Article: Bible Babel 2 by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search

Nehemiah 3:5 - King James Bible - “And next unto them the Tekoites repaired; but their nobles put not their necks to the work of their Lord.

Notice that the literal translation of the word “necks” is given in the King James Bible, and “the work of their Lord” refers to serving their God. The Hebrew word for “Lord” is #113 Adon, and it is found only three times in the book of Nehemiah, here, in 8:10 “for this day is holy unto our Lord”, and 10:29 “and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD, our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes.”

Agreeing with the King James Bible reading and meaning word for word are the following Bible translations: the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Amplified, the Revised Standard Version 1956, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, Douay-Rheims, Darby, Young’s, Green’s translation, Bible in Basic English, KJV 21st Century Version, and Third Millenium Bible.

The 1395 Wycliffe bible read: “but the principal men of hem puttiden not her neckis vndur in the werk of her Lord God.” Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac also agrees with the KJB meaning, as well as the Complete Jewish Bible - “but their chiefs did not burden themselves with the work of their Lord.”

The Spanish Reina-Valera Bible reads just like the King James Bible with: “mas sus grandes no prestaron su cerviz á la obra de su Señor.” They use the literal word for ‘necks’ (cerviz = the nape of the neck) and refer to their work as being of their Lord.

Likewise the French Martin 1744, and the Modern Greek also have the same meaning as the King James Bible, as do the Italian Diodati - “il collo al servigio del lor Signore.”, and the Portuguese Almeida - “seus nobres não meteram o pescoço os serviço do Senhor.”

Even the modern English Standard Version 2003 reads: “but their nobles would not stoop to serve their Lord.” They changed “necks” to ‘stoop’ but at least the reference is to their Lord, or God. The NKJV has: “but their nobles did not put their SHOULDERS (R12) to the work of their Lord.”, then footnote “literally, necks”.

There is a change in meaning with the RV and ASV in that they say: “but their nobles put not their necks to the work of their lord.” Here they keep the literal “necks” but change the work from that of the Lord (God) to their human master (their lord). So, did the nobles have a human master or lord? Doubtful, and if so, he wasn’t much of a ‘lord’.

The NASB went even further, and it now says: “the Tekoites made repairs, but their nobles DID NOT SUPPORT the work of their MASTERS.” ASV = one ‘lord’; NASB = ‘multiple masters.’ Then in a footnote it tells us the literal reading is “necks” and not ‘support’.

The Geneva bible was similar to the NASB reading: “but the great men of them put not their neckes to the worke of their lordes.”

The NIV puts a similar spin on the meaning of this verse and says: “The next section was repaired by the men of Tekoa, but their nobles would not put THEIR SHOULDERS to the work UNDER THEIR SUPERVISORS.”

The Holman Standard has: “but their nobles did NOT LIFT A FINGER TO HELP their supervisors.”; and The Message reads: “and next to him the Tekoites (except for their nobles, who wouldn't work with THEIR MASTER (one master again) and refused TO GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY with such work). “

Wallace’s NET version reads: “but their town leaders WOULD NOT ASSIST with the work of THEIR MASTER.” Then he informs us in his footnotes that the literal reading is ‘necks’,and also notes that “The plural form (’adonehem, “lords”) is probably a plural of majesty referring to Nehemiah. However, some English versions take the plural to refer to the “supervisors” (NIV, NCV, TEV) and others to “their Lord” (KJV, NRSV).”

In any case, it is obvious that not all Bibles mean the same thing, even when we “go to the Hebrew”.

Job 6:6 Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? OR IS THERE ANY TASTE IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?

This is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, TEV, KJV 21, TMB, Bishops' Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva bible 1599, Living Bible, Darby, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac,Rotherham's Emphatic Bible 1902, the French Louis Segond, Italian Diodati, and the Spanish Reina Valera.

The various Jewish translations themselves are in disagreement in this verse as well. The 1917 JPS version says: "Or is there any taste in the JUICE OF MALLOWS?".

The Judaica Press Tanach has: Can bland food be eaten without salt, or is there a taste in the SALIVA OF STRONG-TASTING FOOD?"

But the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, version reads just like the KJB's "or is there any taste IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?"

And the Complete Jewish Bible also reads: "Can food without flavor be eaten without salt? DO EGG WHITES HAVE ANY TASTE?"

Hebrew Names Version - "Or is there any taste in the white of an egg? "

Even Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees with the King James reading: "Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?"

Then Mr. Wallace footnotes: "Some commentators are not satisfied with the translation “white of an egg”; they prefer something connected to “slime of purslane” (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 59; cf. NRSV “juice of mallows”). This meaning is based on the Syriac and Arabic version of Sa`adia. The meaning “white of the egg” comes from the rabbinic interpretation of “slime of the yolk.” Others carry the idea further and interpret it to mean “saliva of dreams” or after the LXX “in dream words.” H. H. Rowley does not think that the exact edible object can be identified. The idea of the slimy glaring white around the yolk of an egg seems to fit best. "

But take a look at what other eminent scholars have come up with while translating the same Hebrew texts.

RSV (Revised Standard Version) 1952 Is there any taste IN THE SLIME OF THE PURSLANE?

NRSV, ESV - 2001 Is there any taste IN THE JUICE OF THE MALLOW?

Youngs literal -Is there ANY SENSE IN THE DRIVEL OF DREAMS?



So read the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, Bishops's 1568, NKJV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, Message, TNIV, NET, Bible in Basic English, Darby, Douay 1950, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the ESV 2004, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Judaica Press Tanach, and the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament.

However, believe it or not, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, RSV 1952, and the NRSV 1989 say: "SEE, HE WILL KILL ME; I HAVE NO HOPE." - the opposite meaning!

RSV 1952 - "Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope..."

The fictitious LXX further confuses the issue with: "Though the Mighty One should lay hand upon me, FORASMUCH AS HE HAS BEGUN, verily I will speak, and plead before him."

Not to be outdone for novelty, Young's "literal" says: "Lo, He doth slay me -- I wait not!" and Green's goes along with this, saying: "Behold, He will cut me off; I WILL NOT WAIT."

Job 26:9 He holdeth back the face of his throne

Many times God seems to conceal Himself from us and hide His workings from our sight and understanding. We are told in Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hideth thyself"

Job 26:9 tells us: "He holdeth back the face of his THRONE, and spreadeth his cloud upon it."

This is the reading of the NKJV, Revised Version, the ASV of 1901(the precursor to the NASB) the 1917 & 1936 Hebrew-English Masoretic translations, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Spanish and Italian Diodati versions.

The word is # 3678 kisseh, and means throne. It is so translated many times and never means moon. Even the LXX agrees with the Hebrew and the KJB and says throne.

However both the NASB and the NIV read: "He covers the face of THE FULL MOON." This is also the reading of the villanized RSV, NRSV and the ESV, but the RSV, ESV have a footnote "or throne."

Job 22:29 "WHEN MEN ARE CAST DOWN, THEN THOU SHALT SAY, THERE IS LIFTING UP." The meaning is quite clear as it stands in the KJB. When others are cast down for their sins, you will say in effect, God is lifting me up. So read the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Geneva Bible, Spanish, Webster, and TMB.

John Gill remarks: "When men are cast down,.... Wicked men are brought down from a state of prosperity to a state of adversity, are in low circumstances, great straits and difficulties: then thou shall say, there is lifting up; that is, for himself and his; when others are in adversity, he should be in prosperity; when others are cast down into a very low estate and distressed condition, he should be exalted to a very high estate."

However in the case of the NKJV, NIV, and NASB all three give different meanings even from each other. The NKJV says: "When THEY cast YOU down, AND you say "EXALTATION WILL COME". The NASB has: "When YOU are cut down, YOU WILL SPEAK WITH CONFIDENCE", and the NIV reads: "When MEN are brought low and you say "LIFT THEM UP".

Job 22:30 "He shall deliver THE ISLAND OF THE INNOCENT; and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands." According to Strong's and Wigram's concordances the word for island is # 336 and is used numerous times meaning "island". Agreeing with the KJB reading are the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, the RSV, New English Bible, Douay, Today's English Version, Spanish (la isla del inocente), Italian, Webster's, and the TMB.

The Geneva Bible notes read: " He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands." God will deliver a whole country from peril, even for the just man's sake. However once again the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV and says the opposite with: "He will deliver EVEN one who is NOT INNOCENT."!!

Job 26:12 "He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding HE SMITETH THROUGH THE PROUD."

This is the reading found in the Geneva Bible, Young's, 1936, Douay, Green's interlinear, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible. However again the multiple versions are all over the map. Instead of "by his understanding he SMITETH THROUGH THE PROUD" the NKJV says: "by His understanding HE BREAKS UP THE STORM". Yet the NKJV rendered this same word as "proud" in Job 9:13, but here as "storm"!

The NASB, NIV say: "by his wisdom HE CUT RAHAB TO PIECES", while Lamsa's translation has: "by His wisdom He SAVES MANY." And if you don't like any of these, you can always go with The Message which says: "by His wisdom HE TAMES SEA MONSTERS."

Job 39:13 This is another verse that is so mixed up in the Bible Babel versions that it is virtually unrecognizable. The KJB as well as the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the 1999 edition equal the KJB word for word saying: "Diste las hermosas alas al pavo real, o alas y plumas al avestruz?". The reading of the King James Bible is also that found in the Italian Diodati, Bishop's bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's translation 1833, KJV 21st Century version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 - "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"

Now for a list of various translations, all of which wildly disagree with each other.


NASB: "The ostriches' wings FLAP JOYOUSLY with the PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF LOVE."

NIV: "The wings of the ostrich flap joyously BUT THEY CANNOT COMPARE WITH the pinions and feathers OF THE STORK."

Young's "literal": "The wings OF THE RATTLING ONES EXULTETH whether the pinions of the ostrich OR HAWK."

Judaica Press Tanach - “The wing of the RENANIM REJOICED, OR THE WINGED STORK OR THE NOZAH.”

RSV - “"The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; BUT ARE THEY the pinions and plumage OF LOVE?”

NRSV : "The ostrich's wings flap wildly THOUGH ITS PINIONS LACK PLUMMAGE."



New English Bible: "The wings of the ostrich ARE STUNTED; her pinions and plummage ARE SO SCANTY."

Bible in Basic English: "IS the wing of the ostrich FEEBLE, OR IS IT BECAUSE SHE HAS NO FEATHERS?"


Job 42:6

After the LORD appeared and spoke to Job, he realized the error of his thinking and confessed in Job 42:6 "Therefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes." This is the reading of the KJB along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NIV, and ESV. However the NASB says, "Therefore I RETRACT, and I repent in dust and ashes". There is a big difference between abhoring myself and "taking back what I said".

Proverbs 12:26 "The righteous IS MORE EXCELLENT THAN HIS NEIGHBOR; but the way of the wicked seduceth them."

John Gill comments on the meaning of the verse - "The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour… Not than his neighbour who is righteous also; ... but the righteous is more excellent than his neighbour, who is ungodly and unrighteous, or however who has no other righteousness than his own; though his neighbour may be of more noble birth, and have even the title of "his excellency" given him; though he may have a larger share of wealth and riches; and though he may have attained a greater degree of natural wisdom and understanding, be a man of brighter parts, and of a larger capacity; yet, being righteous, he is more excellent than he: his superior excellency lies in his righteousness, from whence he is denominated; the righteousness of Christ, imputed to him, is far better than the best righteousness of his neighbour; it being the righteousness of God, his is the righteousness of a creature."

Adam Clarke also agrees with this sense of the Hebrew and the KJB reading, as does Matthew Henry who comments: "There is a true excellency in religion; it ennobles men, inspires them with generous principles, makes them substantial; it is an excellency which is, in the sight of God, of great price, who is the true Judge of excellency. His neighbour may make a greater figure in the world, may be more applauded, but the righteous man has the intrinsic worth. "

Agreeing with the King James Bible reading are the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599 (The righteous is more excellent then his neighbour.", 1936 Hebrew translation, Webster's 1833, the New American Bible 1970, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.


NASB says "The righteous is A GUIDE to his neighbor"

NIV has "the righteous man is CAUTIOUS IN FRIENDSHIP."

Holman Standard - "A righteous man is careful in dealing with his neighbor"

The Message - "A good person survives misfortune"

Young's 'literal' - "The righteous searcheth his companion"

RSV 1952 - "A righteous man turns away from evil"

NRSV 1989 - "The righteous gives good advice to friends"

ESV 2001 - "One who is righteous is a guide to his neighbor"

Let's see how the Catholic bible versions handle this verse. All four of them are completely different.

Douay-Rheims 1609, 1950 - "He that neglecteth a loss for the sake of a friend, is just."

Jerusalem Bible 1968 - "An impartial arbiter is his own best friend."

St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "The just man surpasses his neighbor." (This one is actually like the King James Bible here)

The New Jerusalem 1985 - "The upright shows the way to a friend; the way of the wicked leads them astray."

The LXX - Even Adam Clarke says - The Septuagint is insufferable: "The well-instructed righteous man shall be his own friend."

How about the Jewish translations? They too all differ from each other. So much for "going to the Hebrew".

Jewish Publication Society 1917 - "The righteous is guided by his friend"

Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 - "The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour" = KJB.

The Complete Jewish Bible - "The righteous guides his friend's way rightly"

The 2001 Judaica Press Tanach - "The righteous is more generous than his neighbor"

The Spanish Reina-Valera 1602, 1909 matches the sense of the King James Bible with: "El justo hace ventaja á su prójimo: Mas el camino de los impíos les hace errar."

But the 1960 RV revision reads: " El justo sirve de guía a su prójimo; Mas el camino de los impíos les hace errar.

Proverbs 26:10 Say what!

King James Holy Bible 1611: "The great God that formed all things, both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors." This is the reading of Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Geneva Bible 1599: "The Excellent that formed all things both rewardeth the foole, and rewardeth the transgressours."

Young's "literal" translation: "Great is the Former of all, And He is rewarding a fool, And is rewarding transgressors."

NKJV 1982: "The Great God who formed all things gives the fool his hire and the transgressor his wages."

Spanish Reina Valera 1909: "El grande cria todas las cosas, y da paga al insensato, y la da a los transgressores." (The Great creates all things, and gives a recompense to the fool and gives it to the transgressors.)

The translations above generally teach the same idea, (except the NKJV gives it a different slant), but from here on, it is anybody's guess.

Spanish Reina Valera 1960: "Como arquero que a todos hiere, es el que toma a sueldo insensatos y vagabundos." (As an archer who wounds all, is he who hires fools and vagabonds.) Notice how different the two Spanish versions are.

Darby's Translation 1890: "A master roughly worketh everyone; he both hireth a fool and hireth passers-by."

Jewish Publication Society translation 1917: "A master performeth all things; but he that stoppeth a fool is as one that stoppeth a flood."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta: "The body of a fool is greatly afflicted, and a drunkard thinks that he can cross a sea."

Greek Septuagint Version (date disputed): "All the flesh of fools endures much hardship, for their fury is brought to nought."

Catholic Douay Version 1950: "Judgment determineth causes; and he that putteth a fool to silence, appeaseth anger."

Catholic Jerusalem Bible 1968: "An archer wounding all who pass: such is the man who employs a fool."

RSV 1952, ESV 2003: "Like an archer who wounds everybody is he who hires a passing fool or drunkard."

NASB 1972, 95: "Like an archer who wounds everyone, So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by." (The NASB complete concordance shows they have translated this word as "great" 84 times, and only once as "archer")

NIV 1984: "Like an archer who wounds at random is he who hires a fool or any passerby."

The Good News Translation 1992: "An employer who hires any fool that comes along is only hurting everybody concerned."

The Living Bible 1981: "The master may get better work from an untrained apprentice than from a skilled rebel."

The New Living Bible 1998: "An employer who hires a fool or a bystander is like an archer who shoots recklessly."

God's Word Translation 1995: "Like many people who destroy everything, so is one who hires fools or drifters."

The Message 2002: "Hire a fool or a drunk and you shoot yourself in the foot."

As noted scholar James White likes to say, reading a variety of translations gives us a better understanding of the Scriptures.

Let's look at some of the verses in Proverbs 30, in the modern Bibles, to see if they contradict each other. In verse 3 we read, "I neither learned wisdom, NOR have the knowledge of the holy." The RV, ASV, Spanish, NIV, NKJV agree with the KJB.

However the NASB of 1972 says "I have not learned wisdom, BUT I have knowledge of the Holy One." - the exact opposite. Then in 1995, the NAS changed again to read like the KJB and others.

In Prov. 30:11 we read, "There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother." It refers to a whole generation of people. NASB has, "a kind of man who curses his father", and the NIV, "those who curse their father. . ." The correct word is generation, as even the ESV footnote says.

In verse 17 "the young eagles shall eat it" NKJV, NAS, have eagles while the NIV has "vultures". Verse 26 "The conies are but a feeble folk" Conies are a kind of rabbit, it is not archaic. Conies are found in the Geneva, RV, ASV, NIV, and Youngs. But the NKJV has "rock badgers" while the NAS of 1972 has "badgers" then in 1995 changed it to the "shepharim". These are just two of many examples where the great NASB doesn't even agree with itself from one edition to the next.

In verse 28 "the spider taketh hold with her hands" is the same in the KJB, NKJV, Geneva, 1917,1936, Youngs and Spanish. But the spider becomes a lizard in the NAS, NIV, and lastly for now in verse 31 "a greyhound" in the KJB, NKJV, Geneva, ASV, 1917, 1936 Hebrew - English versions, becomes "the struting cock" in the NASB and "the struting rooster" in the NIV. Now biology is not my strong point, but I'm pretty sure a struting cock is not the same thing as a greyhound.

As can be seen from this one chapter of the Bible, the finest modern day scholars do not agree with each other, and come up with totally different renderings for the same word.

Not all of them can equally express the mind of God. If I take the modern position, I can pick and choose which rendering I personally like, go back and forth among the versions and become my own final authority for what the word of God says. That is where the "Whateverists" or the "originals only" crowd are.

I, by God's grace, believe His complete inspired words are only found preserved in the King James Bible. On this issue, I part company with the modern version proponents.

Isaiah 30:7 "Their strength is to sit still"

Israel knew they were about to be attacked and they turned to Egypt to hire mercenaries who would help them. In 30:7 we read: "For the Egyptians shall help in vain, and to no purpose: therefore HAVE I CRIED CONCERNING THIS, THEIR STRENGTH IS TO SIT STILL."

This is the reading of the KJB, the Geneva Bible, Young's 'literal' translation, Green's interlinear, the Douay version, the Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21.

Matthew Henry and John Wesley comment on this verse.

30:7 Matthew Henry - Their strength is to sit still, in a humble dependence upon God and his goodness and a quiet submission to his will, and not to wander about and put themselves to great trouble to seek help from this and the other creature.?

John Wesley - 30:7 Sit still - It is safer and better for them to sit quietly at home, seeking to me for help.

The immediate context also argues for this interpretation. We read in verse 15 "For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not."

However instead of the KJB's "I cried concerning this, their strength is to sit still" the NKJV says: I HAVE CALLED HER RAHAB-HEM-SHEBETH", the NIV has "I CALL HER RAHAB THE DO-NOTHING" and the NASB says: "I HAVE CALLED HER RAHAB WHO HAS BEEN EXTERMINATED." Boy, am I glad they cleared that up for us, aren't you?

Isaiah 59:19 the enemy shall come in like a flood

Isaiah 59:19 "When THE ENEMY shall come in like a flood, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD SHALL LIFT UP A STANDARD AGAINST HIM." This is the reading of the NKJV, Geneva Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1901 and 1960, the Italian Diodati, 1936 Hebrew-English translation put out by the Hebrew Pub. Co., Darby and Youngs.

However the NASB reads: "FOR HE WILL COME LIKE A RUSHING STREAM, WHICH THE WIND OF THE LORD DRIVES." That's right. Look it up for yourself.


If you look up this word "enemy" it is number 6862 tzar or tzahr meaning enemy or adversary, trouble. The NASB concordance shows they have translated this word as "enemy" or adversary or foe some 68 times and as "rushing" only once. The NIV concordance shows as enemy or foe 61 times, yet as "pent-up" only one time. The NASB and NIV again read in a similar way as do the infamous RSV and NRSV. Not by accident, I might add.

The NASB capitalize He, as though it is refering to God. So is it God or the enemy? A totally different meaning is given to this verse in the NIV and NASB . Which one are you confident in telling other people is the inspired word of God?

Isaiah 63:11 "The HE remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people...."

In 63:11 we read: "Then HE remembered the days of old, Moses and his people..." HE refers to God and is the reading of the KJB, Geneva bible, Coverdale, Wycliffe, RV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, Young's, Darby, Geneva, RSV, Spanish Reina Valera, KJV 21, TMB, Webster's, Douay, and the Holman Standard versions.

The commentaries are divided as to whether the passage is speaking about God remembering or whether the literal "he" refers to the people of Israel. However the context in the preceding verses and in this verse itself refer again and again to the people of Israel as "they" and "them", not "he".

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: "remembered - Notwithstanding their perversity, He forgot not His covenant of old; therefore He did not wholly forsake them - God is represented, in human language, mentally speaking of Himself and His former acts of love to Israel, as His ground for pitying them notwithstanding their rebellion."

However the NASB and NIV say "HIS PEOPLE remembered..." It is of interest to note that the NRSV says THEY remembered, but then in a footnote tells us the Hebrew literally says HE, just as the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard have it.

The online NASB is really messed up. It reads: "Then His R2616 people remembered the days of old, of Moses. " Then in the footnote "cross reference" it notes Psalm 106:44, 45. However when we look at Psalm 106 what we read is not of "His people" remembering, but rather God remembering, as the KJB correctly has it. "Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry: And he remembered for them his covenant..."

Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy

There are literally hundreds of examples of how the New KJV has changed the meaning of the Scriptures as found in the King James Bible. One more of these hundreds of examples is found in Isaiah 66:5.

There we read: "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."

This is the reading of not only the KJB but also the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 (42 years before the KJB), the subsequent Spanish versions of 1602, 1909 and 1960, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible of 1902, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, Green's interlinear translation 1985, the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century Version.

However a host of modern versions, including the NKJV, give a very different message. The NKJV says along with the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV: "Who cast you out for my name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY'. But they shall be ashamed."

What happened to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is the true meaning "But He shall appear to your joy" or "That We may see your joy"?

The verb used here is # 7200 variously translated as "to see, to appear, to provide". It is a very common verb, but this particular instance is what is called a Niphal participle. It is only found three times in this particular form and the other two both refer to God or the Lord. Genesis 12:7 "the LORD who appeared unto him"; Genesis 35:1 "God that appeared unto thee", and here in Isaiah 66:5 "but he shall appear to your joy."

Jamison, Faucett and Brown -. They cast you out for my name's sake--excommunicate, as if too polluted to worship with them. So in Christ's first sojourn on earth . So it shall be again in the last times, when the believing shall be few (Luke 18:8). Let the Lord be glorified--the mocking challenge of the persecutors, as if their violence towards you was from zeal for God. "He shall appear to your joy," --giving you "joy" instead of your "rebuke"

Geneva Bible study notes:"but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. He encourages the faithful by promising to destroy their enemies, who pretended to be as brethren, but were hypocrites, and hated them that feared God."

I personally believe this verse has a great deal of application to the Bible version issue so vehemently being fought today. There are two camps in this battle. We who believe God has in fact kept His promises to preserve His pure, inspired words and He has done this in the King James Bible for the last 400 years. And those who profess to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, but when closely examined, will tell you the "originals" have been lost, No Bible is 100% correct, All translations are faulty, The correct reading should be..., Here there is a mistake, etc.

The battle lines are clearly drawn and you cannot sit on the fence. By the grace of God, may we be among those who tremble at His word. We have God's promise that He will appear to our joy, and they shall be ashamed.

False prophets steal the words of God

Jeremiah 23 is one of the many chapters in the Holy Bible which speaks of the false prophets that continually rose up to deceive God's people. By the simple twisting of just a few words, the NIV and NASB are hiding the very sins they themselves are committing.

In Jeremiah 23:26-32 God says: "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour...he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbor, Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD."

It is clear from the immediate context that these false prophets were stealing the true words of God from the Lord's people. Jer. 23: 30 KJB says: "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, THAT STEAL MY WORDS EVERY ONE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR." The word "neighbour" refers to those around them, and it is the same word translated as neighbour in verse 27 and 35. God refers to them as "my people" in verse 27 and 32.

Other bibles that agree with the KJB reading here are the Revised Version, ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young, Green's interlinear, 1917, 1936 Hebrew-English versions, Douay-Rheims, Bible in Basic English, Lamsa, Hebrew Names Version, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the Italian Diodati.

However, when we look at the NASB, RSV, ESV, and Holman we read "I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, WHO STEAL MY WORDS FROM EACH OTHER." While the NIV says: "I am against the prophets who STEAL FROM ONE ANOTHER WORDS SUPPOSEDLY FROM ME."

These bible versions are merely saying that the false prophets are just stealing the words from each other, and not from the people. The word "supposedly" found in the NIV, is not in any Hebrew text. These versions do not even make sense. The prophets did not have God's words to begin with, so how could they possibly steal them from each other? You cannot take from someone that which he does not possess. Maybe, that is why the NIV put in "supposedly". Yet, in the NIV the false prophets are just stealing false words from one another, and doing no real harm to God's people. Both have subtly, and surreptitiously done the very thing God is condemning. They have stolen the words of God from His people. We would do well to ask ourselves the very question God puts to His people. "What is the chaff to the wheat?"

Jeremiah 30:21 and 31:3

The context speaks of God restoring His people back to fellowship with Himself. He says "For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the LORD." verse 17. Then in verse 21 God continues with "And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: FOR WHO IS THIS THAT ENGAGED HIS HEART TO APPROACH UNTO ME? saith the LORD?"

This phrase can be looked at in two ways in the KJB. "Who is this that engaged his heart" can be looked at as it is God Himself who engaged this man? heart. The context suggests this meaning, because God is He who will cause him to approach. Compare Psalms 65:4 "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee".

However a second view is allowable, in that it is the man himself who has engaged his heart to approach unto the Lord, because God has caused him to draw near. The NKJV has so translated this phrase as to limit the possible meaning only to this second view. The NKJV has "For who is this who PLEDGED his heart to approach Me?"

The NIV goes further off on it's own tangent with "I will bring him near and he will come close to me, for who is he who WILL DEVOTE HIMSELF to be close to me?" Here, the NIV has clearly limited the possible interpretations. The word is "heart" however, just as in verse 24 "performed the intents of his heart" and not "himself" as the NIV has it.

However, when we get to the NASB, we find a totally different and absurd rendering. "And their ruler shall come forth from their midst; And I will bring him near, and he shall approach Me; FOR WHO WOULD DARE TO RISK HIS LIFE to approach Me? declares the LORD." Are you beginning to get a glimpse of just how confusing the modern bibles are? That is why this section is called Bible Babel.

Just 6 verses later, we read in the KJB Jer. 31:3 "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."

Again it is God who does the drawing, so this would also support the idea that it is God who engaged his heart to approach unto Him in the previous verse. The use of "thee" as opposed to the general "you" of the NKNV, is much better and more meaningful. Thee is the singular. God loves me, He loves you, as an individual, not just as a group or mass of people. It is much more comforting to know this, and the KJB's use of the singular "thee" brings this out here and in hundreds of other verses much better than the generic "you" - But that is another subject.

The Lord hath appeared of old UNTO ME, is found in the NKJV, RV, ASV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Spanish, Youngs, Green interlinear. The NASB says: "The LORD appeared TO HIM from afar, saying..."

"Of old" would suggest a long time ago, and this is true for us who hear these words today. It is an ancient revelation, that has lasted through time and continues today, that God loves each one of His people, and has drawn us to Himself. The NASB suggests that God appeared from "afar", like He is distant. But the main thing here is that the NASB says "to him" rather than "to me".

The RSV, NRSV and the ESV read the same as the NASB, but they have a footnote that says Greek - to him; Hebrew - to me. The NASB has followed the LXX and rejected the clear Hebrew text. I know of at leaast 40 examples of where the NASB does this, and usually they do not tell you in their footnotes.

The NIV has something even different with its "The LORD appeared to US in the past, saying..."Here the NIV differs from the "afar" of the NASB, and agrees more with the KJB, but 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. This all may seem minor to some, but when we begin to pile example upon example of these type of blunders, it is apparent that the NASB, NIV and NKJV are false bibles. They are not God's true words, nor His perfect revelation of Himself to us.

The word of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul. The new version promoters do not believe any bible or translation is perfect. They have no bible either in English or Greek or Hebrew. When we say, Yes, there is a perfect Bible, they say No, there isn't. We can present evidence and facts only to a certain point, but we need faith to believe God has kept His promises and His words. He has given many of us that faith to believe His perfect words are still with us today, and they are found in the King James Bible.

Ezekiel 7:7 The MORNING is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not THE SOUNDING AGAIN of the mountains."

The "morning" is the dawning of the day of trouble and judgment. The phrase "and not the sounding again of the mountains" refers to an echo sounding off the mountain side. An echo would be an empty or hollow sound. This judgement would not be a mere echo, but the real thing.

Adam Clarke comments: " The morning is come unto thee Every note of time is used in order to show the certainty of the thing. The morning that the executioner has watched for is come; the time of that morning, in which it should take place, and the day to which that time, precise hour of that morning, belongs in which judgment shall be executed. All is come.

And not the sounding again of the mountains. - not the reverberation of sound, or reflected sound, or re-echoing from the mountains."

John Gill remarks: "and not the sounding again of the mountains; not like the echo of a man's voice between the mountains, which is only imaginary, but this is real."

Ezekiel 7:7

King James Bible - "The MORNING is come". So read the Geneva Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera (la ma?ana), Italian Diotati, Youngs, Webster's, and Third Millenium Bible.

NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV - "Your DOOM is come"

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 - "The CIRCLE hath come"

Bible in Basic English 1961 - "The CROWNING TIME has come on you"

Easy to Read Version 2001 - "Do you HEAR THE WHISTLE?"

Is it "the morning", the "doom", the "circle", the "crowning time" or the "whistle"?

Ezekiel 7:7

King James Bible - "and not THE SOUNDING AGAIN of the mountains". So read Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Webster's 1833, the Italian Diodati (non un eco), and the Third Millenium Bible.

NKJV - "not OF REJOICING in the mountains"

NIV - "there IS PANIC, NOT JOY, upon the mountains"

NASB - "the day is near--tumult rather than joyful shouting on the mountains."

Easy to Read Version - " The NOISE OF THE ENEMY IS GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER on the mountains."

The Message 2002 - "No dragging of feet now, no bargaining for more time."

So, it is "not the sounding again of the mountains" or "not joy" or "the noise of the enemy" or "no dragging of feet, no bargaining"?

The only thing we can rely on by using these "reliable versions" is that they will leave us in utter confusion.

External Link

Personal tools