Article: Psalms 2 How Different the Versions! by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search

In Psalm 29:9 we read "The voice of the LORD MAKETH THE HINDS TO CALVE, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory." Here the NASB, NKJV, ASV, Geneva, 1917 Hebrew-English, Darby, Diodati, Spanish 1909 and Green's interlinear read as does the KJB. A hind is a female deer, it is not an archaic word.

However the NIV reads: "The voice of the LORD TWISTS THE OAKS, and strips the forests bare, and in his temple all cry, "Glory." Now, I am not much of an expert of husbandry but I do know there is a difference between "maketh the hinds to calve" and "twists the oaks'. According to Strongs concordance, Wigrams Hebrew Lexicon and Green's interlinear the same Hebrew words are used here as in Job 39:1 "Or canst thou mark when the HINDS DO CALVE?" Here in Job the NIV has: Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?", but gives a totally different meaning to the same words in Psalm 29:9.

Psalm 30:4 "Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks AT THE REMEMBRANCE OF HIS HOLINESS." Here the Geneva, 1936 Hebrew-English, Darby, Spanish, Diodati, Youngs and Douay agree with the KJB. The Hebrew is the same but the modern versions have changed the meaning.

The ASV, the predecessor of the NASB has "give thanks to his holy memorial {name}. They put name in italics to show that it really is not in the Hebrew. However the NASB says: "Give thanks to His holy name" with no italics. The word "name" is not in the text. The NASB has omitted the word "remembrance, or memorial" and added the word "name". The NKJV has "give thanks at the remembrance of his holy name." The NKJV kept "remembrance" but it added "name". The word holiness can mean either holiness or holy, but "name" is not there. The NIV has "Praise his holy name", again omitting "remembrance" and adding "name". This is not the same meaning.

In 30: 9 we read: "What profit is there in My BLOOD, when I go down to the pit?" Here the word is "blood" in the NASB, NKJV, and Hebrew, as in blood of the sacrifice, shed blood, blood of the covenant etc. But the NIV has " in my DESTRUCTION" instead of "in my blood". In the latter part of this verse we read: "Shall the dust praise thee? shall it decare thy TRUTH?" Truth is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva and many others, but the NIV and NASB have "shall it declare your FAITHFULNESS." Faithfulness and truth are not the same thing. There can be many faithful followers of Allah, but they are not in the truth. An interesting thing is occuring in the modern versions. In the Old Testament the word truth occurs 118 times in the KJB, in the NASB it is found 26 fewer times (92) and in the NIV O. T. the word "truth" is found only 41 times, about one third as much as the KJB. For example in Ps. 100:5 "His TRUTH endureth to all generations" has been replaced with "His faithfullness continues to all generations." With a couple more revisions maybe this pesky little word "truth" will be completely gone. Also "His MERCY is everlasting" has been changed in the NIV to read "His LOVE endures for ever." Mercy, merciful and mercies occur in the KJB O.T. 288 times, but in the NASB only 51 times and in the NIV only 85 times. Mercy is God not dealing with us according to our sins. Love is a different word and a different concept.

Psalm 30:11-12 "Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing; thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness; To the end that MY GLORY may sing praise to thee, and not be silent." Here the word is clearly "glory" or "honor". It is # 3519 as in the glory of the Lord, the glory is departed, give unto the Lord glory and strength etc. It is used in Psalm 57:8 Awake up, my glory, awake psaltery and harp" and in Ps. 108:1 "I will sing and give praise, even with my glory." That is, all the glory, honor, spiritual riches and blessings we have we attribute to God who gave them to us and it praises Him. Glory is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, Spanish, Diodati etc. but the NASB couldn't figure this out and changed it to MY SOUL, which the word never means, and the NIV to "MY TONGUE will sing praise". Little wonder the word "truth" is fast disappearing from the modern versions.

Psalm 33:7 "He gathereth the waters of the sea together AS AN HEAP; he layeth up the depth in storehouses." "AS AN HEAP" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and the Geneva Bible. However the NIV says "he gathers the waters of the sea INTO JARS."

Psalm 35: 3 "Draw out also the spear, AND STOP THE WAY AGAINST THEM that persecute me." So read the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, and Geneva Bible. But the NASB, NIV say: "Draw out the spear AND THE BATTLE-AXE to meet those who persecute me."

35:13 "I humbled MY SOUL with fasting; and my prayer returned INTO MY OWN BOSOM." So read the RV, ASV, NASB, and Geneva. The NKJV says: "I humbled MYSELF with fasting, and my prayer would return TO MY OWN HEART." The Hebrew word is "bosom", not "heart". The NIV totally paraphrases this as: "my prayers returned to me UNANSWERED."

35:15 "But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, THE ABJECTS gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not." The KJB critics love to jump on this verse and tell us that the word "abjects" is wrong. The "abjects" are simply contemptible or despicable people, and it is the reading found in the RV, ASV, Geneva, and the 1917, and 1936 Jewish translations. The Spanish Reina Valera says "gente despreciables" (despicable people), thus agreeing with the KJB, but the NKJV, NIV have "the attackers gather against me", and the NASB says they were "smiters". Psalm 36:1,2,7 O how different.

The popular modern bibles all disagree with each other in numerous verses, yet there are sadly many today who think they are all equally the word of God, or equally good translations but all contain errors. Of course they cannot identify all of these errors themselves, or agree among themselves which are errors and which are not. We truly live in interesting times.

In Psalm 36:1 we read in the KJB, along with the RV, ASV, Darby, Young's, the Spanish and Diodati: "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes." In other words, I see the wicked sinning and going against God's law, and this tells me that he doesn't fear God. Simple and clear.

The NKJV joins with the NIV in saying: "An oracle within my heart concerning the transgression of the wicked. There is no fear of God before his eyes." The NASB gives a different meaning with: "Transgression speaks to the ungodly within HIS heart. There is no fear of God before his eyes."

The next verse again is very different in all four versions. The KJB says: "For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, UNTIL his iniquity be found to be hateful." The wicked are allowed to work and prosper until the time when God deals with them in judgment. Read the rest of the Psalm to see the context.

But the NKJV says: "For he flatters himself in his own eyes, WHEN he finds out his iniquity and he hates." This doesn't even make sense. The NIV says: "For in his eyes he flatters himself too much to detect or hate his sin." Quite different, isn't it? The NASB says: "For IT flatters him in his own eyes, concerning the discovery of his iniquity and the hatred of it." Duh, so which one is the word or God or does it really matter? I can't even make sense out of the NKJV or NASB, and the NIV is totally different than them all.

In Psalm 36:7 we read "How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O GOD! therefore THE CHILDREN OF MEN put their trust under the shadow of thy wings." The NKJV, NASB read pretty much like the KJB here, but the NIV has: "How precious is your unfailing love. Both HIGH AND LOW among men find refuge in the shadow of your wings." Here the NIV has omitted the word GOD, found in the Hebrew texts, and changed "the children of men" to "both high and low among men". Hey, a little creativity never hurt anything did it?

Psalm 37:3,20, 37

In verse 3 the KJB along with the Geneva, Websters, 1936 Hebrew-English translation, Douay, New Life Version of 1997, KJV21, TMB and the Spanish Reina Valera say: "Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, AND VERILY THOU SHALT BE FED." This reading agrees with the context for in verse 19 we read: "and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied" and in 25 "Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

However instead of "and verily thou shalt be fed" the NKJV says: "and FEED ON HIS FAITHFULLNESS." The NASB says: "AND CULTIVATE FAITHFULLNESS". This is not even the same as the NKJV. Do I feed on God's faithfullness, or do I try to cultivate my own faithfullness? The NIV is a little closer to the KJB and has "AND ENJOY SAFE PASTURE."

In verse 20 we are told in the KJB, and the ASV of 1901, the 1936 and 1917 Hebrew-English versions, the Spanish, Darby, Geneva, Diodati, Bible in Basic English and the Third Millenium Bible: "But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as THE FAT OF LAMBS; they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." But instead of "the fat of lambs" the NKJV says: "LIKE THE SPLENDOR OF THE MEADOWS", the NASB has: "the glory of the pastures" and the NIV has "like the beauty of the fields".

Lastly in this Psalm in verse 37 we read: "Mark the perfect man, and behold ther upright: FOR THE END OF THAT MAN IS PEACE." With the KJB reading are Youngs, Geneva, Darby, Spanish of 1909, the 1936 and the NKJV is pretty much the same too. The NKJV has "the future of that man is peace." However the NASB says: "the man of peace WILL HAVE A POSTERITY." Peace is not the end or future of the upright, but rather a posterity? The NIV says: "THERE IS A FUTURE FOR THE MAN OF PEACE." Again peace itself is not the future or end and we are not told what that future might be. It too differs from the NASB and the NKJV. But don't worry, we are told they all have the same message and they all are the words of God. Just because they don't have the same meaning seems to make little difference to modern Christianity.

Psalm 39:5 altogether vanity

One of my favorite verses has been destroyed by the modern versions. It describes man at his best and is not a flattering picture. Perhaps this is why modern man with his self esteem theology has altered the word of God.

Psalm 39: 5 says: "Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is a nothing before thee; VERILY EVERY MAN AT HIS BEST STATE IS ALTOGETHER VANITY. SELAH."

This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, and Geneva Bible, but the part about vanity has been changed in the NKJV, NIV, and NASB. Vanity used in the sense here and elsewhere means something that is worthless, trivial or pointless. The word is sometimes used of the false idols as in Jeremiah 10:8 "the stock (of a tree, from which they carved false idols) is a doctrine of vanities." God reproves Israel for their idolatry and says in Deut. 32:21 "They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities." This word is also used all throughout Ecclesiastes as in Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity" etc.

However the NKJV says: "Certainly, every man at his best state is BUT VAPOR." The NASB is similar with "Surely every man at his best is A MERE BREATH." Both of these versions refer to man as only quickly passing away but say nothing about all that he is, even at his best state, which in nothing more than vanity. The words for breath and vapor are very different words in Hebrew; not the one here for "vanity". The NIV is even worse in that it says: "Each man's life is but a breath." The NIV omits "verily" and "at his best state", which at least are in the NKJV - NASB, and adds the word "life" and again focuses only on the transitoriness of man rather than his innate worthlessness. Man is full of himself. Full of pride, pomp and conceit. By nature we have a self exalted view of our own importance and position in the universe, not willing to admit that we are but worms, a vain shew and by nature the children of wrath. It is not because we have an innate value that Christ died for His people, but rather we have value because Christ died for us. He didn't die for the angels and they are by nature far superiour to us in every way. Christ died for the worst and lowliest of the creatures made in the image of God; we who were His enemies, ungodly rebels without strength and filled with hatred for our Creator. Every man at his best state is altogether vanity.

Psalm 39:6,11,13

"Surely every man walketh IN A VAIN SHEW; surely they ARE DISQUIETED in vain; he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them." The reading of walketh in a "vain shew" is also found in the RV, ASV, Darby and Websters translation. It ties in with the previous verse about man at his best state being altogether vanity. But the NKJV says: "walks about like A SHADOW", the NASB and NIV "as a PHANTOM".

The part about them being DISQUIETED in vain means that they are disturbed and troubled in mind wondering who will get their riches when they die. Again disquieted is the reading of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Darby, Yound and others. Yet the NKJV says: "they BUSY THEMSELVES in vain:, the NASB "THEY MAKE AN UPROAR FOR NOTHING" and the NIV has: "HE BUSTLES ABOUT". Yet the NKJV, NIV, and NASB have all translated this same word as either disquieted, in despair or downcast in Psalm 42:5 and 42:11. "O my soul, why art thou disquieted in me?"

In verse 11 we read: "When thou with rebukes dost correct man for iniquity, thou makest HIS BEAUTY to comsume away like a moth; surely every man is vanity." Man is turned over to physical death as a result of the fall. We are all decaying, getting old, wrinkled, weak and sickly and will soon die and our bodies buried in the ground from which we came only to be consumed by worms and bacteria. Beauty is the reading of the NKJV, RV, ASV, Geneva and others, but the NASB has "Thou dost consume as a moth WHAT IS PRECIOUS TO HIM" - that is, the things he possesses rather than his own physical appearance. The NIV says: "you consume their WEALTH like a moth".

In the closing verse of this Psalm David cries out to God and says: "O SPARE ME, that I may RECOVER STRENGTH, before I go hence, and be no more." "O spare me", and "recover strength" are the readings of the Revised Version and the ASV. Remember, in the NASB preface how they exalted the ASV as being such a wonderful translation? But the NASB now says: "TURN THY GAZE AWAY FROM ME, that I MAY SMILE AGAIN, before I depart and am no more." The NKJV has: "REMOVE YOUR GAZE FROM ME, that I may regain strength.", while the NIV says: "LOOK AWAY FROM ME, that I may REJOICE AGAIN." I would think that David and any afflicted soul would call out to God that He would look upon us and meet our needs rather than to look away from us. Words have many different meanings and the context and correct theology determine a correct translation. The modern version editors have been blinded by their own pride of intellect and come out with some really silly stuff. To say that all bibles say the same thing but only in different words is to speak either from ignorance or willful blindness.

Psalms 40:4,5

“Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to LIES.”

The word here for “lies” is # 3877 kazab. It is found thirty times in the Hebrew text and in the KJB it is translated as lies, lying or false. It is used in Ps. 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking LIES.” and in Proverbs “a false witness speaketh lies.” The RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV all agree with the KJB and correctly translate this word as “lies” or falsehood. However the NIV has: “to those who turn aside to FALSE GODS” instead of "lies". "False gods" are words that are found in the Hebrew text, but not here. There is a difference. There are lots of lies out there other than just false gods. Like the big lie that the NIV itself is a valid bible version and reflects the true words of God.

“Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: THEY CANNOT BE RECKONED UP IN ORDER UNTO THEE: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.” Praise God this is true. We cannot count all the blessings our Father has so richly bestowed upon us. In this verse the NKJV, NIV, RV, and the ASV (which the NASB introduction tells us was such a wonderful and accurate translation) have the same meaning as the KJB. In fact, the RV, and ASV are word for word equal to the KJB.

The “new and improved” NASB however gives us a very different reading. The NASB says: “Many, O LORD, are the wonders which Thou hast done, and Thy thoughts toward us: THERE IS NONE TO COMPARE WITH THEE” instead of "They cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee.” Now the NASB statement is true, but the meaning of what David was saying in this particular Psalm is not the same at all as the KJB, NIVor NKJV. The subject, the verb and the whole meaning is different. So what did God really say here, or have we no way of knowing?

Psalms 42:5 and 44:4 NIV departs from the Hebrew

42:5 "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him for THE HELP OF HIS COUNTENANCE."

Here the Hebrew Masoretic text reads as does the KJB, RV, ASV and the NKJV. The NASB reads "for the help of his presence" yet when the verse is repeated in 42:11 and 43:5 it has the word countenance just like the KJB. However the NIV says: "for I will yet praise him, MY SAVIOR AND MY GOD." Here the NIV places "my God" in verse 5 instead of verse 6, where the NASB and NKJV have it like the KJB. But more importantly the NIV says "my Savior" instead of "the help of his countenance". The NIV follows the RSV, NRSV, and the ESV, as it very frequently does, and has a footnote which says: "A few Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac" read My Savior, while Most Hebrew manuscripts "praise him for his saving help". There are several things wrong with the NIV footnote. There may be "a few" Hebrew manuscripts that have that reading, but not the Masoretic text.

Secondly, the LXX I have does not read as the NIV says it does. The LXX I have says: "the Saviour of my face"; and thirdly Most Hebrew manuscripts do not read as the NIV says they do. The word face or countenance is in the Hebrew and the NIV lied when they said it literally means "his saving help". The ESV footnote correctly has "face". The NIV also changed 42:11 and 43:5 in the same way.

In Psalms 44:4 we read: "Thou art my king, O GOD: COMMAND deliverances for Jacob." Here the Hebrew texts read as does the KJB, the NASB, NKJV, RV and ASV. On the other hand, the NIV says: "You are my king AND MY GOD WHO DECREES VICTORIES for Jacob." Here the NIV changes a command or request into a statement and it changes the text. The NIV again follows the RSV, NRSV and has a footnote which says their reading comes from the "Septuagint, Aquila and Syriac, while the Hebrew says My King, O God; command..." just like the KJB. The new ESV 2001 (a revision of the RSV) has gone back to the Hebrew reading found in the KJB. This may seem like no big deal to you, but the NIV does this sort of thing scores of times in their translation and they tell you they are doing it.

While we are here in Psalm 44 let's look at verse two. The Psalm starts out: "We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what work thou didst in their days, in the times of old. How thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantest them; how thou didst afflict the people, AND CAST THEM OUT". Here God planted His people in the promised land and cast out the heathen. This is the reading of the NKJV too. The NASB gives an ambiguous reading with: "Thou didst afflict the peoples, Then thou didst spread them abroad." The NIV gives a totally different reading with: "you crushed the peoples and MADE OUR FATHERS FLOURISH." By the way, "our fathers" is not in any Hebrew text at all. The NIV is the opposite meaning as the KJB.

The NASB and NIV give a nonsense reading in Psalm 44:12. David is wondering why in view of God's past deliverances they are now suffering defeat at the hands of their enemies. In verse 11 he says: "Thou hast given us like sheep appointed for meat; and hast scattered us among the heathen. Thou sellest by people FOR NOUGHT, and doest not increase thy wealth by their price." FOR NOUGHT, nothing, nada, zip, zero, not a thing. This is the reading of the RV, ASV, and NKJV too. But the NASB says: "Thou dost sell thy people CHEAPLY and hast not profited by their sale" while the NIV says: "You sold your people FOR A PITTANCE, gaining nothing from their sale."

Now if you sell something either CHEAPLY or FOR A PITTANCE, you do gain something in return, right? Yet the NIV says he gained nothing. The NASB concordance shows they have translated this Hebrew word as "nothing" 60 times and only one time as "cheaply" and that here in this Psalm where they create a contradiction.

Psalm 46:9-10 King James Bible -

"He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth THE CHARIOT in the fire. BE STILL, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."

"He burneth the CHARIOT in the fire." The word here for "chariot" is 5699 gagah-lah, and is variously translated in the KJB as "chariot, wagon, or cart." "He burneth the CHARIOT IN THE FIRE" is the reading found in the following Bible translations: Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, RSV 1952, NKJV 1982, ESV 2001, Holman Standard 2003, Green's, Darby, Amplified, Hebrew Names Version, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the 1936 Hebrew Pub. Company version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, the KJV21, Third Millenium Bible and the Spanish Reina Valera.

However the NIV, NRSV, NET and Catholic Douay versions read: "he burns THE SHIELDS in the fire." The reading of "shields" comes from the Greek LXX.

Notice that the RSV read "chariots", then the NRSV went to "shields", but then the 2001 ESV revision of the revision of the revision went back to "chariots". Ya gotta love it.

Daniel Wallace's wild and wooly NET version reads: "he shatters the bow and breaks the spear; he burns the SHIELDS with fire. He says, “STOP YOUR STRIVING and recognize that I am God!"

Then he footnotes: "tn Heb “wagons he burns with fire.” Some read “chariots” here (cf. NASB), but the Hebrew word refers to wagons or carts, not chariots, elsewhere in the OT. In this context, where military weapons are mentioned, it is better to revocalize the form as ???????? (’agilot, “round shields”)."

So even though a multitude of Bible translators disagree with Daniel Wallace about the Hebrew word translated as "chariots" (and chariots are obviously related to military weapons, Duh), Dr. Daniel thinks it best to "revocalize" the Hebrew word to make it say what he prefers. These guys can't seem to help themselves once they've started down the road of textual apostasy.

46:10 "BE STILL, and know that I am God." So read the Geneva bible, Bishops's bible, Coverdale, Revised Version, ASV 1901, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV,Douay-Rheims, Spanish Reina Valera (Estad quietos), the Hebrew Names Version, KJV 21 and several others. However the NASB reads: "CEASE STRIVING, and know that I am God." The Holman is close to the NASB with: "Stop (your fighting), and know that I am God." The ridiculous Message has: "Step out of the traffic. Take a long, loving look at me, your High God, above politics, above everything."; while Lamsa's reads: "REPENT, and know that I am God."

In regards to "Be still" which Wallace renders as "Stop your striving" he again footnotes: "tn Heb “do nothing/be quiet (see 1 Sam 15:16) and know.” He admits the KJB reading is correct, but prefers to change its meaning anyway.

These are the guys and the type of thinking that are behind the modern bogus bibles.

Psalm 47

In Psalm 47:4 we read of God, the King over all the earth that "He shall choose our inheritance for us, the EXCELLENCY of Jacob whom he loved. Selah" This refers to the good land of Israel, the land of milk and honey and indeed it was an excellent land. The RV, and NKJV read as the KJB, the NASB has "glory" but the NIV says: "the PRIDE of Jacob whom he loved." The NIV has a particular thing about exalting pride as though pride were a good thing. This is seen often in the New Testament of the NIV, NASB. Yet the NIV has rendered this same word as "majesty" 6 times in other places.

In verse 7 we read: "For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises WITH UNDERSTANDING". "With understanding" is the reading of the NKJV, RV, the ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby's, the Spanish and others. It is important to understand and fill the mind with correct thoughts about God and what He has done for us. This is why I so like many of the old hymns which often teach us in a beautiful way the deep things of God. But today much of Christian praise consists of 4 words, three notes and one hour of Christian "chanting". To avoid singing praises with understanding the NASB says: "sing praises with A SKILLFUL PSALM" even though the word "psalm" is not in the text, and the NIV says: "sing to him a psalm of praise", again no word for Psalm but this rendering does not conflict with the mindless mantras in modern Christian worship services.

In verse 9 we read: "The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for THE SHIELDS of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted." SHIELDS is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV and NASB, but the NIV says: "the KINGS of the earth belong to God." A look at the NIV concordance showS they have translated this word as shield 58 times and as "king" only once. King is a very different word than shield. A shield is a means of protection, but not all the kings of the earth belong unto God - many of them are opposed to God and His people.

"The Sides of the North" - Psalm 48:2 with Isaiah 14:13

There is much confusion and downright perversity found in many modern versions when we compare these two verses and see what is lost or obscured concerning the spiritual implications of Lucifer's ultimate intent.

In Psalm 48:1-2 we read in the true Bible: "Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on THE SIDES OF THE NORTH, the city of the great King."

Then in Isaiah 14:12-14 we read the proud boast of Lucifer who claims: "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."

It is well known that many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman standard have changed the reading of LUCIFER in Isaiah 14:12 to that of "morning star", thus confusing Satan with the Lord Jesus Christ, Who Himself is the "morning star" - Revelation 22:16: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

You can see a much fuller analysis of this modern change from Lucifer to "morning star" in my article here: Lucifer or Morning Star?

In addition to this, in many modern versions the spiritual connection and cross reference concerning the place where Lucifer wishes to establish himself has been lost, obscured, or denied.

In Psalm 48:2 we see that the city of God, mount Zion, is located "on the sides of the north". Mount Zion may refer to either the physical city of Jerusalem, or the Heavenly city referred to in Hebrews 12:22 - "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels." (See also Galatians 4:26; Revelation 14:1 and Psalm 2:4-6)

The reading in Psalm 48:2 about the location of the city of God being "on the sides of the north" is found in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Bible 1611, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Green's literal MKJV, Darby, Young's, the Douay-Rheims, NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.

I and many other Bible believers find it to be more than just coincidence that it is the North Star that is our constant guide as to the right direction of things. Some commentators believe that the real and physical heavenly city of God is located in the North. Job 26:7 mentions that "He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." As the Geneva Bible notes: "He causes the whole earth to turn about the North pole."

However the NASB says in Psalm 48:2 - "the joy of the whole earth, Is Mount Zion in THE FAR NORTH"

Holman Standard - "Mount Zion on the SLOPES OF THE NORTH is the city of the great King."

The RSV, NRSV and ESV all read the same as the NASB with: "the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, IN THE FAR NORTH, the city of the great King."

Now Watch the Worm Turn

NIV - "the joy of the whole earth. Like the UTMOST HEIGHTS OF ZAPHON is Mount Zion." Then the NIV footnotes: "Zaphon can refer to a sacred mountain or the direction north." By the way, the NIV has translated this exact same Hebrew word as "north" 130 times, but as "Zaphon" 3 times.

TNIV (the 2005 revision of the old NIV put out by many of the same people who translated the NIV) - "the joy of the whole earth, like the HEIGHTS OF ZAPHON is Mount Zion." Then the TNIV footnotes: "Zaphon was the most sacred mountain OF THE CANAANITES."

Daniel Wallace's NET version - "Mount Zion resembles the PEAKS OF ZAPHON; it is the city of the great king."

Then Doctor Dan has this amazing footnote: "“Zaphon” usually refers to the “north” in a general sense (see Pss 89:12; 107:3), but here, where it is collocated with “peaks,” it refers specifically to Mount Zaphon, located in the vicinity of ancient Ugarit and viewed as the mountain where the gods assembled (see Isa 14:13)."

Do you begin to see the Satanic confusion here? All other earlier commentators mention that Mount Zion itself was on the sides of the north, but now both Wallace and the TNIV make the sides of the north refer to a pagan mountain where "the gods assembled"!

Now, compare the cross-reference which uses the exact same Hebrew words, "the sides of the north", to refer to the place where Lucifer (Satan, the devil, that old serpent) wishes to ascend.

Isaiah 14:13 "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."

Satan wishes to establish his throne in the very place of God's government, and this he will attempt to do by various means, including false prophets, the anti-christ, and bogus bible versions, which weaken and destroy the faith of God's chosen people.

"IN THE SIDES OF THE NORTH" is again the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, Websters, KJV 21, Green's MKJV, Third Millenium Bible and several others.

The NKJV confuses things by saying "on the SIDES of the north" in Psalm 48:2, but in Isaiah 14:13 it has: "on the FARTHEST sides of the north."

NASB - "I will sit on the mount of assembly In the RECESSES OF THE NORTH." (NASB has "the FAR north" in Psalm 48:2)

NIV - I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on THE UTMOST HEIGHTS OF THE SACRED MOUNTAIN." Then the NIV footnotes: "Or the north; Hebrew Zaphon." (The NIV has "the utmost heights of Zaphon" for this exact same Hebrew phrase in Psalm 48:2)

Then the TNIV comes out with: " I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on THE UTMOST HEIGHTS OF MOUNT ZAPHON." Then it tells us in a footnote: "Zaphon was the most sacred mountain of the Canaanites."

Now look at what the 2003 Holman Standard version has done with the verse: "You said to yourself: "I will ascend to the heavens; I will set up my throne above the stars of God. I will sit on the mount of the [gods'] assembly, in the remotest parts of the North."

'I will sit on the mount OF THE GODS' assembly', that is, the place where the GODS (PLURAL) assemble; the pagan site, not the place of government of the one true God.

Wallace's NET version says: " You said to yourself,“I will climb up to the sky. Above the stars of El. I will set up my throne. I will rule on the mountain of assembly, on the remote slopes of Zaphon." Then Wallace has this revealing footnote - " Zaphon, the Canaanite version of Olympus, was the “mountain of assembly” where the gods met."

In other words, Lucifer (who is no longer Lucifer in many modern versions, but the "morning star") doesn't really want to ascend into the very city and center of God's government, but instead just wants to place his throne among the pagan "gods". According to the new versions, we don't need to look for nor be concerned about Lucifer himself attempting to usurp the very seat of God's government. No, he is only interested in taking over some pagan site where "the gods" dwell.

The connection that unites the place of the city of God and the place where Satan wishes to place his throne is obscured or even denied in these fake bibles so popular today. May God grant grace to those who are blinded by the Satanic influence behind these modern perversions of God's holy words, and turn them back to the true words of God - the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney

Psalms 49

Psalm 49 NIV, RSV, ESV, NET all depart from the Hebrew

I know of some 80 plus examples so far where the NIV departs from the clear Hebrew text only to follow the Greek Septuagint or the Syriac in the O.T. Here is another one plus some other things about the NASB too.

Verse 5 says: "Wherefore should I fear in the days of evil, when the INIQUITY OF MY HEELS shall compass me about?"

This is the reading of the Geneva, NKJV, Revised Version, and the ASV of 1901. Heels is # 6120 and is found first in Gen. 3:15 where Satan is told that he will bruise the HEEL of the seed of the woman, which is Christ. It is also used in Gen. 25:26 where Jacob took hold on Esau's heel at birth.

Matthew Henry sees this as a reference to our past sins catching up with us and our being reminded of them. So too John Gill comments: "the iniquity of my heels shall compass me about;?that is, the sins of life and conversation; "heels" denote "steps", and "iniquity" intends sin committed in walking; and so designs not original sin but actual sins and transgressions: and these may be said to "compass [the saints] about", when they are chastised for them and to be humbled for them."

The NASB says: "when the iniquity of my FOES" while the NIV has: "when WICKED DECEIVERS surround me." This is a very different meaning and is not strict translation of the text but rather a fanciful interpretation.

Daniel Wallace's NET version reads: "Why should I be afraid in times of trouble, when the sinful deeds OF DECEPTIVE MEN THREATEN TO OVERWHELM ME." Then Dr. D. has this ridiculous footnote: "The MT has, “the iniquity of my heels surrounds me.” ... It is better, however, to emend ’aqivay, “my heels” to either (1) ’aqubay, “my deceitful ones,” or (2)’oqÿvay, “those who deceive me” . Origen’s transliteration of the Hebrew text favors the first of these options."

So the good doctor admits that the Hebrew reading is that found in the King James Bible, but he prefers to "emend" (change) the Hebrew reading to something more to his personal liking. These guys are a hoot, aren't they.

Verse 8 is seen as a divine reference to the sacrifice of Christ's precious blood, which never needs to be repeated. The KJB, as well as Green's interlinear, the 1936 Hebrew-English translation, Young's and the NKJV, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, say: "(For the redemption of their soul is precious, and IT CEASETH FOR EVER.)"

In other words, once the redemption is paid, it never needs to be repeated again. Matthew Henry also agrees with this interpretation and references Hebrews 9:25,26 and 10:12.

Commentators as well as bible versions are all over the map on the meaning of this verse, but as John Gill notes, Gussetius renders and interprets the words , "but the redemption of their soul shall come": the true redemption price by Christ; and which, being once paid and perfectly done, "ceaseth for ever", and shall never be required more; so that he for whom it is made "shall live for ever", as in Ps. 49:9 , which is a truly evangelic sense."

However the NASB again interprets instead of translating and says: "For the redemption of his soul is costly, and HE SHOULD CEASE TRYING FOREVER", while the NIV has: "the ransom for a life is costly, NO PAYMENT IS EVER ENOUGH." Neither one means the same thing as the other nor the KJB. The NIV in fact is a lie, because Christ did pay for our redemption and it certainly is enough.

Just so you don't get too comfortable with only three or four very different renderings, Daniel Wallace offers us another wildly different sense to the passage. His translation reads: Psalm 49:8 "the ransom price for a human life is too high, and PEOPLE GO TO THEIR FINAL DESTINY." (14). Then Dr. Wallace footnotes: " Heb “and one ceases forever.”

It should then be asked, if the Hebrew says what the King James Bible reads, why change it?

In verse 11 is where the NIV, RSV, NRSV, NET and others clearly depart from the Hebrew and they even tell you in their footnote that they do it. The KJB, Geneva, Bishops', Darby, Youngs, NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Spanish Reina Valera and several others tell us: "THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, that there houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations."

The NIV, along with the Holman, RSV, NRSV, and ESV all say the same thing and have the same footnotes. The NIV says: "THEIR TOMBS will remain their houses forever..." Then in a footnote they tell us that "THEIR TOMBS" comes from the LXX and Syriac, while the Hebrew Masoretic text and even the Dead Sea Scrolls say "their inward thought is".

Again, Wallace's NET version says: "Their GRAVE BECOMES THEIR PERMANENT RESIDENCE, THEIR ETERNAL DWELLING PLACE". The 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.

In verse 13 the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Spanish, Young's and the NASB basically say the same thing. The KJB has: "This their way is their folly" but the NIV says: "This is the fate of those who trust in themselves."

In verse 14 "Like sheep they are laid in the grave; DEATH SHALL FEED ON THEM". John Wesley comments: "Death - The first death shall consume their bodies, and the second death shall devour their souls." Here even the NIV agrees with the KJB, Geneva bible, Bishops's bible, Covedale, Wycliffe, Lamsa's, Darby, and Third Millenium Bible, but the NASB (RSV, ESV, Holman) says: "death SHALL BE THEIR SHEPHERD". So is death going to feed ON them, or feed them?

Psalms 56 Bible Babel indeed

"Be merciful unto me, O God; for man would SWALLOW ME UP; he fighting daily oppresseth me. Mine enemies would daily SWALLOW ME UP: for they be many that fight against me. O THOU MOST HIGH."

First of all the rendering "swallow me up" if found in both the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the RV, ASV (the predecessor to the NASB), the Geneva Bible, Darby's and Youngs translations. The Spanish Reina Valera also has devoraría, or devour which is also found in the KJB as a rendering of this word. The NKJV has "swallow me up" in verse one and in Ps. 57:3, but in verse 2 the NKJV changed this to "hound me" instead of "swallow me up". The NASB has TRAMPLE in both and the NIV has PURSUE.

In 56:2 we read: "Mine enemies would daily swallow me up: for they be many that fight against me, O thou Most High." "O THOU MOST HIGH" obviously refers to God, and is found in the KJB, the NKJV, both the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the 2003 Judaica Press Complete Tanach (Those who eye me have yearned to swallow me all day long, for many fight against me, O MOST HIGH.), the Geneva Bible 1599, Bishops's Bible 1568, Youngs, the Modern Greek translation, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and the Reina Valera of 1602 (O Altísimo).

However the NASB and NIV say: "many are attacking me IN THEIR PRIDE" instead of "many that fight against me, O thou most High." The NASB complete concordance shows that they have translated this same Hebrew word as "exalted, high, heaven, and lofty" some 45 times, but only once as "proudly". Others that adopt a similar totally different rendering of the same Hebrew text are Green, Darby, ESV, and the Holman Standard.

J.P. Green shows his fickle nature in the various translations he comes out with year after year. In his earlier published translations he changes "O thou Most High" to "proudly", but in his latest 2005 translation he includes BOTH readings saying: "all the day fighting against me, O MOST HIGH...for many are PROUDLY fighting against me." Only one of these readings is in the Hebrew, not both.

What came as a total surprise to me is that Daniel Wallace's NET version actually sides with the King James Bible and Jewish translation. On the rare occasions when he is right, we must give him credit. He translates the phrase as: "many are fighting against me, O EXALTED ONE."

Need it be pointed out that "O THOU MOST HIGH" and "PROUDLY" are not at all the same thing?

What is of further interest in showing the total inconsistency of the modern versions is that the RSV of 1952 read "those that fight against me PROUDLY", but then the NRSV of 1989 went back to reading "O MOST HIGH". THEN the new 2001 ESV (the revision of the revision of the revision) again went back to the old RSV reading of "many attack me PROUDLY". These guys can't seem to make up their minds, can they.

In verse 7 David asks: "Shall they escape by iniquity? in thine anger cast down the people, O God." This is the same in the RV,ASV, NKJV, 1936, Darby, Spanish 1602 and others. But the NASB says: "because of wickedness, cast them forth." No longer a question but a command. The NIV goes even further and says: "On no account let them escape." - thus not even translating the word "iniquity, or wickedness" and adding "on no account".

In verse 8 David says to God: "put thou my tears into thy BOTTLE." Bottle is the reading of even the NASB and NKJV but the NIV says: "LIST my tears on your SCROLL". I'm pretty sure there is a difference between a bottle and a scroll. In fact the NIV concordance shows they have translated this word as "skins, wineskins, jars" but only once as "scroll".

In verse 12 David trusts in God and says: "THY VOWS ARE UPON ME, O God: I will render praises unto thee." He recalls that God has sworn as He did to Abraham and his seed: "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee" Hebrews 6: 13. Isn't it good to know that God has taken a vow to bless and protect His people.

"Thy vows are upon me" is the reading of the KJB, Geneva, 1917, 1936, RV, ASV, Spanish, Darby, Youngs, and even the NASB. But the NKJV says: "VOWS MADE TO YOU are binding upon me"; the NRSV has: "my vows to you I must perform" and the NIV has: "I am under vows to you."

The NKJV, NIV give the opposite meaning. Which is more comforting, that God will keep His vows towards me, or that I will keep vows I have made towards Him? All bibles do not say the same thing; all cannot be the true words of God.

Finally the last verse says: "For thou hast delivered my soul from death: wilt NOT thou deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of THE LIVING?" This is the reading of the ASV, Geneva, 1917, 1936, Darby, Young's and the NKJV. However the NASB makes this a statement rather than a question and omits the word "not" which is in the Hebrew text. The NASB says: " For thou hast delivered my soul from death, INDEED my feet from stumbling, So that I may walk before God in the light of THE LIVING", while the NIV has: " and my feet from stumbling, that I may walk before God in the light of LIFE." It too omits the word "not"; changes a question into a statement, and differs from even the NASB in that it has "the light of LIFE" instead of "the light of the living". So which one is the true Holy Bible? All do not say the same thing, even when translating the same texts. God is not the author of confusion.

End of Article

External Link

Psalms #2 How Different the Versions!] by Will Kinney

Personal tools