrew “before you”

The Catholic Connection

The previous Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay versions both read “And thy house shall be faithful, and thy kingdom for ever before THY FACE, and thy throne shall be firm for ever.”

But the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 have now changed this to “Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before ME; your throne shall stand firm forever.”

If these new versions want to follow the so called Greek Septuagint so badly, then why didn’t they also change verse 11 where God says to David “Also the LORD telleth thee that HE WILL MAKE THEE AN HOUSE.” ?

Here the LXX actually says “And the Lord will tell thee that THOU SHALT BUILD A HOUSE TO HIM.” – The exact opposite meaning.

Or in verse 15 where the Hebrew text says “But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I TOOK IT FROM SAUL, WHOM I PUT AWAY BEFORE THEE.”

Here the LXX reads – “But my mercy I will not take from him, AS I TOOK IT FROM THOSE WHOM I REMOVED FROM MY PRESENCE.”

2 Samuel 7:16 itself!  Or why not follow this same LXX in the same verse 16 where instead of reading with the Hebrew text – “And THINE house and THY kingdom shall be established for ever before THEE; THY throne shall be established for ever.”?

Here the LXX reads: “And HIS house shall be made sure, and HIS kingdom for ever before ME, and HIS throne shall be set up forever.”

Do you see what these bogus Vatican Versions did? There are FOUR pronouns changed  in the LXX from what the Hebrew text says, and they chose to reject the other three LXX readings and picked just one of them to put into their “bibles”!  And they call this nonsense “the science of textual criticism”!

Or in Verse 18 where the Hebrew text has David asking God – “Who am I, O Lord God? and what is my house THAT THOU HAST BROUGHT ME HITHERTO?”

The LXX reads – “Who am I, O Lord, my Lord, and what is my house THAT THOU HAST LOVED ME hitherto?”

Or why didn’t they follow Benton’s LXX copy in verse 26 where it completely omits all these words  from the verse – “The LORD of hosts is the God over Israel: and let the house of thy servant David be established before thee.”?

Benton’s LXX then footnotes that all these omitted words ARE found in the Alexandrian copy (Remember, there are different “Septuagint” versions out there) and in the Hebrew texts.

2 Samuel 7:16 “shall be established before THEE”

Agreeing with the King James Bible in 2 Samuel 7:16 where God says to David “And THINE house and THY kingdom shall be established for ever before THEE (Not “ME”); THY throne shall be established for ever.” are the following Bible translations –

Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society), the NKJV 1984, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and the Natural Israelite Bible 2014.

It is also the reading of the Modern Greek Bible – και θελει στερεωθη ο οικος σου και η βασιλεια σου εμπροσθεν σου εως αιωνος· ο θρονος σου θελει εισθαι εστερεωμενος εις τον αιωνα. = “your house and your kingdom shall be established before YOU for ever” and the Modern Hebrew Bible – ונאמן ביתך וממלכתך עד עולם לפניך כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם

Don’t settle for one of the bogus Vatican Versions that nobody believes are the infallible words of God. Get yourself the King James Bible and stick with it.  It is God’s Book and it is always right.

All of grace, believing the Book.

2 Samuel 13:34 again the NIV adds 21 extra words to the text which come from the so called Greek LXX, and rejects some of the Hebrew text. These added words are not included in the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901, the  2003 Holman,  the NASB, Dan Wallace’s NET version, nor even in the  RSV, NRSV or the ESV (English Standard Version 2001).

In the King James Bible and the Hebrew texts we read: “But Absalom fled. And the young man that kept the watch lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came much people by the way of the hill side behind him. “

The NIV omits the Hebrew words “behind him” and then adds this sentence which is not found in any Hebrew manuscript. “THE WATCHMAN WENT AND TOLD THE KING, I SEE MEN IN THE DIRECTION OF HORONAIM, ON THE SIDE OF THE HILL.”

The NIV then informs us that this whole sentence is not found in the Hebrew text, but that it comes from the Septuagint.  At this point I would like to point out the totally fickle nature of this so called “science” of textual criticism.  If the NIV editors thought that the so called Greek Septuagint supplied a whole sentence of “inspired Scripture” that apparently has been LOST in ALL Hebrew manuscripts, then why did the NIV editors NOT include the whole sentence found in this same Greek Septuagint right here in this same chapter in verse 21?

The Hebrew text, as well as the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NET, Holman Standard, NKJV, and all Jewish translations say: “But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth.”

However the so called Greek Septuagint ADDS the following words to this verse – “BUT HE DID NOT GRIEVE THE SPIRIT OF AMNON HIS SON, BECAUSE HE LOVED HIM, SINCE HE WAS HIS FIRSTBORN.”

Oh, but wait. Some versions DO add these extra 20 words to the inspired text. The RSV did NOT add these extra 20 words, but the New RSV did.  But then the revision of the revision of the revision – the ESV – took them out again!  Guess which other versions add these extra words too?  The Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.  The Catholic Versions also add all those extra words to verse 34 just like the NIV does.

A really interesting case of the modern Bible Babble Buffet versions is found in one of the latest UBS critical text versions to come on the scene. It is called the Common English Bible of 2011. This latest “advancement in scholarly research” has ADDED all the extra words to verse 21 – “ When King David heard about all this he got very angry, BUT HE REFUSED TO PUNISH HIS SON AMNON BECAUSE HE LOVED HIM AS HIS OLDEST CHILD.” – BUT it DOESN’T add all the extra words to verse 34 like the NIV, NRSV do!  And they call this confusion the “science” of textual criticism!

In 2 Samuel 21:8 the NIV, Holman, ESV and NASB change “MICHAL the daughter of Saul”, which is the Hebrew reading, to MERAB, which comes from 2 manuscripts and SOME LXX. My copy of the LXX, as well as the Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, Spanish, Geneva and NKJV all correctly read “Michal”. Likewise the previous Catholic Douay version had MICHAL but the newer Catholic versions like St. Joseph and New Jerusalem have changed this to MERAB, and the New Jerusalem even footnotes that the Hebrew reads MICHAL!

In 2 Samuel 23:18 and 19 the NASB follows the RSV and the Syriac in changing “Adriel…was chief among THREE” to “chief among THIRTY”, but here even the NIV and Holman stick with the Hebrew and the RV, ASV and NKJV.  Here again, the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims had “THREE” but the more modern Catholic versions like St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem go with “the THIRTY”.

 In 2 Samuel 24:2 we read: “For the king said to Joab THE CAPTAIN OF THE HOST, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.”

So read the Hebrew texts, the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Darby, Youngs, the Holman Standard, Lamsa and even the ESV.  However the NIV adds words taken from the LXX and rejects the Hebrew reading.  The NIV, along with the RSV, NRSV and the Message, says: “So the king said to Joab AND THE ARMY COMMANDERS WITH HIM (F89), “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.”  Then it footnotes: “Septuagint; Hebrew – Joab the army commander”.  Once again, the previous Catholic Douay followed the Hebrew like the KJB, but the St. Joseph and New Jerusalem go with the LXX reading and read “and the senior officers who were with him”.

Notice that the RSV and NRSV added these extra words from the LXX, but then the lastest revision of these three – the 2001 ESV – went back to the original Hebrew reading.  Such are the ever changing ways of the “science” of textual criticism.

Again, in 2 Samuel 24:13 we read: “So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in thy land?”… So read the Hebrew texts as well as the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, the Jewish translations, Douay, the Spanish Reina Valera and the Italian Diodati.  However, versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV and the ESV read: “THREE years of famine” and then tell us in a footnote that “three years” comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew texts read “seven years”.  Again, the previous Douay-Rheims followed the Hebrew text and reads “SEVEN years” but the more modern St. Joseph and New Jerusalem reject the Hebrew and go with the so called Greek Septuagint and read “THREE years”.

There is a very reasonable and biblical way of explaining this apparent contradiction once we read all that the true Bible says regarding the events recorded in Scripture.  You can see it here: 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/7or3yearsoffamine.htm

 In 1 Kings the NIV changes the Hebrew text in 5:11 from “20 measures of pure oil” to 20,000; and changes 6:8;(NASB too); 7:18 twice, though the NASB equals the KJB, and in 12:18. Likewise the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims read “20 measures of pure oil”, following the Hebrew text, but the more modern St. Joseph and New Jerusalem say “20,000 kor of pure oil” and then footnote that this reading comes from the Greek but that the Hebrew reads 20.

1 Kings 9:8 King James Holy Bible and the Hebrew texts say: “And at this house, WHICH IS HIGH, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house?

 In 1 Kings 9:8 the NASB goes along with the NET, RSV, NRSV and ESV and follows the Syriac and Old Latin, while rejecting the Hebrew reading. In the Hebrew we read: “And this house WHICH IS HIGH, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss…”

 This is the reading of Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s Bible 1549 – “And hys house which is so hye”, the Geneva Bible 1599, KJB 1611, Darby, Young’s,  Holman CSB, NKJV 1982, Revised Version 1885 “is high”, ASV 1901 – “And though this house is so high, yet shall every one that passeth by it be astonished, and shall hiss”, 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Green’s literal translation 2000, the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998. It is also the reading found in the so called Greek Septuagint. 

  The NASB doesn’t tell you when they reject the Hebrew, but the RSV, which reads as the NASB, tells us “this house WILL BECOME A HEAP OF RUINS” comes from the Syriac and Old Latin, but the Hebrew reads “high”.  The 1973 NASB I have also reads “will become a heap of ruins” but then in the marginal notes says: “Hebrew – high”, though they do not tell you that they got this perverted reading from the Syriac.

  Even the NIVs of 1973 and 1984 basically followed the Hebrew text reading  “AND THOUGH THIS TEMPLE IS NOW IMPOSING” but in tne NIV 2010 they have now rejected the Hebrew reading and  chose to follow the Syriac instead.  The NIV 2010 now reads: “This temple WILL BECOME A HEAP OF RUBBLE. All who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple?”  Then it footnotes: “See some Septuagint manuscripts, Old Latin, Syriac, Arabic and Targum; Hebrew And though this temple is now imposing.”  Well, my copy of the Septuagint clearly says “and this house which is high”.

 Daniel Wallace and company’s “anything but the KJB” NET version also says: “This temple will become a heap of ruins;14 and then footnotes: Heb “and this house will be high [or elevated].” The statement makes little sense in this context, which predicts the desolation that judgment will bring. Some treat the clause as concessive, “Even though this temple is lofty [now].” Others, following the lead of several ancient versions, emend the text to, “this temple will become a heap of ruins.”

 Uh, Daniel, “and this house WHICH IS HIGH” makes perfect sense.  Before it was destroyed it was exalted among the people and held in very high esteem, and it was also very high physically.  God did not make a mistake when He inspired His words in the Hebrew language.

 Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (as well as John Gill) comment: “this house, which is high–“high,” either in point of situation, for it was built on a hill, and therefore conspicuous to every beholder; or “high” in respect to privilege, honor, and renown.”

 Matthew Henry likewise comments: “This house which is high. Those that now pass by it are astonished at the bulk and beauty of it; the richness, contrivance, and workmanship, are admired by all spectators, and it is called a stupendous fabric; but, if you forsake God, its height will make its fall the more amazing, and those that pass by will be as much astonished at its ruins.”

 Among foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read like the King James Bible are the following: The Portuguese Almeida – “E desta casa, que é tão exaltada”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera’s 1909, 1960, 1995, the Spanish Nueva Traducción Viviente of 2010, the Italian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta 1927 and the La Nuova Diodati 1991 – “E questa casa, per quanto sia così in alto “, the Modern Greek translation, and the French Martin 1744 and  French Ostervald 1996. 

 2 Kings 17:27 – Here is an interesting verse in that so many Bible versions actually depart from the Hebrew text and yet I have seen some modern version promoters actually trying to tell us on the forums that the King James Bible is wrong and their modern versions that reject the Hebrew text are right! If they would just think things through, they would realize that the KJB and the Hebrew text are right. But NO. Rather than accepting a very reasonable explanation as to why the KJB and Hebrew are correct, they prefer to accuse them of error. Such are the ways of those who have no Final Written Authority -The Inspired Holy Bible – and instead place their own minds and understanding as their final authority.

In 2 Kings the Lord Himself sent lions among the people who now lived in Samaria because they continued to worship idols and feared not the Lord God of Israel. So the king of Assyria came up with a plan to teach the people about the God of Israel. In 2 Kings 17:27 we read: “Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let THEM go and dwell there, and let HIM teach them the manner of the God of the land.”

Agreeing with the Hebrew text in reading the plural as “let THEM go and dwell there” are the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Darby, Young’s, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and the KJV 21st Century version 1994.

There are many versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV which change the Hebrew text here and tell us so in their own footnotes. These versions read: “Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let HIM go and dwell there…” Then in a footnote they all tell us that the reading of HIM comes from the Syriac and the Vulgate, but the Hebrew reads THEM.

Not surprisingly, Daniel “scribal error” Wallace’s NET version also adopts this bogus reading and he defends it by telling us in his footnote: “Hebrew “and let THEM go and let THEM live there, and let HIM teach them the requirements of the God of the land.” The two plural verbs seem inconsistent with the preceding and following contexts, where only one priest is sent back to Samaria. The singular has the support of Greek, Syriac, and Latin witnesses.”

Did it ever occur to “scholars” like Daniel Wallace et.al. that the priests themselves were married men with wives and children and that they would take their family members with them when they went to live in another country, and so the priest and his family went to Samaria and he would teach the people about the God of the land, and thus we have “let THEM go and dwell there, and let HIM teach them…”???

Not only do the RSV, NRSV and ESV wrongly read HIM instead of THEM, but so do the NKJV, NASB, the Geneva Bible, Bishops’, Coverdale, and the Holman Standard. And not surprisingly, so too do the Catholic versions like the Douay and the New Jerusalem bibles. St. Joseph just omits the word altogether.

The NIV gets around the “problem” by just omitting the Hebrew word altogether and says: “Have one of the priests you took captive from Samaria go back to live there and teach the people what the god of the land requires.” The Catholic St. Joseph NAB also does it this way.

The King James Bible is right, as always.

In 1 Chronicles the NIV rejects the Hebrew in 1:4, 17; 4:3 changes “father” to “son” along with the NKJV, NASB though the Hebrew translations, RV, ASV, Young, Darby and others read as does the KJB with “were of the father of Etam”. 4:33; 6:25, 27, 28, 59, 77; 8:29, 30; 16:15; 25:9; 26:20 (NASB too), 2 Chronicles 15:8 both NIV and NASB add “Azariah son of” from the Syriac and the Vulgate; 20: 1,2, and in 20:25 both the NIV, NASB change “dead bodies” to “clothing”; 22:2 both NIV, NASB change 42 to 22 on basis of some LXX, but the Hebrew says 42; and in 36:9 the NIV changes 8 to 18 but the NASB retains “eight” years old, according to the Hebrew.

One example of many:

1 Chronicles 16:15 and 19. “BE YE MINDFUL always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations (v. 15)….when YE were but a few, even a few, and strangers in it.”

The modern versions present us with their typical array of confusion and mutual disagreement in these two places – “BE YE MINDFUL” (v. 15) and “when YE were but a few” (v. 19.)

The Hebrew texts clearly read as does the King James Bible, but the NIV has chosen to reject the Hebrew texts and instead follow SOME Greek Septuagint versions in these two places.

Agreeing with “BE YE MINDFUL” or, as some modern versions have it “Remember” (which means the same thing) and “when YE were but a few” are the Hebrew versions of JPS 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible and the Hebrew Names Version.

Also agreeing with both Hebrew texts – “Be ye mindful” and “when YE were but a few” are the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Youngs, Darby, Webster’s, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, Green’s interlinear, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, and the 2001 revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV (English Standard Version.) The RSV has it one way, the NRSV another and the ESV yet another. These guys are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

Also agreeing with the Hebrew reading of “BE YE MINDFUL” (or Remember) are the NRSV 1989, NASB 1963-1995, Douay, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, Holman Standard 2003 and Daniel Wallace’s NET version.

However all of these versions, both old and new – Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the NASB, Holman, NRSV and Wallace’s NET version – then proceed to reject the Hebrew text in verse 19, where instead of reading “When YE were but few”, all these versions incorrectly read “when THEY were but few in number.”

The NIV, RSV and TNIV reject both Hebrew readings and in verse 15 instead of saying “Be ye mindful always of his covenant” they say: “HE REMEMBERS his covenant forever”. Then they tell us in their footnotes that these readings comes from “SOME Septuagint manuscripts, but the Hebrew reads ‘Remember’.” and “when you were few”. Not all ‘Septuagint’ versions are the same. The copy of the Septuagint that is the most common says “LET US REMEMBER forever his covenant” and not “He remembers his covenant”.

Likewise the foreign language bible versions are a hodgepodge of conflicting readings. Agreeing with the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1902 and the Sagradas Escrituras 1569 – “Haced memoria de su alianza perpetuamente” and “Cuando erais pocos en número, Pocos y peregrinos en ella.” However the newer Reina Valera versions have rejected the Hebrew texts, and both the 1960 and 1995 versions read like the NIV with: “El hace memoria de su pacto perpetuamente” and “Cuando ellos eran pocos en número”.

The Italian Diodati 1649 and the Italian Nuova Diodate 1991 agree with the Hebrew and the KJB saying – “Ricordatevi sempre del suo patto” and “quando non eravate che un piccolo numero”

The French Martin 1744 and the 1996 French Ostervald both read the same as the Hebrew and the King James Bible. The 1999 French version called La Bible du Semeur, put of by the same people who gave us the NIV, the International Bible Society, does follow the Hebrew texts and agrees with the King James Bible. It says “Souvenez-vous pour toujours de son alliance” and “Vous n’étiez alors qu’un très petit…” So the French NIV differs from the English NIV.

The Modern Greek translation (not to be confused with the so called Greek Septuagints) also reads “Remember his covenant always” and “when you were but a few”.

The King James Bible is right – as always.

2 Chronicles 15:8 “And when Asa heard these words, AND the prophecy OF OBED the prophet, he took courage and put away the abominable idols…”

So read the Hebrew texts and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, modern Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Darby, Young’s, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, the NKJV and even Wallace’s NET version.

However in modern times beginning with the liberal RSV, many bible versions add words to the Hebrew text on the belief that the Hebrew text has been corrupted. These include the NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, TNIV and the Message. These versions add the words “Azariah the son” to the inspired text.

Jamieson, Faucett and Brown give this faith destroying comment: “when Asa heard . . . the prophecy of Oded the prophet–The insertion of these words, “of Oded the prophet,” is generally regarded as a corruption of the text. “The sole remedy is to erase them. They are, probably, the remains of a note, which crept in from the margin into the text” [BERTHEAU].”

This is an interesting comment from these men who do not believe that any Bible or any text is free from corruption. They suggest that we merely “erase” these words from the divine text, but yet none of the other multiple bible version translators have followed their advice. Instead the versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman have ADDED the words “which Azaraiah the son” of Obed to the text, allegedly from the Syriac and Latin Vulgate.

The NIV says “the prophecy of AZARIAH SON of Obed the prophet” and then tells us in a footnote: “Vulgate and Syriac; Hebrew does not have ‘Azariah son of’.

Furthermore, the Syriac translation done by Lamsa reads: “the prophecy of Azariah the son of Azor” and not Obed. Then the conflicting Septuagint versions are again in disarray. The LXX copy I have does not add the name of Azariah to the text but says: “the prophecy of AZOR”, but then footnotes that the Alexandrian Septuagint reads: “the prophecy of Azariah” and both omit the name Obed altogether. So we see that these other “ancient versions” are in complete disagreement among themselves and the footnotes in versions like the NIV are a misleading lie.

Another note of interest as to why it is the King James Bible and not the previous English versions that is the perfect words of God is that Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535 and the Bishops’s Bible of 1568 all contain this added false reading of “the prophecy OF AZARIAH THE SON of Obed” to the Hebrew text.

There are two possible explantions I am aware of for believing that God got it right after all, and that His words have not been corrupted or lost over time, but have been faithfully preserved in the Hebrew texts and more specifically in the King James Bible. One explanation is that the prophet Azariah is called by the name of his father Obed. This is possible. However I personally lean towards the other explanation that not only did king Asa hear the words of Azariah but that he ALSO was told at this time about a previous prophecy given by Azariah’s father Obed.

Notice carefully the words recorded in the King James Bible in 2 Chronicles 15:8: “And when Asa heard these words, AND the prophecy OF OBED the prophet, he took courage and put away the abominable idols…”

The King James Bible is correct and translators who put together versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman are guilty of adding to the words of God and not believing in an infallible Bible.

Modern Bible translators do not believe in the preservation of the inspired Scriptures. There are many examples of where modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman often reject the clear Hebrew readings and either follow some other source, or just INVENT or make up a reading on a whim. Yet they continually disagree among themselves as to when they do this.

 2  Chronicles 20:1 the Ammonites or the Meunites?

KJB -” It came to pass after this also, that the children of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and with them other beside the AMMONITES, came against Jehoshaphat to battle.”

NIV, NASB – “Now it came about after this that the sons of Moab and the sons of Ammon, together with some of the MEUNITES, [1] came to make war against Jehoshaphat.”

NASB Footnote – “ So with Gr; Heb Ammonites”

NIV  Footnote – SOME Septuagint manuscripts; Hebrew Ammonites 

Not only do the NASB and NIV reject the clear Hebrew reading here and substitute it with the errant reading from the so called Greek Septuagint, but so also do the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, Darby, the Amplified bible 1987, Dan Wallace and company’s NET version (surprise;-) with a footnote that says: “The Hebrew text has “Ammonites,” but they are mentioned just before this. (Duh!) Most translations, following some mss of the LXX, read “Meunites” 

Young’s is a little strange here in that it says: “…the sons of Moab have come in, and the sons of Ammon, AND WITH THEM OF THE PEOPLES, against Jehoshaphat to battle.”

The Syriac is of no help here because Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta reads: “AND it came to pass after this, the children of Moab and the children of Ammon, WITH THE MIGHTY MEN OF WAR, came against Jehoshaphat to battle.”

It should be abundantly clear who the others besides the Ammonites were who came to the battle against king Jehoshaphat because the rest of the chapter tells us who they were. In verse 10 and again in verse 22 and 23 an we read of “the children of Ammon and Moab AND MOUNT SEIR which were come against Judah.”  And when the LORD Himself intervened He made it so that “the children of Ammon and Moab stood up against THE INHABITANTS OF MOUNT SEIR, utterly to slay and destroy them; and when they made an end of THE INHABITANTS OF SEIR, every one helped to destroy another.”  

The Coffman Commentary on the Bible notes that the change made in the RSV to “the Meunites” is unnecessary and that  Later in the chapter, it is revealed that the Edomites (those of Mount Seir) were also a part of this coalition against Israel.” And the Geneva Bible notes tell us of those besides the Ammonite  “they were the Idumeans of mount Seir.”

The Hebrew texts clearly say the AMMONITES and so do the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, ASV of 1901, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society ) 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company version of 1936 and the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament, Webster’s translation 1833, the NKJV 1982, the Berkeley in Modern English 1969, the World English Bible, and the Third Millennium Bible 1998. 

Foreign language translations that follow the Hebrew texts here and correctly read “THE AMMONITES” are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 – “Pasadas estas cosas, aconteció que los hijos de Moab y de Amón, y con ellos otros a más de LOS AMONITAS, vinieron contra Josafat a la guerra.”, the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald of 1996 -”les enfants de Moab et les enfants d’Ammon (car avec eux il y avait des Ammonites)”, the Italian Diodati 1649 – “e i figliuoli di Ammon, e con loro altri d’infra gli Ammoniti”, Luther’s German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 – “da kamen die Moabiter und die Ammoniter und mit ihnen andere neben den Ammonitern”,  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible – “en het hen anderen benevens de Ammonieten“, the Portuguese A Biblia em Portugués, the 2009 Romanian Fideli Bible – “Moab si copiii lui Amon si cu ei altii in afara de amoniti and the Modern Greek – “ οι υιοι Μωαβ και οι υιοι Αμμων και μετ’ αυτων αλλοι εκτος των Αμμωνιτων” = “and others besides the Ammonites”

The Catholic versions are in their usual disarray with the earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay correctly reading “the AMMONITES” while the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 siding with the other new Vatican Versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV and now reading “the MENUITES”.

 In the very next verse, 2 Chronicles 20:2 we read in the KJB – “There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea on this side SYRIA ; and behold, they be in Hazazontamar, which is Engedi.”

 SYRIA (or Aram, which is the same) is the reading found in the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, 1936 Hebrew Pub. Com., the Judaica Press Tanach, Wycliffe 1395, Bishops’ Bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Douay-Rheims, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the NKJV, Third Millenium Bible, Green’s literal, Darby, and even the Greek Septuagint – Siria.

 However beginning with the liberal RSV and followed by the NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard and the Message, these modern versions have rejected the Hebrew reading of Syria (or Aram) and read EDOM instead.  Again, the older Catholic Douay version read “SYRIA” but the more modern Catholic versions like St. Joesph and New Jerusalem have “EDOM”.  Then versions like the NIV, NRSV, New Jerusalem and NET footnote that EDOM comes from ONE Hebrew manuscript, but that the Hebrew Masoretic texts read Syria or Aram.  Even the LXX agrees with the KJB here.  Once again the Syriac is corrupt and has a completely different reading than either the Hebrew or the LXX.  Instead of “on this side Syria” it actually says: “and behold, they are encamping in Jericho”!!! 

 2 Chronicles 20:25 “Dead bodies” or “clothing”?

Here we read: “And when Jehoshaphat and his people came to take away the spoil of them, they found among them in abundance both riches WITH THE DEAD BODIES, and precious jewels, which they stripped off for themselves, more than they could carry away: and they were three days in gathering of the spoil, it was so much.”

 The context is really quite simple. When the children of Israel cried out to the Lord, God Himself set these enemies against one another and they killed each other. Verse 24 reads: “And when Judah came toward the watch tower in the wilderness, they looked unto the multitude, and, behold, THEY WERE DEAD BODIES FALLEN TO THE EARTH, and none escaped.”

 Not only does the King James Bible read “with the DEAD BODIES” (or corpses) but so also do the Jewish Scriptures (JPS 1917, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998)  the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NKJV 1982, Green’s, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, World English Bible 2000, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the Geneva bible 1587, the Lesser Bible 1853, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, and this time even the Holman Standard version of 2003.

The Geneva Bible says: “they founde among them in abundance both of substance and also OF BODIES laden with precious iewels, which they tooke for themselues.”  Even Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac agrees with the Hebrew texts and the KJB saying “and behold they were DEAD BODIES fallen to the earth”.

Foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew Masoretic text and read “DEAD BODIES” are the Spanish Reina Valera, the French Martin 1744 – “grandes richesses parmi LES MORTS“, the French Louis Segond 1910 and 1996 French Ostervald – “LES CADAVRES d’abondantes richesses”, the Italian Diodati 1649, Riveduta 1927 – “e fra iLOR CORPI MORTI trovarono molte ricchezze” and the Nuova Diodati 1991, and Riveduta 2006 – “CADAVERI e di oggetti preziosi, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 – “e acharam neles fazenda eE CADAVERS  emabundância, como também objetos preciosos and the Modern Greek Bible – “ευρηκαν μεταξυ των νεκρων σωματων αυτων και πλουτη εν αφθονια και πολυτιμον αποσκευην”

The Hebrew word is found over 20 times in the Masoretic text.  It is # 6296 peh-ger and is variously translated as “dead bodies” in the previous verse of 2 Chron. 20:24, Jeremiah 31:40; 33:5; 41:6, and as “carcases” in Genesis 15:11; Lev. 26:30; Eze. 43:7 and as “corpses” in Isaiah 37:36.

 As a side note, earlier English versions were still influenced by some Latin Vulgate readings and the earlier English translations from Wycliffe 1395 to Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s Bible 1549 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 contained the reading of “CLOTHING” instead of the Hebrew text of “DEAD BODIES”.

The 1568 Bishops’ Bible read: “And when Iehosaphat and his people came to take away the spoyle of them, they founde among them aboundaunce of goods, RAYMENT, & pleasaunt iewels, which they toke for them selues, more then they could cary away.” 

It wasn’t till the Geneva Bible that the Hebrew reading was followed instead of the Latin in this place.  This shows the purification process that was taking place, which finally was perfected in the King James Bible.

 The NKJV also reads “dead bodies” but then it casts doubt on the Hebrew reading by footnoting “A few Hebrew manuscripts, Old Latin, and Vulgate read GARMENTS; Septuagint reads ARMOR.” 

Well, for one thing they are lying about what the Septuagint reads.  Instead of “dead bodies” or even “armor”, the Brenton copy of the so called LXX reads: “they found much CATTLE and FURNITURE, and spoils and precious things.” It does NOT say “armor” at all.

And secondly, what the NKJV footnote fails to mention is that the Vulgate has BOTH “dead bodies” AND “garments”. The Latin Vulgate has both – “inter CADAVERA (dead bodies) variam supellectilem VESTES (clothing) quoque et vasa pretiosissim”

 The NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV 2012 and NET versions all reject this Hebrew reading of “dead bodies” and instead say: “his people came to take their spoil, they found much among them, including goods, GARMENTS (NASB, ISV) CLOTHING (NIV, ESV) and valuable things.”

Then the NIV tells us that this reading comes from “Some Hebrew manuscripts and Vulgate; most Hebrew manuscripts corpses.”  The newer Catholic bibles (St. Joseph, New Jerusalem) also read “clothes” and then footnote that the Hebrew reads “dead bodies”.

 Another Bible corrector, Daniel Wallace, also reads in his NET version “clothing” instead of “dead bodies”, and he footnotes: “The MT reads “corpses”, but this seems odd among a list of plunder. A few medieval Hebrew mss and the Vulgate read “clothing”, which fits the context much better.”

 Sorry Dan, but the context is just fine as it stands in the traditional Hebrew texts and the KJB.

The JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation of 1917 reads just like the King James Bible with – “And when Jehoshaphat and his people came to take the spoil of them, they found among them in abundance both riches and DEAD BODIES, and precious jewels, which they stripped off for themselves, more than they could carry away”

Likewise the 2004 Jewish translation called The Complete Tanach follows the Hebrew Masoretic text (as does the KJB) and says: “And Jehoshaphat and his people came to plunder the spoils, and they found among them plenty, and belongings and CORPSES and precious vessels, which they emptied out for themselves to the extent that they could not carry them away, and for three days they were plundering the spoil, because it was so much.”

Wycliffe 1395, which was translated from the Latin includes BOTH the words “dead bodies” and  “clothes”.  It reads: “Therfor Josaphat cam, and al the puple with hym, to drawe awey the spuylis of DEED MEN, and thei founden among THE DEED BODIES dyuerse purtenaunce of houshold, and CLOTHIS, and ful preciouse vessels”.

Most of the Spanish versions like the Reina Valera and Gómez RV have followed the same Latin readings and include both “dead bodies” AND “clothing”.

The Latin Vulgate – “spolia mortuorum inveneruntque inter CADAVERA variam supellectilem VESTES”

Catholic Douay-Rheims, like the Latin Vulgate and Wycliffe (which was translated from the Latin) also includes both the “dead bodies” and the garments – “and they found among THE DEAD BODIES, stuff of various kinds, andGARMENTS, and most precious vessels”.

So, even the footnotes found in the NIV are false and misleading.

The NIV reads: “So Jehoshaphat and his men went to carry off their plunder, and they found among them a great amount of equipment and CLOTHING [1] and also articles of value—more than they could take away. There was so much plunder that it took three days to collect it.”  Footnotes:  Some Hebrew manuscripts and Vulgate; most Hebrew manuscripts corpses

 The King James Bible is right, as always, and these modern day Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET are not. Get the true words of God as found in the King James Bible and stick with it.  You will never go wrong.

2 Chronicles 26:5 KJB – “And he sought God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in THE VISIONS of God: and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him to prosper.”

The VISIONS of God is the reading found in the vast majority of Hebrew texts and is the reading of every Jewish translation I am aware of, including The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, The New Jewish Version 1985, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 and the Hebrew Names Version 2014.

 It is also the reading found in the King James Bible, Latin Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version 1901, the Spanish Reina Valera, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996, Italian Diodati and the Rivudeta 1927, the NKJV, Modern Greek, and the NASB 1972-1995,

 However he NIV has chosen a different text and reads: “He sought God during the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in THE FEAR of God. As long as he sought the LORD, God gave him success.” 

Likewise the newer Catholic versions like St. Joseph and New Jerusalem say “THE FEAR of God” and then the New Jerusalem footnotes that “fear” comes from the Greek, but that the Hebrew reads “vision of God”.

Then the NIV footnotes that the reading “fear” comes from ‘Many Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; other Hebrew manuscripts vision ‘ This variant reading was first adopted by the liberal RSV in 1954 and now it is found in the NRSV, ESV, NIV, NEB and the Holman Standard Version.  The LXX does read “fear of God” rather than “visions of God”, but Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac has “worship of God” rather than either ‘fear’ or ‘visions’, but with the modern versionists’ Bible Agnostic mentality, I guess we can never be sure what God inspired in His precious words of truth and grace.

NET version – Daniel Wallace’s fickle NET version has an incredible 4 footnotes in this single verse and yet for the word in question he has nothing. He seems to have made up his own text which more or less leans towards the NIV reading. The NET says: “He followed God during the lifetime of Zechariah, who TAUGHT HIM HOW TO HONOR GOD. As long as he followed the Lord, God caused him to succeed.”

Both readings obviously cannot be what God originally inspired. Who wants you to be unsure about what God has said? As the Rolling Stones say: “Won’t you guess my name?”

 2 Chronicles 31:16 – “from THREE years old and upward” or “from THIRTY years old and upward”?

In the King James Bible and in all Hebrew texts we read: “Beside their genealogy of males, from THREE YEARS OLD  and upward, even unto every one that entereth into the house of the LORD, his daily portion for their service in their charges according to their courses.”

Not only does the King James Bible correctly read “from THREE years old and upward” but so do the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, NIV 1984 and 2011, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003, the Berkeley Version 1969, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the Greek LXX, the New English Bible 1970, Daniel Wallace’s NET version and the Revised English Version of 1989.

Yet the NASBs read: “without regard to their genealogical enrollment, to the males from THIRTY YEARS OLD and upward–everyone who entered the house of the LORD for his daily obligations–for their work in their duties according to their divisions.”  Then in a footnote they tell us “the Hebrew reads three years old.” 

In  other words, they just made this number up out of thin air.  The only other version I could find that also reads “thirty years old” is Eugene Peterson’s The Message.  In like manner, the previous Douay-Rheims read “THREE” but the newer Catholic versions (St. Joseph, New Jerusalem) say “THIRTY years and upwards” and then the New Jerusalem footnotes that the Hebrew reads THREE, just like the KJB has it.

There is NO Hebrew text that reads this way; nor the so called Greek Septuagint nor the Syriac; they all read “from three years old and upward”.  The NASB seems to attempt some justification for this whimsical change in the text by cross referencing 1 Chron. 23:3 where it talks about the age of the priests, but that passage is talking about the age of the Levites and not the Aaronic priesthood, which originally was 30 years old and upward, but was later changed to 20 years old and upward as can be seen from looking at the very next verse in 2 Chronicles 31:17 “…and the Levites from twenty years old and upward, in their charges by their courses.”

John Gill comments: “Beside their genealogy of males, from three years old and upwards… Their office was not only to give to the priests, but to those of their males in their genealogy, who were three years old and upwards; for under that age, according to Kimchi, they were not fit to come into the temple; nor have they knowledge to keep what is put into their hands; nor fit to handle offerings, lest they should defile them; but at that age they might be taught how to hold them, and be used to it; but as for females, he says, they were not admitted at any age.”

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown – “With the exception of children under three years of age–an exception made probably from their being considered too young to receive solid food–lists were kept of the number and age of every male; of priests according to their fathers’ house, and Levites from twenty years (see Nu 4:3; 28:24; 1Ch 23:24).”

The King James Bible is right, as always, and the NASB is clearly wrong.

Ezra 8:5 and 8:10 NASB 95, NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman all add to the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Ezra chapter eight we read of the genealogy of those who went up with Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. In Ezra 8:5 we read: “Of the sons of Shechaniah; the son of Jahaziel, and with him three hundred males.”

This is the reading of the Hebrew text, as well as the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young’s, Darby, Douay, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the Jewish translations of 1917 JPS, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, 1998 JPS updated and the 2004 Complete Jewish Tanach. It WAS also the reading of the NASB in their 1972, 1973 and 1977 editions.

However, the new NASB of 1995 now reads as do the RSV, ESV, NIV, the newer Catholic versions like the Jerusalem Bible and the St. Joseph NAB (BUT the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Bible has now gone back to the Hebrew text and omits these two added names!) and the Holman Standard.

These versions say: “Of the descendants OF ZATTU, Shechaniah son of Jahaziel..” Then in a footnote the NIV, ESV and Holman tell us that the name ZATTU comes from SOME LXX copies, but that the Hebrew does not have this added name.

The same thing occurs in Ezra 8:10. Here the King James Bible as well as the Hebrew text and Jewish translations (1917 -1998), the 2004 Complete Jewish Tanach, and the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young’s, Darby, Douay of 1950, and Spanish versions all read: “And of the sons of Shelomith; the son of Josiphiah, and with him 160 males.” This WAS the reading too of the NASB of 1972, 1973 and 1977.

But once again, the 1995 NASB has changed its Old Testament text and it now reads along with the RSV, ESV, NIV, the newer Catholic versions (except the latest 2009 version), and the Holman Standard: “Of the descendants of BANI, Shelomith son of Josiphiah…” Then in the NIV, ESV and Holman footnote (the NASB doesn’t tell us that they changed the text), we read that the name of BANI comes from SOME LXX copies (they do not all read the same), but that the Hebrew does not have the name BANI in the text. Not surprisingly, Daniel Wallace and  company’s NET version does the same thing – adding these two names to the Hebrew texts – and then footnotes: 

<note=253> The MT lacks “of Zattu.” The translation adopted above follows the LXX in including the words. 

<note=254>The MT lacks “Bani.” It is restored on the basis of certain LXX MSS.

 Ezra 10:6 and 10:16

In Ezra 10:6 we read: “Then Ezra rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib; AND WHEN HE WAS COME THITHER, he did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been carried away.”

“And when he was come thither” is the reading of the Hebrew translations of the Jewish Publication Society 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company version 1936, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, Young’s, the Spanish Reina Valera, Green’s MKJV 1998 and the NKJV. Even the LXX reads this way.

The NASB is a bit different with: “Although he went there, he did not eat bread…” The NIV is basically the same with: “While he was there, he did not eat bread…”

However the Holman Standard, the RSV and the ESV say: “Then Ezra went from the house of God, walked to the chamber of Jehohanan son of Eliashib, WHERE HE SPENT THE NIGHT. He did not eat food or drink water.”  Likewise the older Douay Rheims followed the Hebrew reading, but the more modern Catholic versions (St. Joseph, New Jerusalem) go with the  reading “WHERE HE SPENT THE NIGHT”.

Then in a footnote the Holman tells us “where he spent the night” comes from the Syriac but that the Hebrew reads as does the KJB and many others. Actually, this is a false footnote. Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac says “And HE SAT THERE” instead of “where he spent the night”.

The RSV and the ESV also say “where he spent the night”, but they say nothing about any Syriac reading. Instead the ESV footnotes this reading in this manner: “PROBABLE reading”; Hebrew – he went there”. In other words, the Holman and the RSV, ESV and modern Catholic versions just made this reading up out of thin air.

Daniel Wallace’s NET bible says: “Then Ezra got up from before the temple of God and went to the room of Jehohanan son of Eliashib. WHILE HE STAYED THERE (footnote # 10) there, he did not eat food, nor did he drink water, for he was in mourning over the infidelity of the exiles.”

Then in his footnote he tells us: “The translation reads wayyalen (“and he stayed”) rather than the reading wayyelek (“and he went”) of the MT. Cf. the LXX.”

So Daniel Wallace has made up his own reading, and it doesn’t even agree with ANY of the other versions. And why does he refer us to the LXX? Who knows? The LXX reads the same way here as do the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible.

A similar example of confusion exists in Ezra 10:16. There we read: “And Ezra the priest, with certain chief of the fathers, after the house of their fathers, and all of them by their names, WERE SEPARATED, and sat down in the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter.”

“And Ezra the priest, with certain chief of the fathers….WERE SEPARATED” is the reading of the KJB, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young’s, the Spanish Reina Valera, Green’s MKJV, and even the Greek Septuagint.

However this time the RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman all say: “Ezra the priest SELECTED MEN who were family leaders…” Then in a footnote the RSV, ESV and Holman all tell us this reading comes from the Syiac. The NASB, NIV and the TNIV also read “Ezra the priest SELECTED MEN” but they don’t tell us that this reading is not what the Hebrew texts say; they just change the text with no footnotes telling us they have done so. The New Jerusalem also says “SELECTED”

Daniel Wallace’s NET bible says: “10:16 So the exiles proceeded accordingly. Ezra the priest SEPARATED OUT (ft. # 19) by name men who were leaders in their family groups.”

Then Mr. Wallace tells us in his footnote: “The translation reads the Hiphil singular wayyabdel lo (“separated for himself”) rather than the Niphal plural wayyibbadelu (“were separated”) of the MT.”

Again, Doktor Wallace has simply changed the text, (and he even put in his own Hebrew rendering!), but admitted that the Masorretic text reads as does the King James Bible.

Even those versions that tell us the reading “selected men” comes from the Syriac are not being totally honest. Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac actually says: “Ezra the priest selected TEN men”. So, in other words, the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman have all rejected the Hebrew text and substituted instead PART OF the Syriac reading. Nice scholarly work, huh? These are the guys who are writing your modern bible versions.

Nehemiah 11:8 – Here the KJB as well as the Hebrew texts read: “AND AFTER HIM GABBAI, SALLAI nine hundred twenty and eight.”  So too do Wycliffe, Bishops’s bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NIV, NKJV, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible, Green, Darby, Youngs, and the Jewish translations.

However the ESV omits the names here, and changes “and after him” to “brothers”  saying: “and his brothers, men of valor, 928.”  They not only changed “and after him” to “HIS BROTHERS” but they omit the two names.  Then the ESV footnotes: “Compare Septuagint; Hebrew And after him Gabbai, Sallai, 928”.  Well, I compared the LXX and it reads “and after him Gebe, Seli nine hundred and twenty eight.” (kai opisoo autou Gebe, Seli)

The previous RSV read exactly like the KJB – “And after him Gabba’i, Salla’i, nine hundred and twenty-eight.”, then the NRSV changed it a bit with – “And his brothers F36 Gabbai, Sallai: nine hundred twenty-eight.” with a footnote that “brothers” comes from “F36 Gk Mss: Heb [And after him]”  They are lying.  The LXX I have says “and after him” not “his brothers”, AND it has two names listed.  So much for the ESV and its accuracy.

Nehemiah 11:14 – Here the KJB as well as the Hebrew texts read: “And THEIR BRETHREN, mighty men of valour, an hundred twenty and eight…”  Agreeing with the reading of THEIR BRETHREN are Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the 1917 Jewish translation, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, Young’s and Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac.  However the NIV, TNIV, Message and Daniel Wallace & company’s NET version read: “And HIS ASSOCIATES”. Then the NIV footnotes that HIS comes from “Most Septuagint manuscripts” but that the Hebrew reads “their”. It should also be pointed out that “associates” is not the same thing as “brethren”.   The copy of the LXX I have reads “adelphoi autou” or “HIS brothers“.  Wallace’s NET version also reads like the NIV- HIS COLLEAGUES” –  and then he footnotes – “<note=314>The translation reads with the LXX “and his brothers” rather than the MT reading “and their brothers”.

 <note=314>

Among the Catholic versions the older Douay read “THEIR BRETHREN”, but the New Jerusalem has “HIS kinsfolk” while the St. Joseph NAB has “HIS brethren”

 In the Book of Job the NIV changes Job 7:20, and in 9:19 both the NASB, NIV change “me” to “him”. Here the NIV footnote says to see the LXX, though the Hebrew says “ME”, but even the LXX doesn’t read “him” – I checked it out. The Hebrew translations as well as the RV, ASV read “who shall set ME a time to plead?” as does the KJB.

Job 14:3 -“And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringeth ME into judgment with thee?” So read the Hebrew texts as well as the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Geneva Bible, Bishops’s bible, Coverdale, the RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, and the Holman Standard.

But the NASB, NIV 1984 edition, and RSV change the “me” to “him”. The NASB does not tell us where they got this reading from, but the NIV footnotes tell us it comes from the alleged LXX, the Vulgate and Syriac, but that the Hebrew says ME. Even Daniel Wallace, of the goofy NET version fame which often rejects the Hebrew readings, says in his footnotes: “The text clearly has “me” as the accusative; but many wish to emend it to say “him”.”  Likewise the Catholic Douay and St. Joseph change the Hebrew “me” to “him”, just like the NASB, NIV, RSV.

Now the new TNIV has come down the pike and it has even changed from the old NIV. The TNIV now reads: “will you bring THEM…” Then in a footnote it tells us this reading supposedly comes from the LXX, Syriac and the Vulgate, but the Hebrew reads ME.

By the way, the TNIV footnote is false. The LXX and Syriac do not read “them” but “him”. Oh, but wait! Now the New New International Version of 2011 is here, and guess what.  They have once again changed their text.The NIV 1984 read: “Do you fix your eye on SUCH A ONE? Will you bring HIM before you for judgment?” BUT the new NIV 2011 now says: “Do you fix your eye on THEM? Will you bring THEM before you for judgment?” Then it footnotes that this reading comes from the Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac, but the Hebrew reads ME.

Job 15:23 “He wandereth abroad FOR BREAD, SAYING WHERE IS IT? he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand.”

This verse reads the same in the Jewish translations, based of course on the Hebrew texts. It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, and ESV.

The NIV, however, goes totally off the wall here and doesn’t even tell you in their footnotes how they came up with their unique reading. The NIV 1982 edition says: “He wanders about – FOOD FOR VULTURES.” You have to do a bit of research, but this corrupt reading comes from the Greek Septuagint; not the Hebrew texts. Oh, but wait! It’s happened again!  Now the new NIV of 2011 is here and it now reads: “He wanders about FOR FOOD LIKE A VULTURE.”  Tricky fellows, these NIV translators, huh?

Job 22:17 Again the NIV, RSV, and ESV depart from the Hebrew texts. The KJB, as well as the NKJV, NASB say: “Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for THEM.” The NKJV footnote says the Hebrew reads “them”, but the Syriac and LXX read “us”, and so read the NIV, ESV saying: “what can the Almighty do for (or, to) US?”  The Catholic St.Joseph and New Jerusalem likewise read “do to US?” with a footnote that says the Hebrew reads “do to THEM”.

Job 27:18 Here we have another blunder found in the NASB. All Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Young’s, Geneva, and the ESV (2001 English Standard Version) read: “He buildeth his house as a MOTH, and as a booth that the keeper maketh.”

The word is clearly “moth” (# 6211 gahsh) and is found 7 times in the Hebrew texts, as in Job 4:19 “are crushed before the moth”, and 13:28 “as a garment that is moth eaten”.

However the RSV and the NASB read: “He has built his house like A SPIDER’S WEB.” If you look in the NASB concordance you will see there is no number by their entry of “spider’s web”. That is because there is no such word in the Hebrew texts. The NASB does not tell you when they depart from the Hebrew texts, but the RSV has a footnote telling us to compare the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but the Hebrew reads “moth”.

Well, the LXX and the Syriac are interesting. The Greek LXX reads: “And his house is gone like moths, and like a spider’s web”, while Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac has: “The wicked has built his house upon a spider’s web.”

It is also of interest that the RSV has “spider’s web”, while the NRSV says: “he builds his house LIKE A NEST”, and then the ESV, which is a revision of the previous two, goes back to “MOTH”.

The NIV adds a word not found in any text but it still is similar to the KJB reading with: “The house he builds is like a moth’s cocoon.”  The Catholic New Jerusalem is like the NASB saying: “All he has built himself is A SPIDER’S WEB”. Then it footnotes that “SPIDER” comes from the Greek and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads “MOTH”! – just like the KJB has it.

Psalm 18:13 “The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; HAIL STONES AND COALS OF FIRE.” Bible versions that include the phrase “hail stones and coals of fire” are the Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, Darby, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the 2004 Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the RV, ASV, RSV 1954, the NASB 1995, the 2001 ESV, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 – 1995, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Modern Greek (not to be confused with the so called LXX) the KJV 21st Century version 1994, and the NKJV 1982.

However the NIV, NRSV 1989, NET version, and the 2003 Holman Standard omit these words, and then in a footnote tell us that some Hebrew mss. and the LXX omit these words, but they are found in most Hebrew manuscripts. Well, they are also found in the ancient Syriac versions too.  The previous Douay version included these words, but the more modern Catholic versions (St.Joseph and New Jerusalem) omit them like the NIV and NET versions.

As for the NIV, what is of interest is that the NIV Spanish edition, called Nueva Versión Internacional 1999, put out by the same people who give us the NIV English version (International Bible Society) has included the Hebrew words left out by the NIV English version.

It reads: “En el cielo, ENTRE GRANIZOS Y CARBONES ENCENDIDOS, se oyó el trueno del Señor, resonó la voz del Altísimo.” Likewise the NIV French edition, called La Bible du Semeur 1999 (IBS) also includes the Hebrew words omitted by the American NIV.

Notice also that the previous 1954 RSV included the words; then the NRSV 1989 omitted them, but then the revision of the revision of the revision “scientifically” put them back in again! This typifies what modern scholars call the “art and science of textual criticism” – mere guesswork and fickle change for change’s sake.

Though I certainly do not trust the Dead Sea Scrolls, since they have been found to contain conflicting texts of radically different readings, plus an additional “15 apocryphal Psalms or similar compositions distributed among four manuscripts”, yet the DSS copy of Psalm 18 does include these Hebrew words that the NIV omits.

Psalm 20:9 “Save, LORD: LET THE KING HEAR US when we call.” This verse reads the same in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby, Spanish, 1936 and 1917 Hebrew-English and other translations. The king can easily be seen as the anointed, or the Christ, who is the true king, whom God will hear, referred to in verse 6. Christ makes intercession for us, and God hears Him.

Or it could be referring to the earthly king, who if he is a godly and compassionate ruler, will attend to the needs of the people when they come before him with their needs. In any case the Hebrew clearly reads this way.

The NIV, and the ESV however, without a footnote, have this reading. “O LORD, SAVE THE KING! Answer us when we call!” It is of interest to note that the RSV also reads as does the NIV, but the RSV has a footnote telling us that the Greek LXX reads this way. I looked it up and it’s true. But the RSV also states that the Hebrew reads as does the KJB, and also the others like the NASB and NKJV.

So again, the NIV editors have forsaken the Hebrew masoretic text and followed the Greek LXX. The “old” NIV read: “O LORD, save the king”, but the “new” NIV now has “LORD, give victory to the king!”, but both readings are from the LXX, and not the Hebrew text.

Likewise the Catholic Douay and New Jerusalem have “save the king”, while the St. Joseph has “Lord, grant victory to the king”, thus following the LXX and not the Hebrew, as do the NIVs here.

Likewise the NIV has used the LXX, Syriac or Vulgate to alter Psalms 19:4; 22:31; 42:5; 44:4; 49:11; 109:10; 119:37; 145:5; but all of these verses read the same in the NASB and NKJV.

In Psalm 22:31 along with the Hebrew texts we read: “THEY SHALL COME, and shall declare his righteousness…”. So read the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, NET, and Holman.

However the previous RSV, NRSV and now the NIV and TNIV omit the words “they shall come”. The NRSV informs us in their footnote to consult the LXX for this omission, but also tells us that the Hebrew reads: “They shall come”.

Of course the NRSV also changes the Hebrew text in verse 29 where it says: “and none can keep alive his own soul” (RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV and Holman) for “AND I SHALL LIVE FOR HIM”. The NRSV then tells us to consult the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac for this completely different reading, but that the Hebrew reads as the KJB and others, including the revised ESV, now have it.

So, at present, the NIV is the only newest version that continues to omit the words “THEY SHALL COME” from the Hebrew texts and follows the omission of the LXX here.

Psalm 49:11 KJB – “THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, THAT THEIR HOUSES SHALL CONTINUE FOR EVER, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names.”

ESV – (NIV, NET, Catholic versions) – “THEIR GRAVES ARE THEIR HOMES FOREVER, their dwelling places to all generations, though they called lands by their own names.”

Psalm 49:11 is one of the numerous places where the NIV, New English Bible 1970, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 – 2011,  Holman Standard, NET and many other modern versions clearly depart from the Hebrew texts and they even tell you in their footnote that they do it.

Psalm 49:11 “THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, that their houses shall continue for ever”.

So read the King James Bible, the Great Bible 1540, the Geneva Bible, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Lesser Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, NASB 1995, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the RV 1885 – “THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names.”, The Revised English Bible 1877,  ASV 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the Jewish translations of 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company,  NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987, Green’s literal 2005, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Third Millennium Bible 1998, A Conservative Version 2005, English Jubilee Bible 2010, the New Heart English Bible 2010, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Lexham English Bible 2012,  the International Standard Version 2014 – “Their inner thoughts are on their homes forever” and several others tell us: “THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, that there houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations.”  

Other English Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read: “THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS that there houses shall continue for ever” are The Word of Yah 1993, The World English Bible 2000, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The New European Version 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, the Conservative Bible 2011, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 – “THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS that their houses will continue for ever.” and the Hebrew Names Version 2014.

Foreign language bibles that follow the Hebrew text and also say “THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS that their houses shall continue for ever” are the Spanish Sagradas 1569, the Reina Valera 1909 – “En su interior piensan que sus casas son eternas”, Reina Valera 1995 and Biblia de las Américas 1997 – “Su íntimo pensamiento es que sus casas serán eternas  Luther’s German Bible 1545, the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 – “Ils pensent que leurs maisons dureront éternellement”, the Italian Diodati 1649 the Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Nuova Riveduta of 2006 -“Il loro intimo pensiero è che le lor case dimoreranno in eterno”, the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada – “O pensamento íntimo deles é que as suas casas são perpétuas” and the Modern Greek Bible – “Ο εσωτερικος λογισμος αυτων ειναι οτι οι οικοι αυτων θελουσιν υπαρχει εις τον αιωνα

However, the NIV 1984-2011, along with the Holman Standard, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 -2011, New Living Translation, Names of God Bible 2011, Common English Bible 2012 all say the same thing and have the same footnotes. The NIV says: “THEIR TOMBS will remain their houses forever…”

The ESV and Holman say: “Their GRAVES are their homes forever.” Then in a footnote these perverted versions tell us that “THEIR TOMBS” or “graves” comes from the LXX and Syriac, while the Hebrew Masoretic text and even the Dead Sea Scrolls say “their inward thought was that their homes were forever.” (ESV footnote)

The Catholic Connection

Among the Catholic Bible versions, every one of them has rejected the Hebrew reading of “their inward thought is” and have followed the so called Greek Septuagint reading of “Their TOMBS” or “their SEPULCHRES WILL BE THEIR HOMES FOR EVER”., just like the ESV, NIV, Holman and NET versions. 

These include the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610, the Douay 1950, the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version – “And their sepulchers will be their houses forever”.

Again, Wallace’s NET version says: “Their GRAVE BECOMES THEIR PERMANENT RESIDENCE, THEIR ETERNAL DWELLING PLACE”.

Then he footnotes: “Heb “their inward part is their houses are permanent…” If one follows the MT, then “inward part”) must refer to the seat of these people’s thoughts… In this case one might translate the first two lines, “they think that their houses are permanent and that their dwelling places will last forever” (NASB, KJB)…the present translation assumes an emendation of “their inward part” to “graves”. This assumes that the letters bet and resh were accidentally transposed in the MT.”

What gall! These “every man is his own authority” scholars assume they can “emend” or change the text whenever their fickle faculties take flight.  And do you think it is just a “coincidence” that many of these modern versions now match the modern Catholic versions, which are all based on the same, every changing United Bible Society critical text that has been set up to create with the Vatican an “interconfessional” text to unite them? I trow not.

Psalm 60:4 “Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, THAT IT MAY BE DISPLAYED BECAUSE OF THE TRUTH. Selah.”

So read the Hebrew texts as well as the following Bible translations: Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, KJB, Youngs’, Darby, the Revised Version of 1885, American Standard Version 1901, NASB 1963-1995, NKJV 1982, the Jewish translation of 1917 – “Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, THAT IT MAY BE DISPLAYED BECAUSE OF THE TRUTH. Selah.”, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and the Reina Valera 1995, and La Biblia de las Américas are the same as the KJB with “Has dado a los que te temen bandera que alcen por causa de la verdad. Selah”. as does the French Martin 1744 and the Louis Segond of 1910 – “tu as donné une bannière à ceux qui te craignent, afin de l’élever en haut pour l’amour de ta vérité; Sélah.”, the Italian New Diodati of 1991 – “Ma ora tu hai dato a quelli che ti temono una bandiera, perch sia innalzata in favore della verit. (Sela)”, and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Revista  E Corrigida -”Deste um estandarte aos que te temem, para o arvorarem no alto, por causa da verdade. (Sel.)” and the Modern Greek Bible – “Εδωκας εις τους φοβουμενους σε σημαιαν, δια να υψονηται υπερ της αληθειας.” = “You have given a sign (banner) to those who fear you to be lifted up because of the truth.”

However, the NIV reads: – “But for those who fear you, you have raised a banner TO BE UNFURLED AGAINST THE BOW.” The RSV, NRSV, ESV read much the same with: “Thou hast set up a banner for those who fear thee, TO RALLY TO IT FROM THE BOW.”, but then in the RSV, NRSV footnotes tell us this totally different reading comes from “the Greek LXX, the Syriac and Jerome, but the Hebrew says “because of the truth”.

Well, not even their footnote is totally accurate. The copy of the Greek LXX I have says “given a TOKEN…that they might FLEE FROM THE BOW”, while Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac says the opposite with: “Thou hast WROUGHT A MIRACLE to them that reverence thee, SO THAT THEY NEED NOT FLEE FROM THE BOW.”

Dan Wallace and Company’s NET version, as usual, has a totally messed up translation which says: “You have given your loyal followers a rallying flag, so that they might seek safety from the bow.”

The Holman Standard  perversion  says: “You have given a signal flag to those who fear You, so that THEY CAN FLEE BEFORE THE ARCHERS.”

Likewise all the Catholic versions – Douay-Rheims, Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem 1985 have rejected the clear Hebrew text and have adopted “part of” the so called Greek Septuagint. The New Jerusalem reads: “You gave a signal to those who fear you TO LET THEM ESCAPE OUT OF RANGE OF THE BOW.”

These bogus bibles versions are significant in that TRUTH has disappeared, and God’s people are now fleeing before the enemy!!

In Psalms 145:13 the NIV adds 15 words to the standard Hebrew text. These additional words are not found in the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, Hebrew Names Version or any Jewish translation. The NIV adds “The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made.”  See my article on this verse here –

http://brandplucked.webs.com/psalm145versemissing.htm

Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.

In Psalms 72:5 of the KJB we read: “THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.”

However, the NIV 1984 edition reads: “HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations.”  

And the NIV 2011 edition now reads: “MAY HE ENDURE as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations.”

Then the NIV footnotes that their different reading comes from the so called Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew text reads as the KJB has it – “You will be feared.”

“THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.”

is the reading of Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NASB 1995, NKJV, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young’s 1898, Darby’s 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, World English Bible 2000, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, Green’s Literal 2005, NET version 2006, New Heart English Bible 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The English Standard Version 2011, New Simplified Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 – “THEY SHALL FEAR THEE”, The Voice 2012, The Modern English Version 2014, the International Standard Version 2014 and the Tree of Life Version 2015.  

Even Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac reads like the KJB saying: “THEY SHALL REVERE THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.”

The NIV, however reads: “HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun…”

This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has gone back to read like the KJB and Hebrew reading.

But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads “they shall fear thee”.

Other “bibles” that also reject the clear Hebrew text that says “THEY SHALL FEAR THEE”

The Holman Standard 2009 rejects the Hebrew text and reads: “MAY HE CONTINUE while the sun endures and as long as the moon, throughout all generations.” 

And then it gives us the same footnote telling us this their reading comes from the LXX but that the Hebrew text reads like the KJB has it.

The Lexham English bible 2012 also rejects the Hebrew and says instead – “MAY HE LIVE LONG as the sun endures…”

Bible in Basic English 1961 – “MAY HIS LIFE GO ON as long as the sun and moon”

So why did the “good and godly” NIV translators reject the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn’t the Hebrew make sense?

Well, you have to change enough words in your new version in order to get a copyright and make money. This may be one of the motives behind so much that these new “bibles” have to offer us. The other one is to help create this new “inter confessional” text that nobody really believes are the inerrant words of God.

The Catholic Connection  

The Catholic versions have also rejected the Hebrew reading and follow the alleged Greek Septuagint version – just like the NIV.  The Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610 says: “AND HE SHALL CONTINUE with the sun and before the moon, throughout all generations.”  

The Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 has: “MAY HE ENDURE as long as the sun…”

And the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 reads: “In the sight of the sun and the moon HE WILL ENDURE, age after age.”  

Then it has the same footnote in it that the NIV does, saying that the reading of “HE WILL ENDURE” comes from the Greek LXX, but that the Hebrew text reads “THEY WILL FEAR YOU.”

Psalms 73:7 – “THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish.”

Another clear instance where the NIV rejects the Hebrew text is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and the wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: “THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish.”

This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard version 2009. Other bibles that read like this too – “THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS” are the New Berkeley Version 1969, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Lexham English Bible 2012, The Modern English Version 2014, The Tree of Life Version 2015.  

The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 also reads this way – “Los ojos se les saltan de girder.” = “Their eyes stand out with fatness.”

Dan Wallace’s NET version totally paraphrases this as: “Their prosperity causes them to do wrong”

However the NIV says: “FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY”. Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says “their eyes bulge with fat.”  

Not even the NIV footnote is correct. Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac does NOT say “FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY” as the NIV tells us, but rather it says: “THEIR INIQUITY COMES THROUGH LIKE GREASE.”  

Nothing about “callous” or “hearts” at all and they left out the word “grease”, but they did get the “iniquity” part right. I guess if you are a NIV translator, 1 out of 4 ain’t doing too bad, huh?

Why would the “good, godly, evangelical scholars” who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

Also of note is the totally changed meaning the NIV gives to Psalm 73 verse 9 where we read in the KJB: “THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth.”

These wicked people speak against God and defy and blaspheme heavenly truths and they speak only of earthly interests.

Matthew Henry comments: “They set their mouth against the heavens, putting contempt upon God himself and his honour, bidding defiance to him and his power and justice..they show their ill-will by setting their mouth against the heavens.”

Adam Clarke comments: “Set their mouth against the heavens – They blaspheme God, ridicule religion, mock at Providence, and laugh at a future state.” 

Matthew Poole – “Against the heavens, i.e. against God, blaspheming his name, denying or deriding his providence, reviling his saints and servants.”

John Gill comments: “They set their mouth against the heavens,…. Against God in heaven, against his being, saying, there is no God; against his perfections, thinking him to be such an one as themselves; against his purposes and decrees, replying against him, and charging him with insincerity, cruelty, and unrighteousness; and against his providence, either denying it, or affirming it to be unequal; and against his doctrines, ordinances, and ministers.”

 “They set their mouth against the heavens” is the reading or meaning of even the previous Douay version 1950 -“They have SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST HEAVEN”, The New Berkeley Version 1969, the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, NKJV, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, The Holman Standard 2009, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Lexham English Bible 2012, The Modern English Version 2014, The Tree of Life Version 2015 – “They set their mouth against heaven.” 

The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 reads this way too – “Ponen su boca contra el cielo” = “They set their mouth against heaven.” 

Yet the NIV actually says: “Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth.”

Can you guess what other version reads like this?  The Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 likewise says “THEIR MOUTH CLAIMS HEAVEN FOR THEMSELVES”

I believe the people who put out the NIV and those who continue to promote this abomination will have a lot to answer for at the judgment of God.

Psalm 105:21-22 “He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance: TO BIND his princes at his pleasure; and to teach his senators wisdom.”

“to bind his princes” -So read the Hebrew texts, as well as the RV, ASV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, ESV, Darby, Green’s MKJV, Holman Standard, and Young’s. The NASB says: “to imprison”, and even Wallace’s NET version reads: “giving him authority to IMPRISON his officials.” Then he footnotes: “Heb “to BIND his officials.”

However the NIV joins the liberal RSV, NRSV and says: “TO INSTRUCT his princes as he pleased.”

This time the NIV doesn’t tell us in their footnotes why they changed the text, but the RSV, NRSV and ESV tell us that “to instruct” comes from the so called LXX, the Syriac, and Jerome, but that the Hebrew reads “to bind”.

Again notice that the 2001 ESV has gone back to the Hebrew reading instead of the previous RSV rejection of the Hebrew text.  However the Catholic versions (Douay, St.Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem all unite in saying: “TO INSTRUCT HIS PRINCES AS HE SAW FIT”, and then the New Jerusalem footnotes that the Hebrew reads “to bind”!!!

There is a distinct pattern easily seen if one studies the different bible versions. The King James Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the New Testament on the traditional Greek text. When the RV and ASV came out, they significantly changed the Greek text of the New Testament but kept the Masoretic text intact.

Then the liberal RSV appeared with the same corrupted Greek text of the apostates Westcott and Hort, but also with many of the same changes in the Hebrew text that now appear in the NASB, ESV, modern Catholic Versions and the ever worsening NIV.

118:13 “THOU HAST THRUST SORE AT ME that I might fall: but the LORD helped me.”

The Hebrew reading here is clearly THOU, or “you” as some modern versions have it. THOU is the reading of the Geneva Bible, Bishops’ bible, the KJB, RV, ASV, Young’s, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and Hebrew Names Bible. The “thou hast thrust sore at me” is addressed to each of the many enemies who compassed Israel about like bees.

The NKJV, NASB, and Holman Standard read: “YOU pushed me violently…”

However the NIV, RSV and ESV all reject the Hebrew reading and follow the LXX and Syriac. The NIV reads: “I WAS PUSHED BACK…” Though the ESV also follows the LXX and Syriac, yet in their footnote the ESV informs us: “Hebrew You (that is, the enemy) pushed me hard.”

The NIV departs from the Hebrew Scriptures well over 100 times and follows the Syriac, LXX, Vulgate or some other source. They usually tell you this in their footnotes, but not this time. However if you consult either the RSV or the ESV, they tell you in a footnote that the Hebrew reads “You” but the reading of “I” comes from the LXX and the Syriac.

Psalm 119:37 KJB – “Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me IN THY WAY.”

So read the Majority of all Hebrew manuscripts as well as Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the RV 1985, ASV 1901, Darby, Youngs, the NASB 1995, ESV 2001, Holman Standard 2003, NKJV, the so called Greek Septuagint, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Luther’s German 1545, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, the Italian Diodati 1602, 1991, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996 and the Portuguese Almeida.

However the NIV has: “Turn my eyes away from worthless things; preserve my life ACCORDING TO YOUR WORD.”  Then in a footnote it tells us that this variant reading comes from “Two manuscripts of the Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text life in your way”.  Here the previous Catholic versions like the Douay and even the St. Joseph have “quicken me IN THY WAY” (Douay) but the 1985 New Jerusalem says: “BY YOUR WORD give me life”, and then footnotes that the Masoretic text reads “in your WAY”.

Likewise Daniel Wallace and company’s NET version has rejected the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic texts and says: “Turn my eyes away from what is worthless! Revive me WITH YOUR WORD.” Then the NET version footnote is completely misleading in that it now says “Hebrew – by your word”, without informing us that the vast majority of the Hebrew texts do not say “by your word” but “in thy WAY”.

However IF the NIV, NET editors put so much reliance on the Dead Sea Scrolls, why didn’t they follow the DSS in this exact same verse where instead of “quicken thou me” (preserve my life – NIV; revive me – NET), the DSS reads “BE GRACIOUS TO ME”? [See The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible – Abegg, Flint & Ulrich] Why pick the DSS reading for part of the verse but not for the other part?  And why don’t all the other modern day “scholars” (read:Bible Agnostics) see it the same way?  Hey, it’s every man for himself bible versionism.  Nothing is sure! 

Psalm 145:5 – “I WILL speak of the glorious honour of thy majesty, and of thy wondrous works.“

The Hebrew Masoretic text clearly says “I” will speak, or it can be translated as “I” will mediitate, and so read all the Jewish translations like the JPS 1917 version, the Complete Jewish Bible and the Hebrew Names Bible, as well as Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman Standard.

However the NIV rejects the Hebrew reading of “I” and says: “THEY WILL SPEAK of the glorious splendor of your majesty, AND I WILL MEDITATE on your wonderful works.” Thus adding another subject and verb and changing the “I” will speak to “THEY will speak”. The Catholic St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem also follow the reading found in the NIV. Then they tell us in their footnotes that these changes come from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Syriac. However I have a copy of Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac and it says: “I will speak” just like the King James Bible and the Hebrew texts.

Then in Psalm 145:12 the Hebrew and the King James Bible read: “To make known to the sons of men HIS mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of HIS kingdom.

So read the Hebrew texts as well as Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, Hebrew Names Bible, the Reviised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Youngs and Darby.

However the NASB, NIV change the Hebrew texts, which read HIS mighty acts and HIS kingdom, to THY mighty acts and THY kindom (NASB 1977) or YOUR mighty acts and YOUR kingdom (NIV). Other versions that reject these two Hebrew readings of “HIS” and substitute either THY or YOUR are the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the Holman Standard. Most of these versions, like the NASB, just footnote that the literal Hebrew is HIS. This time neither the NIV nor the NASB tell us why they made this change in the text, but we learn it from the NRSV. The NRSV footnotes that the literal Hebrew reads HIS, but the LXX and the Syriac read YOUR. That is where the NASB, RSV, ESV and NIV got it from.  The Catholic versions also read this way saying “YOUR kingship and YOUR might” instead of the Hebrew and KJBs “HIS mighty acts…HIS kingdom”

NIV – “so that all men may know of YOUR mighty acts and the glorious splendor of YOUR kingdom.”

To see Part Two of this study – The Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET reject the Hebrew text click here –

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew2.htm 

 May I also suggest you take a serious look at this article that shows numerous examples proving the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc are the new Vatican Versions.

It is called – Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are  the new “Catholic” bibles

“Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth..is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit…Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins” Revelation 17:5; 18:2-4

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

Will Kinney 

1 John 5:7 – These Three Are One

Via Will Kinney, with permission:

1 John 5:7 “the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”

1 John 5:7 “And These Three Are One” 

Note – If you like, you may now hear a teaching video made with brother Dave Flang, that gives a 30 minute summary of this article –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_oh8YbyWlo 

And here is a shorter article by brother David Daniels on the historical evidence for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp 

 And here is a good article by brother Joshua Alvarez

The Johannine Comma Is Authentic (1 John 5:7-8)

http://www.defendinggodsbook.com/articles/The-Johannine-Comma-Is-Authentic/

Muslims love James White. They use James White’s own material to try to convince Christians that we do not have an inerrant Bible.  James White says 1 John 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20 are forgeries.  The video is only 9 minutes long. Listen to the two Muslims discussing this in the last 4 minutes.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkPn2aXKds 

1 John 5:7-8 KJB – “For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”  

1 John 5:7-8 – ESV, NIV, NASB – “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree.”

1 John 5:7-8 is the clearest witness in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity, yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NET and Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

English Bibles that contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 are the first complete English Bible ever made by John Wycliffe in 1380. It was in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525 – “For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one.”, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible from 1557 to 1599 -“For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.”, the Beza New Testament 1599, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, and the Authorized Version of 1611.

It is also in the Bill Bible 1671, Mace’s New Testament of 1729, John Wesley translation in 1755, the Clarke N.T. 1795,  and Thomas Howeis N.T. 1795. It was included in The Revised Translation 1815, The Patrick Paraphrase Bible 1822, Webster’s 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, James Murdock’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta done in 1852 – “For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.”, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Calvin Version 1856, the Kenrick N.T. 1862, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Smith Bible 1876,  and Young’s literal in 1898. 

All the words are found in the NKJV 1982, the New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the 1994 KJV 21st Century Version, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Worldwide English New Testament 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson New Testament 2002, the the Easter/Greek Orthodox Bible 2008, the Heritage Bible 2003,  Green’s ‘literal’ translation of 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Apostolic Bible 2006, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Online Interlinear Bible 2010 by André de Mol, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010.

Other English Bibles that include the whole verse are The Work of God Children’s Bible 2011, Revised Douay-Rheims bible 2012, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Knox Bible of 2012 – “Thus we have a threefold warrant in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, three who are yet one.”, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, The International Standard Version 2014 – “For there are three witnesses in heaven—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” and The Holy Bible, and the Modern English Version 2014 – “There are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. There are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are toward the one.”

 The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 in Chapter II,  Of God, and the Holy Trinity gives 1 John 5:7 as their first reference.

http://www.freepres.org/westminster.htm#chapter2

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; John i. 14, 18; John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 also specifically mentions 1 John 5:7 as being the first verse used to teach and support the doctrine of the Trinity. They certainly believed it was inspired Scripture.  

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter02.htm  

They write: “In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him. ( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 )

The Belgic Confession of 1561 states, “The testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, which teach us to believe in this Holy Trinity, are written in many places of the Old Testament, which need not be enumerated but only chosen with discretion…“There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.” In all these passages we are fully taught that there are three persons in the one and only divine essence. And although this doctrine surpasses human understanding, we nevertheless believe it now, through the Word, waiting to know and enjoy it fully in heaven.” (The Belgic Confession, (CRTA), article 9.).

The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 says, “Since there is but one only divine essence, why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
Answer: Because God has so revealed himself in his word, [b] that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God.” Footnote b says, “…1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one…” (The Heidelberg Catechism, (CRTA), section 8.)

 The Catholic Connection

The entire reading was included in the earlier Catholic bibles like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and as late as the Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985), but now once again the 2009 The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it and so has The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 – And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.”

The Latin Vulgates

It is of interest that the Jerome’s Latin Vulgate of 405 A.D. as well as the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 both contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 – Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt.”

Yet now the New (Nova) Vulgate of 1979 has removed them and reads like the other Vatican Versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc.) This is how the New Vulgate reads in 1 John 5:7 – “Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur”

You can see all three of these Latin Vulgate editions here –

https://www.studylight.org

Foreign language Bibles that contain all these words are: the Clementine Vulgate – ” Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602,  the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 editions, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (put out by the Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB that omits it) and the 2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, “Tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno.” 

The words are included in the Italian Diodati Bible of of 1603 and 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991- “nel cielo: il Padre, la Parola e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono uno.“.

1 John 5:7-8, is in the 1535 Olivetan Bible. – 7. Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit: et ces trois sont un. 8. Et il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage sur la terre, l’esprit, et l’eau, et le sang, et les trois sont d’accord. 

the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l’Epée 2005, -“dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont un.“, the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681 and A Bíblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 – “Porque três säo os que testificam no céu: o Pai, a Palavra, e o Espírito Santo; e estes três säo um.”.

Other foreign language Bible that include these words are the Afrikaans Bible 1853 – “die hemel: die Vader, die Woord en die Heilige Gees, en hierdie drie is een”, Smith and van Dyck’s Arabic Bible – ” فان الذين يشهدون في السماء هم ثلاثة الآب والكلمة والروح القدس وهؤلاء الثلاثة هم “, the Basque N.T.; the Western Armenian N.T. “Արդարեւ երե՛ք են՝ որ կը վկայեն երկինքի մէջ.- Հայրը, Խօսքը եւ Սուրբ Հոգին, ու այս երեքը մէկ են”,  Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling “Want Drie zijn er, Die getuigen in den hemel, de Vader, het Woord en de Heilige Geest; en deze Drie zijn Een.”, Finnish 1776 “Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovate”,  the Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T. “Jo trīs ir, kas dod liecību debesīs: Tēvs, Vārds un Svētais Gars; un šie trīs ir viens.”, Maori -“Tokotoru hoki nga kaiwhakaatu i te rangi, ko te Matua, ko te Kupu, ko te Wairua Tapu: kotahi ano enei tokotoru., Lithuanian “Mat yra trys liudytojai danguje: Tėvas, Žodis ir Šventoji Dvasia; ir šitie trys yra viena.” and the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible of 1998 – “May tatlong nagpapatotoo sa langit, ang Ama, ang Salita, ang Banal na Espiritu at ang tatlong ito ay iisa.”

The words are in the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible – “Pentru ca trei sunt cei care aduc marturie in cer: Tatal, Cuvantul si Duhul Sfant; si acestia trei una sunt.”, Russian Synodal 1876, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Thai Bible, the Czech BKR – “na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou.” Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible 1934 – “ấy là Ðức Thánh Linh đã làm chứng, vì Ðức Thánh Linh tức là lẽ thật.”, The  Indonesian – Terjemahan Baru (TB) – “Sebab ada tiga yang memberi kesaksian di dalam sorga: Bapa, Firman dan Roh Kudus; dan ketiganya adalah sati.”, the Ukranian New Testament – “Бо три їх, що сьвідкують на небі: Отець, Слово і сьвятий Дух, і сї три – одно.”, the Xhosa language Bible,

the Modern Greek Bible – “Διοτι τρεις ειναι οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω, ο Πατηρ, ο Λογος και το Αγιον Πνευμα, και ουτοι οι τρεις ειναι εν·”

and the Modern Hebrew bible – כי ושלשה המה המעידים בארץ הרוח המים והדם ושלשתם לאחת המה:שלשה המה המעידים בשמים האב הדבר ורוח הקדש ושלשתם אחד

Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

Cyprian – 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.

Richard Muller and the History of the Preservation of Scripture pt. 1

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2010/04/richard-muller-and-history-of.html

Richard A. Muller’s Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. Muller holds the P. J. Zondervan Chair for Doctoral Studies as professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. His Ph.D. is from Duke University.

Muller talks about the Johannine Comma, the text of 1 John 5:5-8. Here are sentences in favor of this trinitarian text:

Of the early sixteenth-century editions of the Greek text of the New Testament, the Complutensian Polyglott (1504-1514) includes the phrase. . . . Later editions [of Erasmus] (1527 and 1536) also include the “comma.” Erasmus’ third edition was followed on this point by both Stephanus (1546, 1549, 1550) and Beza (1565; with annotations, 1582). . . . Reformed theologians, following out the line of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, tended to accept the text as genuine and, indeed, to use it as an integral part of their trinitarian theology. . . . In the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox—on the model provided by Calvin and Beza—the Johannine “comma” appears frequently, without question or comment, as one Johannine text among others cited in a catena of texts from the Gospel, the Apocalypse, and the epistles as grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity. Often the phrase is simply cited without comment as a supporting text, while some of the high orthodox writers note that it was cited by Cyprian—thus, by implication, refuting the arguments concerning its extremely late date. . . . Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a “most ancient British codex” and that “most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase.

Those who say this verse is not part of Holy Scripture will often say it is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and for this reason it should not be included in the Bible.

It is true that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth” are not found in the majority of remaining Greek manuscripts that exist today. However there is very much and weighty evidence for its inclusion.

Those who argue that it is not in the majority of texts are being totally inconsistent when they bring up this argument. Most of the people like James White and Daniel Wallace who use this majority argument, do not care one bit for the majority of texts and what they might read. They themselves follow the constantly changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical Greek text which itself departs from the majority readings in literally thousands of places.

Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: “A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity (few number), appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them” (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45 

Isn’t it ironic that the very reason these two Bible critics gave for choosing a few manuscripts over hundreds suddenly becomes an ‘issue’ for them when it comes to the ONLY clear cut verse stating that  “These Three are ONE”, that is, the Godhead or the Trinity?

It should also be noted that Michael Maynard significantly points out that there are only 5 remaining Greek manuscripts that even contain the epistle of 1 John in whole or in part that date from the 7th century or before. That is a whole lot of time to have past by with only 5 partial Greek witnesses that remain today that were written within the first 700 years of Christianity.

And among these 5 early manuscripts only 2 of them agree with each other in 1 John 5:6-8.  Sinaiticus does not agree with Vaticanus, or Alexandrinus or with 0296. Sinaiticus  and A both say “by water and blood AND SPIRIT” in verse 6 instead of “by water and by blood”. Then Alexandrinus “not by water only but by water AND THE SPIRIT” instead of “not by water only, but by water and the blood” and 0296 omits the verb “are” (εισιν) in verse 7 and  has the unique word order of “by water AND SPIRIT and blood” in verse six. 

As the KJV Today article says: What it demonstrates is that scribes were prone to alter this portion of 1 John based on theological or stylistic motivations.  By 350 AD this portion of 1 John 5  was already corrupt in the Greek tradition. Since verse 6 is corrupt in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and verse 7 in 0296 does not have “εισιν,” there are only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and 048) from before the 7th century which read exactly as the  Nestle-Aland from verse 6 to 7.”

See the KJV Today article on 1 John 5:7 for other examples of textual corruption and disagreement just in 1 John among the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” here –

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-The-use-of-the-Comma-at-the-Fourth-Lateran-Council

What then is the textual evidence for 1 John 5:7?

It is found in several Greek texts – Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Scrivener and Modern Greek Bible; it is quoted by several church fathers as Cyprian 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -380 AD, Varimadum 380 A.D., Jerome 420 AD, Victor Vitensis 430 A.D., Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus 580 A.D,  and is found in many ancient versions of the Bible including the Old Latin, and is found in some copies of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). 

There are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10th century).

It was part of the text of the Old Latin Bible that was translated in the second century, as it witnessed by some remaining copies that we have today. It is found in “r”, a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, “q”, a 5th to 7th century O.L. mss, and “l” another 5th century O.L. mss.

JEROME tells us that certain Arian scribes were removing this section of Scripture from the Greek manuscripts.

Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate.14 At one point in his work, JEROME NOTED THAT THE TRINITARIAN READING OF  I John 5:7 WAS BEING REMOVED FROM GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WHICH HE HAD COME ACROSS, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes,

“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where MUCH ERROR HAS OCCURRED AT THE HANDS OF UNFAITHFUL TRANSLATORS CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH, WHO HAVE KEPT JUST THE THREE WORDS WATER, BLOOD AND SPIRIT IN THIS EDITON OMITTING MENTION OF FATHER, WORD AND SPIRIT in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.”15

“Thus, we see that JEROME SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THIS VERSE WAS BEING REMOVED FROM GREEK MANUSCRIPTS IN HIS DAY.  Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss.”

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

The old commentators on 1 John 5:7 – John Calvin, John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Wesley.

JOHN WESLEY commented on 1 John 5:7 saying: ” I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one.”

“As they lie in the text :” — but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, — the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, YET IT IS FOUND IN MORE; AND THOSE COPIES OF THE GREATEST AUTHORITY: — ( 2.) That IT IS CITED BY A WHOLE GAIN OF ANCIENT WRITERS, FROM THE TIME OF ST. JOHN TO THAT OF CONSTANTINE. THIS ARGUMENT IS CONCLUSIVE: FOR THEY COULD NOT HAVE CITED IT, HAD IT NOT BEEN IN THE SACRED CANON: — (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine’s successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, — “the Arian age;” there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: “Athanasius against the world.”

JOHN CALVIN – “There are three than bear record in heaven” The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and AS I SEE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BEST AND MOST APPROVED COPIES, I AM INCLINED TO RECEIVE IT AS THE TRUE READING.”

 MATTHEW HENRY on 1 John 5:7 – “We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse…There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading.”

“The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle…Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt—and these three are one. NOW THESE ARE THE WORDS, NOT OF V. 8, BUT OF V. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost…If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt—they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt—they are one. And THEREFORE CYPRIAN’S WORDS SEEM STILL TO BE A FIRM TESTIMONY TO V. 7.”

“It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book.” “I think, in the book of God,… THE TEXT IS WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION.”

JOHN GILL commenting on 1 John 5:7 – “As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerome, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters.”

“And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition the compilers of which made use of various copies” (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible.)  

Speaking of the citations of the early church fathers John Gill continues: “And yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the “sixth” century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the “fourth” century; AND IT IS CITED BY ATHANASIUS ABOUT THE YEAR 350; AND BEFORE HIM BY CYPRIAN, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD CENTURY, ABOUT THE YEAR 250; AND IT IS REFERRED TO BY TERTULLIAN ABOUT THE YEAR 200; AND WHICH WAS WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS, OR LITTLE MORE, OF THE WRITING OF THE EPISTLE, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANYONE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THIS PASSAGE; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation.”

CYPRIAN (Latin: Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) (c. 200 – September 14, 258) was bishop of Carthage and an important Early Christian writer, many of whose Latin works are extant. He was born around the beginning of the 3rd century in North Africa, perhaps at Carthage, where he received a classical education. After converting to Christianity, he became a bishop in 249 and eventually died a martyr at Carthage.

As a side note, the entire quote by Cyprian is this: In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’, AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, “AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 

This cannot be said of verse 8 where it says: “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”  That verse is not referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Only verse 7 does this.

You can see the quote from Cyprian in context here – http://www.pennuto.com/bible/1jn5_7.htm

THE TREATISES OF CYPRIAN

Ante-Nicene vol. 5 page 423

The Lord says: ”I and the Father are one;” “(4) and again IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, ANDOF THE HOLY SPIRIT, “AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.”(5)

(4) John X. 30.
(5) I John V. 7 .

(End of shorter Article on 1 John 5:7)

The Cyprian quote is simply irrefutable.  Cyprian did cite 1 John 5:7, contrary to  James White and Dan Wallace’s argument to the contrary. Here are some:

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. Matthew 12:30 He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; John 10:30 AND AGAIN IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 1 John 5:7 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1. On the Unity of the Church:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm)

Note that the above source puts 1 John 5:7 after Cyprian’s quote, indicating that the translators saw that this is where he was getting his reference from. 

UNITY OF GODHEAD, UNITY OF CHURCH. CYPRIAN. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one.” AND AGAIN OF THE FATHER AND SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IT IS WRITTEN, “AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.” Does anyone believe that this unity that comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the church and be separated by the division of colliding wills? THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 6.38

Additional Information about 1 John 5:7

It is sometimes erroneously asserted that this text originated close to the time of Erasmus. However,  even the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the “comma” is attested by the Latin church fathers (Cyprian) (d. 258), (Pseudo-Cyprian) (4th century), (Priscillian) (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date “445/480”), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts.  And these notes are found in the very Greek editions of those who oppose its inclusion in the New Testament!

The UBS critical text keeps changing both its Greek texts and the footnotes found at the bottom of its pages.   In addition to the names found in the UBS 4th edition that supported the inclusion of the Three witnesses in heaven – Cyprian, Priscillian and Fulgentius, the UBS 3rd edition also lists Varimadum, Cassian and Ansbert.

Varimadum was an anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer in 380 A.D. that states: “And John the Evangelist says, . . . ‘And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one’.”  Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma.

Both UBS texts list Priscillian (380 AD) bishop of Avila, in support of the Three heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7 and many sites list him as “a Spanish heretic”.  And What exactly was his heresy?  He DIDN’T BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY!  Yet he himself writes in Liber Apologeticus: “As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

Priscillian (who lived in the 4th century) said in 350 A.D., “As John says, “There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” (see http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john- 57#TOC-Priscillian-350-AD-).

Vigilius Tapsensis (who lived in the 5th century) stated in 450 A.D., “Also to the Parthians, ‘There are three’, He says, ‘that bear record in earth, the water, the blood and the flesh, and the three are in us. And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.” (Vigilius Tapsensis, Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), (KJV Today), “Latin fathers”). He also said in 480 A.D., “…the Evangelist John says in his Epistle: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit, and they are one in the Lord Jesus Christ…” (see http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Vigilius- Tapsensis-450-).

Fulgentius Ruspensis (who lived in the 6th century) quoted from the Comma in 527 A.D. and even referred back to Cyprian’s quotation of it in 250 A.D., “For the blessed John the Apostle testifies, saying: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the three are one.’ This is also confessed by the most blessed martyr Cyprian in the letter On the Unity of the Church, saying: ‘He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, he does against Christ’, who in another place says in addition to a collection of the Church, says, ‘scatters the Church of Christ’. And in order to show that there is one Church of the one God, he immediately inserted this into the testimonies of the Scriptures: ‘The Lord says: I and the Father are one. And again: of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: ‘And the three are one.’” (see http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Fulgentius- Ruspensis-527-). He also said, “Likewise regarding it: ‘There are three’, he says, who are said to testify in heaven, ‘the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.’” (see http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Fulgentius- Ruspensis-527-). 

 More on Athanasius

To read their entire quotes in context, see this site: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007_04_22_archive.html
Athanasius appears to have quoted the Comma in Disputatio Contra Arium:

“Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν,  καὶ ζωοποιὸν,  καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν,  οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν,  οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισμακαρίᾳ ὀνομασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς; Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει·  «Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.»”

“But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing [baptism], without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? In addition to all these, John affirms, ‘and these three are one.'”

ONLINE LINK to Disputatio Contra Arium

The clause “and these three are one”, attributed to John, is quoted here explicitly in the context of the Trinity (of Matthew 28:19).  If this work is indeed by Athanasius, then the Comma was cited in Greek by the 4th century.  There is in fact no reason to doubt the Athanasian authorship, other than the fact that anti-Comma critics in modern times have done so in order to discredit the quotation of the Comma.  Even if this work was by someone else, a “Pseudo-Athanasius,” the work is still support for a Greek witness to the Comma well before 1000 AD.  Thus the often heard claim that the Greek Church was unaware of the Comma for over a millennium is false.

In English Francis Cheynell pointed this out as early as 1650; before that, in Latin is Estius (1614). The divine triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; or the blessed doctrine of the three co-essential substances in the eternal Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct substances, or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead (1650)

Francis Cheynell
http://books.google.com/books?id=gQE3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA255

“This Text is cited by the Ancient Fathers, by Athanasius in his dispute with Arrius at the counsel of Nice, and Arrius never denied it for to be Scripture, which certainly he would have done, it there had been any doubt made of it in the Primitive times.”

Tim Dunkin, who is far more qualified than I to defend the historical authenticity of this verse, has written a very good defense of 1 John 5:7.  He supports the contention, made by John Gill and others,  that Athanasius did refer to this verse.  Here are some of his quotes and the link to his site.  He also demolishes the common claim that no Greek texts before the 16th century contained 1 John 5:7.

A Defense of the Johannine Comma
Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

The next to rely upon I John 5:7 in his work is Athanasius, the great (Greek) defender of the orthodox faith in the first half of the fourth century. Gill observes that Athanasius, around 350 AD, cited the verse in his writing against the Arians.  A clear citation of the Comma is also found in the Synopsis, also know as the Dialogue between an Athanasian and an Arian, attributable to Athanasius. Critics have attempted to dismiss the Dialogue as spurious, largely on the basis of stylistic arguments (i.e. the style of the Dialogue is not consistent with Athanasius’ other writings).

For example, one early critic to make this argument was the 18th century classics scholar Richard Porson. However, Charles Forster refuted this line of argument by showing that the style and type of citation employed in the Dialogue is entirely consistent with that which appear in other works of Athanasius that are accepted as genuine by all. Additionally, David Martin (who believed that one of Athanasius’ contemporaries was the author) writing in 1772, observed that the Dialogue itself speaks of the Emperor Constantine in the present tense, as ruling with his son Constantius, which would argue for a date of composition in the first half of the 4th century. Hence, there is no real reason to accept the arguments that the Dialogue is spurious or late – a position which appears to exist for no other reason than to try to get around the evidence testifying to the authenticity of the Comma.

Further, as Forster points out, even if the Dialogue were attributable to one Maximus, writing in the 7th century, as some revisionists allege, this would still clearly demonstrate the existence of the Comma in the Greek witness at an extremely early date, which destroys the claims of critics that the Comma only appeared in Greek at a very late date.

(73) – See John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, comments on I John 5:7, where he states that Athanasius cites the verse in his Contr. Arium.
(74) – Forster, op. cit., pp. 48-63
(75) – See D. Martin, The Genuineness of the Text of the First Epistle of Saint John, Chap. v., V. 7, pp. 137-8

In addition to the ones listed above, D.A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the margin of #635. Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10th century).

Go to this site to actually see for yourself the Facsimile of a portion of I John containing the Comma, as it appears in Codex Montfortianus, a 13th century miniscule (reproduced from T.H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 241, Robert Carter and Bros.:NY, 1854).

Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome (347 – 420 A.D.) on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate. At one point in his work, Jerome noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes,

“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.” – Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell.

Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss. (end of selected portions from Setting the Record Straight on 1 John 5:7)

Another witness to the Athanasius witness


The Antijacobin review and true churchman’s magazine (1816) William Hale



But further, is not that quickening and sanctifying baptism, productive of remission of sins, without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful, by the thrice blessed appellation? [of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.] And beside all these [texts,] John affirms, “and these three are one.” – Athanasius. op. Paris, 1698, Vol. II. p. 229, or Travis, p. 143.

“This admirable collection and condensation of texts relative to Baptism and the Trinity, concluding with an express appeal to the disputed clause; namely, Mark i. 3; Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 3 – 5; Tit. iii. 5; Matt, xxviii. 19; 1 John V. 7 ; is so conformable to the spirit of the Synopsis, and so worthy of Athanasius himself, that I can scarely be persuaded that it was written by any other.”

Please notice that the quote from Athanasius is not just “and these three are one” but he prefaces this quote with “John affirms “and these three are one.”  It was written in the first epistle of the apostle John!

“Majority text” or “minority readings”

It is also fallacious and hypocritical to suggest that just because the reading found in 1 John 5:7 is not “in the majority of texts” that it therefore cannot be legitimate, when the very men who are behind the ever-changing modern critical text admit that the true reading may be found in a few or even one manuscript.

Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: “A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them” (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45)

J. K. Elliott, a modern textual critic comments on transcriptional probabilities: “By using criteria such as the above the critic may reach a conclusion in discussing textual variants and be able to say which variant is the original reading. However, it is legitimate to ask: can a reading be accepted as genuine if it is supported by only one ms.? There is no reason why an original reading should not have been preserved in only one ms. but obviously a reading can be accepted with greater confidence, when it has stronger support.” 

Even Kurt Aland says: “Theoretically, the original readings can be hidden in a single mss. thus standing alone against the rest of tradition,” and Tasker has a similar comment: “The possibility must be left open that in some cases the true reading may have been preserved in only a few witnesses or even in a single relatively late witness.” – The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism upon New Testament Studies,” The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1956)

Sure, there are a few minority readings in the King James Bible, but for every one in the KJB there are at least 20 minority readings found in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and that is no exaggeration.

Another very common objection to 1 John 5:7 is the allegation that Erasmus said he would include the verse if he found a Greek manuscript that contained it. Then almost made to order, hot off the presses, one appeared.  Bruce Metzger who was partly responsible for propagating this urban myth at least had the integrity to retract this false accusation in the 3rd edition of his book. Here is the exact quote from Mr. Metzger himself.

“What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion.” Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.

You can see the article by DeJonge in the pdf format at this site here –

http://www.thescripturealone.com/De%20Jonge%20-%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Comma%20Johanneum.pdf

The church Council of Carthage in A.D. 484 is highly significant.   Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians and a group of bishops from North Africa.  An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ’s deity. Acting as spokesman for some 350 church bishops Eugenius confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren with these words: “…and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.

 The Council of Carthage of 484 AD -

 In English one of the interesting summaries is given in the 

Irish Ecclesiastical Record “Victor Vitensis on the Vandal Persecution”.

Part II is in the 1898 edition, p. 24-37 by Philip Burton. 
 And the basics are that there was a confession of faith presented, and that confession of faith included and emphasized the heavenly witnesses.  Summaries are given, e.g. William Aldis Wright (1831-1914):


”It is also cited by a contemporary African writer, Victor Vitensis, in his history of the Vandal persecution, written about the year 484, who, in his third book, thus represents the clause as contained in the Confession of Faith, drawn up by Eugenius, bishop of Carthage, and signed by 400 bishops.  ” Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unum sunt.”



Victor Vitensis (b. circa 430) was an African bishop of the Province of Byzacena (called Vitensis from his See of Vita). His importance rests on his Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, temporibus Geiserici et Hunirici regum Wandalorum. This is mainly a contemporary narrative of the cruelties practised against the orthodox Christians of Northern Africa by the Arian Vandals.


 Victor throws much light on social and religious conditions in Carthage and on the African liturgy of the period. His history contains many documents not otherwise accessible, e.g. the Confession of Faith drawn up for the orthodox bishops by Eugenius of Carthage and presented to Huneric at the conference of Catholic and Arian bishops in 484.

Victor of Vita: history of the Vandal persecution (1992)


Victor Vitensis (who lived in the 5th century) said in 485 A.D., “And in order to show with clearer light that the unity of divinity is with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, John the evangelist bears record. For which it is said: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’” (see http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word- and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Victor-Vitensis-485-). 

Council of Carthage 484 – confession of faith, with heavenly witnesses, English translation (emphasis added): 

And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’ Surely he does not say ‘three separated by a difference in quality’ or ‘divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them ?’ No, he says that the ‘three are one.’ But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: ‘It is the divine Spirit … (p. 56)

It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in “the most approved copies”.  John Gill also believed in the inspiration of this verse.

When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he included 1 John 5:7-8. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; and he described some of these as very “ancient codices” sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven’t the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these “ancient codices”? They must have contained 1 John 5:7 because Ximenes included the verse.

A Trail of Evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful time line of references to this verse:

Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: “It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the “third” century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage.”

200 AD – Tertullian’s quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: “And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said “I and the Father are one entity” refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number.”

250 AD – Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One” in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says “IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One.” He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn’t part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

350 AD – Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD – Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

380 AD – Priscillian in Liber Apologeticus quotes “and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

In his book A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7, Michael Maynard, M.L.S, has at least two references to this quote. On page 39 he writes: 380 Priscillian. Liber Apologeticus. (This quote as given by A.E. Brooke from Schepps. Vienna Corpus, xviii) As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are on in Christ Jesus.”

Then on page 239 of his book, Mr. Maynard quotes from a Mr. Claude Jenkins’ 1942 article titled A Newly Discovered Reference to the Heavenly Witnesses (1 John 5:7). From this book Mr. Maynard says: Jenkins made an especially valuable comment here: “Since the days of Porson, the most important contribution on the Latin side has been the discovery of the tractates of Priscillian in the Wurzburg MS. which throws the evidence back to the fourth century and quotes the passage (Priscillian Tractate i.4).”

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: “And John the Evangelist says, . . . “And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one”. (Varimadum 90:20-21).

415 AD – Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the “orthodox.” It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn’t in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as “Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus”.

450-530 AD. Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

 A) Vigilius Tapensis in “Three Witnesses in Heaven”

 B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]

 C) Fulgentius in “The Three Heavenly Witnesses” [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD – Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

527 AD – Fulgentius in Contra Arianos stated: “Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt.”

550 AD – The “Speculum” has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

636 AD – Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB.

750 AD – Wizanburgensis, a Latin mss., contains the reference.

800 AD – Jerome’s Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome’s original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today.

157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.

Now the “Waldensian,” or “Vaudois” Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. Theodore Beza, John Wesley and Johnathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Many critics of this passage like to say that 1 John 5:7 occurs in no ancient language version except the Latin. Well, not only is the passage found in the Latin Vulgate, but it is also in some Old Latin manuscripts, and the Old Latin translation dates from around 200 A.D.  As far as I know we do not have any specific manuscript from this date, but we do have some later copies of this ancient translation.  The known Old Latin affirmations of the Comma (some with variations from the “canonical” version) are:

m — around the 5th century in the Catholic Epistles
p — 13th century
c — 12th -13th centuries
dem — 13th century
div — 13th century
q — 7th century

The Old Latin translation was first made 150 years before anything we have in the remaining Greek copies. In addition to this, the newest UBS critical text has now admitted that it is found in some Armenian manuscripts.

The first printed edition of the Armenian Bible was published in 1666 by Bishop Uscan. It contains 1 John 5:7. Also Giles Guthier, using two Syriac manuscripts published an edition at Hamburg in 1664. This edition places the passage in the text. There is a fairly modern translation of the Syriac that includes the verse done by James Murdock in 1852. It contains 1 John 5:7 in full.   And the first printed Georgian Bible, published at Moscow in 1743 contains 1 John 5:7.

Dr. Schrivener mentions a “few recent” Slavonic manuscripts as having the passage. (Jack Moorman, “When the KJV departs from the majority text” 2nd. edition.)

Internal Evidence

Dr. Thomas Holland, who recently wrote “Crowned with Glory”, a very good book which defends the King James Bible, states: “The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are [preceded] by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.”

Michael Maynard, M.L.S. in his 382 page book “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) who remarks concerning this verse in his Theological Orations: . . . “he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?”

Mr. Maynard concludes: “Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7.” It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven.

Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek” (1891).

Bishop Middleton in his book, “Doctrine of the Greek Article,” argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage.

Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.

Dr. Edward F. Hills argues the same grammatical points in defending the legitimacy of 1 John 5:7 in his book “The King James Version Defended” on pages 211-212.  Dr. Hills says: “…the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in I John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in I John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. FOR IN VERSE 6 THE WORD SPIRIT PLAINLY REFERS TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY. SURELY IN THIS VERSE THE WORD SPIRIT IS “PERSONALIZED,” AND YET THE NEUTER GENDER IS USED. Therefore, since personalization DID NOT bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine Comma is retained, as reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. IT WAS DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE NOUNS FATHER AND WORD, WHICH ARE MASCULINE. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.” (Emphasis mine.)

Dr. Gaussen in his famous book “The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures” uses the same grammatical argument and concludes: “Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent.”

Regarding the grammatical argument in favor of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, King James Bible critic Gary Hudson made this erroneous comment: “As far as we have been able to discover, this argument was first suggested by Robert L. Dabney in 1871. Aware of the fact that the manuscript (external) evidence for the verse is extremely scant, Dabney introduced a new argument in its favor based upon what he believed to be an important internal consideration:” (I John 5:7 Grammatical Argument Refuted, Gary Hudson)

Mr. Nolan employed usage of this “grammatical argument” in 1815, that is, 56 years prior to Hudson pinning it on Robert Dabney. Nolan discusses it on pages 259-261,294, and 304 of his work.

Gregory Nazianzus in “Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit, c.XIX acknowledges such a grammatical difficulty as well.

Another King James Bible critic, Doug Kutilek, says: “No Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words.”

On the contrary, Mr. Kutilek is refuted by Ben David in his work, “Three Letters Addressed to The Editor of The Quarterly Review, In Which is Demonstrated The Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses- I John v.7.” Mr. David informs us, “If we turn to the Greek fathers, we shall find them equally well acquainted with the verse, and equally reluctant to quote it. I will notice a few of those who have been brought forward as vouchers for its genuinenss: “Basil paraphrases the text, but is afraid to quote it: “Oi pisteuontes eis Theon, kai Logon, Kai Pneuma, mian ousan theoteta. WHO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND THE WORD, AND THE SPIRIT, BEING ONE GODHEAD.” (Ben David, pg. 57)

Continuing with Ben David: “Theodorus, the master of Chrysostom and a contemporary of the emperor Julian, wrote in “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist” ( Eis ten Epistolen Ioannou tou Euaggelistou peri tou eis Theos en Triadi.) This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century.”

“Cyril, in his Thesaurus, attempts to prove that the Holy Spirit is God. With this view he extracts the 6th and 8th verse, and omits the 7th: yet he inserts an argument which demonstrates that this verse lay before him, though he was too much afraid directly to use it. Cyril’s words are these: Eirekos gar oti to pneuma esti tou Theou to marturoun mikron ti proelthon, epipherei, a marturia tou Theou meizon esti. Pos oun esti poiema to ton olon Patri suntheologoumenon kai tes agias triados sumplerotikon – “For having said that it is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little forward he adds, the witness of God is greater: How then is he a creature WHO IS SAID TO BE GOD WITH THE UNIVERSAL FATHER, AND COMPLETES THE NUMBER OF THE HOLY TRIAD.” The words in capitals form the substance of the seventh verse which Cyril wished to quote, as being direct to his purpose; yet through fear he declined to produce it in express terms. This was in the fifth century.

Mr. Frederick Nolan stated in 1815: “instead of “the Father, Word, and Spirit,” the remaining passage would have been direct concessions to the Gnostics and Sabellians, who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and the Son, were equally obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholics and the Arians. Nor did the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had other passages which would accomplish all that they could effect; and without their aid, they maintained and established their tenents.” (An Inquiry Into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Rev. Frederick Nolan, 1815, pg. 278-279)

Mr. Nolan gives two reasons why I John 5:7 is seemingly scanty in reference to quotations from the church fathers:
One – The passage in I John 5:7 is among those like I Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 that have all been tampered with in the manuscript tradition, all three having to do with the deity of Christ as “God.”

Two – That the major reason for NOT QUOTING I John 5:7 was based on its wording, chiefly, purporting Jesus Christ as the “WORD” instead of the “SON.” Hence, with the Sabellian heresy being debated that Jesus Christ is the Father with no distinction, I John 5:7 would further propagate that notion. Therefore it wasn’t quoted.

 Jesse Boyd also suggests the following reasons why the passage may have “dropped out” of 1 John 5:7.  He says: “The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma.  This “unethical intellectualism” had begun to make inroads among churches in John’s day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.  The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John’s mind in his first epistle; the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ.  The Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the Johannine Comma.  In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century.  Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism.  In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries.  Not long after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, “the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian.”  Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the New Testament.  This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.”

There is another argument based on internal evidence that anyone can clearly see just by reading the Holy Bible in English. This has to do with the spiritual significance of numbers. We all know how significant the number 7 is, representing the spiritual perfections of the Godhead.

There are many highly significant words or titles that are found either 7 times or in combinations of 7 only in the King James Bible. Words like Son of man (49×4) Son of God (49 or 7×7 in the New Testament), Most High (49), Jesus Christ (196 or 49×4 – different numbers in Critical Texts), Word of God (49 – different numbers in Critical Texts), My Beloved Son (7 times), It is written (63 or 7 times 9 in N.T.), Firstborn (7), Kingdom of God (70), Holy Spirit (7 in the KJB), Church (77 – different numbers in Critical Texts), Worshippers (7), Jerusalem (144 times in Textus Receptus, 21 times 7, different numbers in Critical Texts since they omit Jerusalem in Luke 2:42; 24:49 and Acts 18:21) and only when 1 John 5:7 is included does the title referring to Jesus Christ as the Word occur 7 times.

It is found in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…”

1 John 1:1 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.”

1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Revelation 19:13 “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.”

Not only does the expression “The Word”, referring to the Lord Jesus Christ occur 7 times with the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, but also in the epistle of 1 John itself, the word “ho logos” (the word) occurs exactly 7 times when including this verse. See 1 John 1:1,10; 2:5,7,14; 3:18; and 5:7. Just another coincidence – huh?

If you are looking to scholars to settle the issue for you, there will never be any certainty at all. Those who criticize the King James Bible as being just another fallible book, riddled with errors, have nothing sure and certain to give you in its place. They set themselves up as the final authority but they constantly differ among themselves. It is like playing “scholar poker”. “Well, my scholars can beat your scholars.” No, they can’t. I’ll see your scholars and raise you two more.”

They may say that Dr. So and So went to Dallas Theological Whatever and he doesn’t believe 1 John 5:7 should be in the bible. Well, on the other hand, there are many learned men with just as much knowledge who absolutely believe 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Holy Bible.

Again, here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

Cyprian – 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 7 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the French Martin and Ostervald bibles, the Russian Synodal, the Portuguese de Almeida and Bíblia Sagrada, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, and in most English versions till 1881.

It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church’s New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The first printed text of the entire Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot Bible of 1520.  It included all of 1 John 5:7 and it continues to be found in the Greek New Testaments used by the Greek Orthodox Churches today.  The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/biblegreek/

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι·

 Pre-Lutheran German Bibles  that include 1 John 5:7

1466 A.D. Strassburg:  Johann Mentel
1470 A.D.  Strassburg:  H. Eggestein
1475 A.D.  Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer
1476 A.D. Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer
1476 A.D.Nuremberg:  Johammes Sensenschmidt & Andreas Frisner
1477 A.D.Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer
1478 A.D. Kolner Bible, Die Neiderdeutschen Bibelfruhdrucke
1483 A.D.Nurember:  Anton Koberger
1485 A.D. Strassburg:  Johann Reinhard de Gruningen
1490 A.D. Augsburg:  Johann Schonsperger:

“wann drey sind, die da geben gezeugknub auff der erde, der geyst, das wasser, onnd auch de blutt, onnd dise drey sind eyns.  Und drey sind die da geben gezeugknub im hymmel.  Der vater, das wortt, onnd der heylige geyst, on dise drey sind eins.  Ob wir auffnemen.”

And it is in the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 today – “7 Denn drei sind es, die Zeugnis ablegen im Himmel: der Vater, das Wort und der Heilige Geist, und diese drei sind eins;”

The full text of 1 John 5:7 is found in several of the surviving Old Latin copies.  The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 includes the verse.  In the Clementine Vulgate it reads just like the King James Bible: “Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.”

The Clementine Vulgate can be seen here:  

http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html

Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide.

Will Kinney

The numerical “coincidences” will not convince the gainsayers, but one brother posted the following example of numerical symmetry regarding this most disputed verse.

Standing Up for The King James Bible:  Beauty of Gods Perfect Word.
The First Verse and Last Verse in King James Verse Bible: Who knows what lies in between!
 Genesis 1:1
 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 Rev.22:21
 Now this last verse: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
 1 John 5:7
 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 Count the number of letters in the first verse of the KJB 44
 Count the number of letters in the last verse of the KJB + 44
 Count the number of letters in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 88
 Count the number of vowels in the first verse of the KJB 17
 Count the number of vowels in the last verse of the KJB + 17
 Count the number of vowels in the 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 34
 Count the number of consonants in the first verse of the KJB 27
 Count the number of consonants in the last verse of the KJB + 27
 Count the number of consonants in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 54
 Therefore the total number of letters, consonants, and vowels in the 1 John 5:7 
equal those in “the first and the last” verse in the Holy Bible.
 Now if that’s not enough proof…

The first verse’s words – 10 
The last verse’s words – 12
 The words in the verse 1 John 5:7 -22 

For further study and documentation about the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, may I recommend a well done article by my Christian brother and friend, Marty Shue. He has written a response to Daniel Wallace’s criticism of this verse found here:

 http://www.avdefense.webs.com/1John5-7.html

Here is another good one on 1 John 5:7 by brother Joshua Alvarez at his site KJV Only Education

http://kjvonly.us/thesethreeareone/ 

Notes from the Internet

 

Joshua Alvarez writes – 

 

Recently, someone who read this article objected to Cyprian’s quotation of the Comma. He told me to read this article about it by Daniel Wallace, the creator of the New English Translation: https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian . It basically skirts around the point that Cyprian said, “it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” It also ignores the fact that Fulgentius Ruspensis, who lived in the 6th century (see my article below) and who directly quoted from the Comma word for word, quoted Cyprian’s quotation of it. Perhaps Fulgentius Ruspensis forgot to read Wallace’s article ;-). Another fact Wallace forgot when writing his article, is that the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (equivalent to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, on which nearly all modern versions are based), admits that Cyprian quoted from the Comma. In the footnotes of 1 John 5:7, the UBS Greek Text lists Cyprian as the first on its list of church fathers who quoted the Comma (“The Greek New Testament”, (Stuttgart: Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), p. 819.). Perhaps all of the UBS editors forgot about Wallace’s article too! ;-). In reality, Cyprian really did quote from the Comma, as many scholars other than Wallace can testify.

safe_image.php.gif The Johannine Comma | KJV Only Education

kjvonly.us

http://kjvonly.us/thesethreeareone/ 

 Another good site is KJV Today. It has a lot of historical references to 1 John 5:7 and other evidence proving that 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and belongs in our Bible

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Origen-or-Pseudo-Origen-

Additional information in this KJV Today article on 1 John 5:7

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Gregory-of-Nazianzus

Additional comments: At our Which Version club – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/ – we were discussing the textual and historic evidence for 1 John 5:7 and one of the members wrote in with these questions:

“I know there are other reasons why ya’ll claim the comma (1 John 5:7) should be included, but doesnt it makes sense to just admit that the KJV is assumed to be right, and where evidence supports it, that evidence reigns supreme, and if the same type or even the same exact evidence does not support it, that evidence is lacking in that case?”

I then replied: Hi Kevin, these are good questions. I think basically what you are asking is Why do we sometimes uphold a particular reading (1 John 5:7 for example) that does not share the same textual evidence as do many other verses that are in dispute?

Kevin, this is the problem faced by ALL translations and all Bible versions. Modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, Holman, NKJV etc. ALL often will adopt or include a reading or omit an entire verse or several whole verses, even when the vast majority of texts and other Bible versions do not agree with them, and none of these modern versions agree all the way through with any other.

Sometimes the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of a whole verse, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, Holman etc. will omit it all because it is not found in one or two mss. The KJB will also, though not nearly as often nor to the same extent, sometimes adopt a “minority” reading.

Very often, particularly in the book of Revelation, the textual evidence for certain readings is equally divided. If one takes a purely humanistic view of Scripture, then the only conclusion we can come to is that there is no complete and inerrant Bible in any language and that God has basically left the scene as far as preserving His words is concerned. This also means that God actually lied to us when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His WORDS (NOT just the general, ballpark message) shall not pass away.

It is my belief that Textual Criticism or Textual Studies alone will never solve the problem or answer the question of “Do we have an inerrant Bible?” Generally speaking, the textual evidence is far and away in favor of the King James Bible readings, but there are a few notable exceptions.

What I believe we need to do to come to a final decision on the issue of an inerrant Bible is to look elsewhere than mere Textual Criticism (which is a totally confused mess, and I can prove it). We need to look at the internal evidence and the spiritual fruit produced by the two different approaches to God’s pure words.

The true Holy Bible will be internally consistent and always true (even if there are some “apparent” contradictions). I have found through my comparative studies that ONLY the King James Bible is internally consistent and doctrinally sound 100% of the time.
ALL other versions, especially the more modern ones like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and the NKJV break down at several points and teach false doctrines, thus proving themselves to be false witnesses.

Here is one study you might like to look at called “No Doctrines are Changed?”

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

ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and the NKJV frequently (or sometimes as in the NKJV), reject the clear Hebrew texts, and God only gave His inspired words in the O.T. to the Jews – not to the Latins, Syrians or the Greeks.

Another huge difference is the spiritual fruit produced by the various bible versions. God has used the King James Bible like no other in history. It has replaced all other previous English Bible versions, and was the one God used in bringing about the worldwide modern missionary movement. People who use and still believe the King James Bible are the only ones who actually believe The Bible IS (NOT “WAS in the non-existent originals”) the inspired and inerrant words of God.

The fruit of the modern, multiple-choice and contradictory bible versions is the open denial of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in any language. Unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture is increasing more and more every day, and it will only get worse, not better. The Bible itself tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days, and this is happening now at an alarming rate.

For more information on this growing unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture, may I suggest you read this article I have put together called “There is NO inerrant Bible”

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

The Battle for the Bible is a spiritual battle and only God can open the eyes of the blind, and He does this by His grace and mercy alone; not because we are more holy, or smarter, or pray and study more than others do. It is all by His grace and He often chooses the weak and the babes to reveal these things to.

“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; That no flesh should glory in his presence.” 1 Corinthians 1:26-29

“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Matthew 11:25-26

You either believe that the King James Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God, or you become your own final authority and make up your own peculiar “bible version” as you go along and your version will differ from everybody else’s. You won’t even believe that “yours” is the 100% true and inerrant words of God Almighty.

Will Kinney

Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

Tyndale, Old Latin on 1 John 5:7

http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/bibletrans/mbtu26.htm

Another site called King James Version has some useful information on how even among the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, we see textual differences and corruptions in 1 John 5:6 (the previous verse) and Why as well as How the words in verse 7 would have “dropped out” of the inspired text.  You can see that article here:

http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

Didn’t Erasmus and the Reformation Editors Use Textual Criticism?

http://libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/reports%5CDidn%27t%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Reformation%20Editors%20Use%20Textual%20Criticism.htm

Richard Muller and the History of the Preservation of Scripture pt. 1

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2010/04/richard-muller-and-history-of.html

Richard A. Muller’s Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. Muller holds the P. J. Zondervan Chair for Doctoral Studies as professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. His Ph.D. is from Duke University.

Muller talks about the Johannine Comma, the text of 1 John 5:5-8. Here are sentences in favor of this trinitarian text:

Of the early sixteenth-century editions of the Greek text of the New Testament, the Complutensian Polyglott (1504-1514) includes the phrase. . . . Later editions [of Erasmus] (1527 and 1536) also include the “comma.” Erasmus’ third edition was followed on this point by both Stephanus (1546, 1549, 1550) and Beza (1565; with annotations, 1582). . . . Reformed theologians, following out the line of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, tended to accept the text as genuine and, indeed, to use it as an integral part of their trinitarian theology. . . . In the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox—on the model provided by Calvin and Beza—the Johannine “comma” appears frequently, without question or comment, as one Johannine text among others cited in a catena of texts from the Gospel, the Apocalypse, and the epistles as grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity. Often the phrase is simply cited without comment as a supporting text, while some of the high orthodox writers note that it was cited by Cyprian—thus, by implication, refuting the arguments concerning its extremely late date. . . . Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a “most ancient British codex” and that “most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase.