Article: Ezekiel 29:7 Hebrew, Greek or Syriac? by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search

Ezekiel 29:7 Hebrew, Syriac or Greek? - The NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV all depart from the Hebrew texts.


Ezekiel 29:7 "When they took hold of thee by thy hand, thou didst break, and rend all their SHOULDER; and when they leaned upon thee, thou breakest, and madest ALL THEIR LOINS TO BE AT A STAND."


"all their loins to be at a stand" is the reading of ALL Hebrew texts, and of the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, the Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917, the 1936 translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company, the Hebrew Names Version, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, Webster's 1833 translation, World English Bible, The Updated Bible Version 2003, and Green's MKJV 1998.


Even the Amplified Bible of 1987 got the idea right, which surprised me. It says: "When they grasped you with the hand and leaned upon you, you broke and tore their whole shoulder, and they could do no more than stand."


Some have asked me about the Third Millenium Bible, and the KJV 21. They are very similar to the KJB but not always. Here they say: "When they took hold of thee by thy hand, thou didst break and rend all their shoulder; and when they leaned upon thee, thou brokest and madest all THEIR LOINS TO BE AT A HALT."


Here is the American Standard Version of 1901: "When they took hold of thee by thy hand, thou didst break, and didst rend all their SHOULDERS; and when they leaned upon thee, thou brakest, and MADEST ALL THEIR LOINS TO BE AT A STAND." It reads exactly like the King James Bible.


The Geneva Bible of 1599 reads: "When they tooke holde of thee with their hand, thou diddest breake, & rent all their SHOULDER: & when they leaned vpon thee, thou brakest and madest ALL THEIR LOYNES TO STAND UPRIGHT."


The Updated Bible Version of 2003 reads correctly saying: "When they took hold of you by your hand, you broke, and rent all their SHOULDERS; and when they leaned on you, you broke, and MADE ALL THEIR LOINS TO BE AT A STAND."


I think John Gill is pretty close to the right idea when he comments: "and when they leaned upon thee thou brakest, and madest all their loins to be at a stand; when they put their confidence in the king of Egypt, and sent to him for help when besieged by the king of Babylon, and he failed them, they were obliged to raise up themselves, as a man is forced to do when his staff breaks under him, whose loins before were bowed, but now erects himself, and stands and walks as well as he can without it; so the Jews were forced to stand upon their own legs, and exert all the force they had, and make all the efforts they could against the king of Babylon, being left in the lurch by the king of Egypt."


Actually I think the picture more accurately is that of a man who leans for support upon another's staff, which, when it breaks, he is left standing locked into position, unable to go forward. He is stuck just standing there, fixed in place and unable to move.


Another commentator named Fairbairn remarks: - "Thou lettest all their loins stand," that is, by themselves, bereft of the support which they looked for from thee.


The New KJV 1982 both rejects the clear Hebrew text and gives false information in their footnotes, as we shall soon see. The NKJV even changes from one edition to another and BOTH of them are wrong. The NKJV online edition 1982 at Study Light (http://www.studylight.org/) says: "When they took hold of you with the hand, You broke and tore all their shoulders; (F42) When they leaned on you, You broke and made ALL THEIR BACKS QUIVER."


FOOTNOTES: F42 Following Masoretic Text and Vulgate; Septuagint and Syriac read hand.


The NKJV footnote is false on two counts. First of all, the word for "hand" in place of "shoulder" occurs at a different place from what the footnote indicates, in both the Septuagint and in the Syriac versions. And secondly, the NKJV makes no mention of why it changed the reading "all their loins to be at a stand" to "made all their backs quiver".


The NKJV 1982 edition I have here on my desk reads: "You broke and made all their LOINS TO SHAKE."


The NKJV footnote is incorrect. The Greek Septuagint does have the word "hand" in it, but in a totally different place and reading. The Greek LXX reads very differently from all other versions. Instead of reading "When they took hold of thee by thy hand, thou didst break, and didst rend all their SHOULDERS; and when they leaned upon thee, thou brakest, and MADEST ALL THEIR LOINS TO BE AT A STAND", the Greek LXX says: "When they took hold of thee with their hand, you did break, AND WHEN EVERY HAND WAS CLAPPED AGAINST THEM, and when they leaned on thee, thou wast utterly broken, and DIDST CRUSH THE LOINS of them all."


Furthermore, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac also reads differently than all other versions. It does have the word "hand" in it, but not where the NKJV footnote indicates, AND more importantly, it is from the Syriac that the NKJV comes up with its reading of "BACKS TO QUIVER" or "LOINS TO SHAKE", depending on which NKJV you happen to be reading!!!


Lamsa's translation of the Syriac reads: "When they held you with their hands, YOU PIERCED THEM, and when they leaned on you, you broke, and made all their LOINS TO TREMBLE." As can be seen from both the Septuagint and the Syriac versions, the word "hand" occurs in the first part of the verse, but NOT in the part about "shoulder". In fact, both these errant translations do not even mention "didst rend all their shoulder".


Both the NKJV and the NASB footnotes are false, as well as their translations of this verse.


The NASB reads: "When they took hold of you with the hand, You broke and tore all their HANDS (F401); And when they leaned on you, You broke and made all their loins QUAKE." (F402)


FOOTNOTES: F401 So with some ancient versions; M.T. (Hebrew Masoretic Text) shoulders F402 Lit stand


From the footnotes of the NASB we clearly see that they have rejected the Hebrew readings TWICE in just this one verse. Instead of the Hebrew word "shoulders" they have followed something else, or made it up, because neither the Greek LXX nor the Syriac read this way. And instead of the Hebrew reading of "to stand" they have substituted the word "quake" but they don't tell you where they got this from.


The versions that clearly tell us where the faulty NKJV, NASB reading comes from are the RSV, NRSV and ESV. Anyone can look this up for themselves and see where the NKJV gets its bogus reading.


Both the RSV 1952 and the English Standard Version of 2001 read: "...you broke, and tore all their shoulders; and when they leaned upon you, you broke, and made all THEIR LOINS TO SHAKE." Both the RSV and ESV then footnote that "to shake" comes from the Syriac, but that the Hebrew says "to stand".


The NRSV of 1989 is similar with: "you broke, and tore all their shoulders; and when they leaned on you, you broke, and made all THEIR LEGS UNSTEADY." Then it footnotes that this reading comes from the Syriac, but the Hebrew says "to stand".


The 2003 Holman Standard reads: "When Israel grasped you by the hand, you splintered, tearing all their shoulders; when they leaned on you, you shattered and made ALL THEIR HIPS UNSTEADY."


The NET Bible


Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is in the process of writing his own peculiar version called the NET bible - New English Translation. It is on the internet and well known to many. I personally think it is another fake bible version, but he has many devoted fans who think his version is from God's mouth to Daniel's ear. His versions says: "29:7 when they grasped you with their hand, you broke and ripped open their shoulders; and when they leaned on you, you splintered and CAUSED THEIR LEGS TO BE UNSTEADY.8 "


Then in the footnotes Doctor Wallace tells us: "Hebrew - you caused to stand for them all their hips." An emendation of the text, supported by the Septuagint, yields the reading, "you caused all their hips to shake."


Here the good Doctor Wallace mistranslates the word "loins" as "legs" and he adopts the SYRIAC reading (not the Septuagint) of "shake", yet he tells us the Septuagint reads "shake", when in fact the LXX actually reads "you did CRUSH the loins of them all". The Greek Septuagint copy I have right here in front of me reads "kai suneklasas (broke or crushed) autwn pasan osfun." (and you crushed the loins of them all) This is how the English translation reads along-side the Greek Septuagint. Again, anyone who knows how to read Greek can look it up for themselves and see that Daniel Wallace is wrong. The Greek LXX does not say "to shake" as he alleges, but it says "to crush", and it is the Syriac that says "to shake" or "to tremble".


The NIV is similar to the NKJV, RSV, but it too gives a misleading footnote. It says: "When they grasped you with their hands, you splintered and you tore open their shoulders; when they leaned on you, you broke and THEIR BACKS WERE WRENCHED." F 70.


FOOTNOTES: F70 Syriac (see also Septuagint and Vulgate); Hebrew and you caused their backs to stand.


The NIV footnote is misleading in that neither the Septuagint nor the Syriac reads "wrenched" and the Hebrew word is "loins" and not "back". The word for "loins" is #4975 moth-nah-yim, and the word for "backs" is a totally different word in Hebrew.


In closing, I would like to point out two more "minor" departures from the Hebrew texts found in this chapter of Ezekiel 29.


In 29:6 we read: "And all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am the LORD, because THEY have been a staff of reed to the house of Israel."


The correct Hebrew reading of "THEY have been a staff of reed" is found in the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Geneva Bible, NKJV, the NET version, and the NASB.


However, the RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman all say: "because HE has been a staff of reed..." The RSV and Holman footnote that the reading of HE comes from the Septuagint, Syriac and Vulgate, but the Hebrew texts read THEY.


Then again in verse 27:9 we read: "And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because HE hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it."


"because HE hath said" is the Hebrew reading and that of the RV, ASV, NKJV, the Jewish translations, the NET version, and the Geneva Bible. But the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard say: "because YOU have said...". Then the RSV and Holman Standard again footnote that the reading of YOU comes from the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew texts read HE.


Dear Christian people, these are the types of lies and changes being foisted on the church today by all these "scholars", none of whom believes any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete, inspired word of God. Their spiritual sickness of unbelief is spreading like a cancer in the body of Christ. Yet most of these same scholars, pastors, and seminarians think we King James Bible believers are the ones who are raising all the rucus over nothing, and are causing divisions by our "ridiculous claims" that God has indeed given us His pure words in an inerrant Book called the King James Holy Bible. The irony is simply overwhelming. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15


Ezekiel 32:5 "I will...fill the valleys with thy height."


Another example of where the NKJV and other modern versions depart from the Hebrew texts.


In Ezekiel 32 God is pronouncing judgment upon Pharoah. God compares him to a young lion and a whale in the seas that He will bring up with His net and cast him upon the open field. In verse 32:5 we read in the King James Bible: "And I will lay thy flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys WITH THY HEIGHT."


The phrase "with thy HEIGHT" is the Hebrew word # 7419 and it comes from the verb # 7311 meaning "to be high, to be lifted up, to be exalted, to be lofty".


"with thy HEIGHT" is also the reading of the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, Webster's 1833 translation, the American Standard Version 1901, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (not the 1960), the Italian Diodati, Green's interlinear and Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.


Many commentators get the explanation of this verse wrong, but Matthew Henry makes plain sense out of the passage saying: "The flesh of this great whale shall be laid upon the mountains (Ezekiel 32:5) and the valleys shall be filled with his height. Such numbers of Pharaoh's soldiers shall be slain that the dead bodies shall be scattered upon the hills and there shall be heaps of them piled up in the valleys...Such shall be the bulk, such the height, of this leviathan, that, when he is laid upon the ground, he shall fill a valley."


Where we find the information that the NKJV has departed from the Hebrew text is from the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the NRSV of 1989, and the ESV (English Standard Version) of 2001. All these versions say: "And I will lay your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with YOUR CARCASS." Then they all give the footnote saying that "carcass" comes from the Syriac and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew text reads "your height".


The NKJV says: "I will...fill the valleys with YOUR CARCASS."


NASB - "I will fill the valleys with your REFUSE."


NIV - "I will fill the valleys with your REMAINS."


The 2003 Holman Standard has: "I will fill the valleys with your {GORE}", placing the word in parenthesis, as though it was supplied because there was no Hebrew word there.


The NET bible version by Daniel Wallace reads: " I will put your flesh on the mountains, and fill the valleys with YOUR MAGGOT-INFESTED CARCASS."5


Wallace then gives us this footnote: "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.”


Oh, so the eminent Doctor recognizes that the Hebrew apparently means "your height", but he thinks it is preferable to follow Symmachus and the Syriac, instead of the Hebrew text. Symmachus was one of the four men who wrote four different and conflicting Greek translations of the Old Testament. The Greek Septuagint translation that I have says: "I will fill the valleys with YOUR BLOOD." So it too departs from the Hebrew text and differs from the LXX version of Symmachus.


In any event, the NKJV again departs from the Hebrew text and apparently follows some Syriac versions instead.



Ezekiel 39:2 "And I will turn thee back, and LEAVE BUT THE SIXTH PART OF THEE, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel."


Some ignorantly criticize the King James Bible as being wrong in this verse, whereas it is the exact opposite. It is the King James Bible that is right, and versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB that are wrong.


The verbal phrase "leave but the sixth part of thee" comes from a verb # 8338 shah-shah that is used only one time in the entire Hebrew Bible. It comes directly from # 8337, shish-shah, which is the number SIX. This noun (not the verb)is used a couple hundred times as in "Noah was SIX hundred years old"; "SIX days thou shalt labour"; "he measured SIX measures of barley", etc.


This is the verb form of the number six - Simple as that. Most modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB translate this as "I will LEAD YOU ON" (NKJV), "I will DRAG YOU ALONG" (NIV), or "I will DRIVE YOU ON" (NASB). The Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary acknowledges that this modern version reading is actually that of the Greek Septuagint version which says: "and I will guide thee" (kai kathodngysw se). Coverdale and the Bishops' Bible also got it wrong.


However, some other Bible versions besides the King James Holy Bible got it right. The Geneva Bible 1587 says: "And I will destroy thee and LEAVE BUT THE SIXTH PART of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the North partes and will bring thee upon the mountaines of Israel"


Also agreeing with the King James reading are Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, Third Millenium Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, and 1909, and the modern Italian Diodati version.


The 1999 Sagradas Escrituras says: Ezekiel 39:2 "y te quebrantaré, y TE SEXTARE´, y te haré subir de las partes del norte, y te traeré sobre los montes de Israel". The translation would be "and I will make a sixth of you", which agrees with the meaning found in the King James Bible.


Daniel Wallace's NET bible reads: "39:2 I will turn you around and DRAG YOU ALONG; (1) I will lead you up from the remotest parts of the north, and bring you against the mountains of Israel."


Then in his footnote he acknowledges: "The Hebrew root occurs only here in the OT. An apparent cognate in the Ethiopic language means “walk along.” (my note: so what does "an apparent cognate in the Ethiopic language" have to do with the Hebrew text?)


Further confusion is found in the conflicting commentaries.


John Wesley's commentary says "I will leave in thy country but one in six".


Darby's translation has a footnote which says: "Some translate: "I will divide thee into six parts."


Adam Clarke notes in his commentary: "Verse 2 - And leave but the sixth part of thee. The margin has, strike thee with six plagues; or, draw thee back with a hook of six teeth."


John Gill's commentary reveals why there is such confusion among the various versions in this verse. He says: "and leave but a sixth part of thee; meaning, not that a sixth part only should escape the vengeance of God, and all but a sixth part be destroyed in the land of Israel; for it looks as if the whole army would be utterly destroyed, and none left; but that, when he should come out of his own country upon this expedition, A SIXTH PART OF HIS SUBJECTS ONLY SHOULD BE LEFT BEHIND; five out of six should accompany him; so numerous should his army be, and so drained his country by this enterprise of his."


John Gill continues: "Some render the words, "will draw thee out with an hook of six teeth" ; that is, out of his own land.... The sense of it given by Joseph Kimchi and others, "I will judge thee with six judgments, pestilence, blood, an overflowing rain, hailstones, fire, and brimstone." ...Much better is the Targum, "I will persuade thee, and I will seduce thee;" so Jarchi seems to understand it: and the Septuagint and Arabic versions render it, "I will lead thee."


In any event, what we see from John Gill is a variety of interpretations of this verse, and according to Gill, the reading found in many modern versions like the NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV actually comes from the Greek Septuagint, and not the Hebrew text itself, which literally means "to sixth".


I believe Matthew Henry got it right when he says: "There shall be such a general slaughter made that BUT A SIXTH PART SHALL BE LEFT (v. 2), the other five shall all be cut off. Never was army so totally routed as this."


Matthew Henry's comments show how the "scholars" often differ radically among themselves. Matthew Henry affirms one thing, and John Gill just as emphatically denies it.


Instead of relying on the confusion of the multiple-choice bible versions and the conflicting thoughts of commentators, I and thousands of other Bible believers will stick with the King James Bible as being God's providentially preserved and inerrant words of truth and life.


Ezekiel chapter 40 - Total Confusion in the Multiple-Choice Modern Versions


The following examples of textual changes and omissions will prove beyond all doubt that all modern bible versions frequently reject the inspired Hebrew readings, and they are all in disagreement with each other. Yet each "bible" is put together by men who have the same seminary training, and none of them believe there is such a thing as an inerrant, complete Holy Bible on the face of this earth.


Ezekiel chapter 40 begins describing the tabernacle that is to be built in the future.


Ezekiel 40:6


Here we read: "Then came he unto the gate which looketh toward the east, and went up the stairs thereof, and measured the threshold of the gate, which was one reed broad; AND THE OTHER THRESHOLD OF THE GATE, WHICH WAS ONE REED BROAD."


The capital lettered words are found in all Hebrew texts and are included in the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the NKJV, NASB, Geneva and the HOLMAN STANDARD. (I specifically mention the Holman Standard because we will soon see its fickleness.)


However the NIV, TNIV, RSV, and ESV (English Standard Version of 2001) all unite in OMITTING all these words. Then in a footnote they tell us the omission comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew contains these words.


Daniel Wallace's NET version also omits these words. Then he footnotes: "The Hebrew text adds “the one threshold ten and a half feet deep.” This is probably an accidental duplication of what precedes."


(Note: first of all the text does not read "10 and a half feet", but "one reed", and secondly, there were TWO thresholds mentioned in the context. Even Jamieson, Faussett and Brown mention this fact. Their commentary says: "Fairbain considers there is but one threshold, and translates, "even the one threshold, one rod broad." But there is another threshold mentioned in Ezekiel 40:7 The two thresholds here seem to be the upper and the lower."


John Gill comments on the two thresholds: "for after mentioned is the threshold of the inner, and not the outer gate".


Ezekiel 40:8-9


Here we read: "He measured also the porch of the gate, WITHIN, ONE REED. THEN MEASURED HE THE PORCH OF THE GATE, eight cubits; and the posts thereof, two cubits..."


Again, all the capital lettered words are found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Geneva Bible, Spanish, AND now again in the ESV! The NET version also includes these words.


However the NIV, TNIV, RSV, NRSV, AND THE HOLMAN Standard all omit these words, telling us in a footnote that some Hebrew manuscripts, the Syriac and the Vulgate omit them, but that they are found in most Hebrew manuscripts.


Did you notice how the Holman Standard and the ESV just switched back and forth with each other? What one included in the previous verse and the other omitted, has now been reversed.


But wait! It gets better (or much worse, depending on how you view the word of God).


In Ezekiel 40:44 we read: "And without the inner gate were the chambers OF THE SINGERS in the inner court..."


This is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, Youngs, Geneva, Spanish Reina Valera, the NET version, AND NOW THE HOLMAN STANDARD of 2003.


However the RSV, NIV, TNIV, and ESV unite in omitting the words "of the singers", but then tell us in a footnote that the Greek Septuagint omits these words, but the Hebrew texts says "of the singers".


But in the very same verse of Ezekiel 40:44 we read: "...and their prospect was toward the south, one at the side of THE EAST gate, having the prospect toward the north."


Again "the EAST gate" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Geneva, Spanish Reina Valera, the NET version, and Young's. However the NIV, TNIV, RSV, ESV AND the Holman Standard tell us it was the SOUTH gate, instead of the EAST gate, and that this reading comes from the Greek Septuagint, but the Hebrew reads EAST gate.


Notice how the Holman Standard just did another switcheroo in the same verse, going from the Hebrew "of the singers", but then back to the LXX.


In Ezekiel 40:49 we read: "The length of the porch was twenty cubits, and the breadth ELEVEN CUBITS..."


So read the [RV]], ASV, NKJV, NASB, Geneva and Spanish Reina Valera. However the NIV, TNIV, RSV, and ESV tell us it was TWELVE cubits, instead of eleven. They then footnote that 12 comes from the Greek Septuagint, but the Hebrew reads 11 cubits.


The NET version by Daniel Wallace says: "and the width nineteen and a quarter feet", but then footnotes that the Hebew reads "eleven cubits".


The Holman Standard actually says: "and 21 feet deep", instead of Wallace's "19 and a quarter feet".


Then in Ezekiel 41:1 we find a very interesting example of the total confusion that exists in all modern versions.


In Ezekiel 41:1 we read: "Afterward he brought me to the temple, and measured the posts, six cubits broad on the one side, and six cubits broad on the other side, WHICH WAS THE BREADTH OF THE TABERNACLE."


All these capitalized words are found in the Hebrew Masoretic texts and in the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Geneva, Spanish, NKJV, and Young's.


But this time the NASB, NIV, and Holman Standard all OMIT these last words of the verse. The Holman Standard footnotes that the omission comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Masoretic text reads as does the King James Bible.


Wallace's NET bible version also omits these words saying: "Then he brought me to the outer sanctuary, and measured the jambs; the jambs were ten and a half feet wide on each side." But this time Mr. Wallace fails to footnote the fact that he has also omitted several Hebrew words in his new version.


But wait! The RSV and the ESV INCLUDE these words but with a slight change. The 2003 ESV says: "...on each side six cubits, WAS THE BREADTH of the JAMB." Then it footnotes that we should see the LXX for the word "jamb", but that the Hebrew reads "tabernacle", just as the KJB has it.


So in this verse the NASB, NIV, NET, and Holman omit these Hebrew words, but the RSV and ESV include them, though changing the last word from its Hebrew reading to that of something else.


What we see from these very few of many examples that can be given, is the total confusion and disagreement among all these various modern bible versions. Not one of them agrees all the way through with any of the others in just this one chapter of Ezekiel. This is the true nature of the "science" of textual criticism employed by those who bring us the "latest in scholarly findings".


I am reminded of the last verse in the book of Judges where God tells us: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25.



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".


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 the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB. However the NIV, RSV, and ESV all say "TWENTY thousand", then in a footnote tell us the 20,000 comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads 10,000.


The Jehovah Witness version (New World Translation) reads "25,000 cubits in length" here. Apparently they just made this number up.


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"!


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 the RV, ASV, NKJV, and Spanish.


However the NASB, RSV, ESV, 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."


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.”


Will Kinney

End of article

External Link

Personal tools