AV Verses Vindicated (collated from Waymarks issues 1-60)
In recent years it has become fashionable to question the reliability of translation in hundreds of places in the AV Bible. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, known as the Masoretic (for the OT) and the Received Text (for the NT) are also questioned in hundreds of places. None of these is justified. Holding to the AV Bible is not merely a matter of faith or tradition. There is ample evidence available to confirm the reliability of the English Authorized Bible.
Some tell us that only the original Scriptures were inspired. If this is so then we have no Scripture today for ALL Scripture IS given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim.3:16. What is not inspired is not Scripture. But inspiration is not lost through translation as the many OT (Hebrew) verses quoted in the NT (Greek) prove.
A correspondent has reminded me of a statement made by Mr. Newberry in his introduction to his Englishman's Bible. There we read "The plenary inspiration of the original Scriptures is taken for granted”. The original Scriptures disappeared a long time ago so we conclude that there are no plenary inspired scriptures existing today, according to Mr. Newberry. So we have no trustworthy Bible today and we are compelled to accept the opinions of the "experts". But having given His inspired word, would God not be able to preserve that same word for ever? Or is the Scripture The Word of the Lord endureth for ever false? And what about Isa.48v.8; 1Pet.1v.23; Ps.12vv.6,7?
The Authorized Version did not need a fresh act of inspiration. The words breathed out by God and originally set down in Hebrew and Greek are the same words we now have translated into English. We are fully persuaded that God oversaw this translation.
Our God is able to preserve His own Word,: For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89. If God's word is settled in heaven, why should it be unsettled on earth? Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away, Mt.24:35. That the original manuscripts no longer exist is not surprising, as they would have been very quickly worn out through constant handling. But they were faithfully copied multitudes of times. Early translations were also made such as the 2nd Cent. Peshitto in the Syriac language. The vast majority of manuscripts and early versions are in agreement with the Received Text.
We can have confidence in our AV Bible. Its pedigree can be traced to at least the 2nd Century. The text of the RV and subsequent versions was shown to be corrupt more than 100 years ago, being based on two depraved manuscripts; the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. These two are still the basis of the modern evolving text of Nestle/UBS.
I wish to show in the following verses that departure from the AV reading is unwarranted. All the verses referred to have appeared in Waymarks from August 1993 to date.
It is recommended that in order to understand the comments in this work, the context of each passage under consideration is read and meditated upon.
I have relied heavily on the works of Dr. J Moorman for the manuscript evidence of the AV readings.
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis 1:1,2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
On page 26 of the Genesis commentary in the What the Bible Teaches series, the author quotes two verses from the RV; “...waste and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep¨, and “God...formed the earth and made it; he established it, he created it not a waste, he formed it to be inhabited¨.(Isa.45:18).
These two spurious readings favour the “Gap Theory” which teaches that God didn’t originally create the world a waste but by Gen.1:2 it had become so. Therefore the first “day” of creation actually begins at verse two. This is implied in the commentary:
The process of creating order continues throughout the six days.
But before [my italics] this orderly distinction of things which differ was established, a series of steps had to be gone through. Initially the earth “was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” RV). In Isaiah we learn (45:18) that “God... created it not a waste”.
The AV Bible has The earth was without form, and void. (1:2) That is, in the initial act of creation the earth was unformed and unfilled. Isaiah 45:18 tells us he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. The earth was not created to no purpose, but that it might be inhabited.
The translators of the AV were well aware that the same Hebrew word occurs in both passages, but with obviously different shades of meaning. If the meanings should be the same then a contradiction exists and the only acceptable explanation is the Gap Theory where a cataclysmic disaster occurs between the first two verses of Genesis, and God has to start again. Pember in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages taught the existence of a pre-Adamic race. The Gap Theory denies that sin came in by one man, but that it existed in a race previous to Adam’s. It is therefore a serious error, denying Romans 5:12 and with it the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ.
Genesis 1: 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament (raqiya) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters....” NRSV
God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the water;.... “ CJB (Complete Jewish bible)
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters....” ESV
Strong defines raqiya as “properly an expanse ,that is, the firmament or (apparently ) visible arch of the sky.”
A false conclusion appears to be drawn that raqiya may be translated “dome”. For this one would have to believe in a flat earth. A dome is hemispherical, or bowl shaped. God called the firmament Heaven (shameh).
Raqiya can have the sense of beating out precious metals with stretching involved in the action. God has stretched out the heaven over this whole sphere, in one great expanse.
The English translation, “firmament” suggests a strengthening, something resting on the floor of the earth and supporting the vault of the sky.
There is another reason why “dome” is an unsatisfactory translation. The tent of Numbers 25: 8 is the qubbah, and this is the only place in Scripture where the word is used. It means “a domed pavilion” and was a temple of Baalpeor where fornication was practised in the name of this religion.
False religion today has its domed edifices.
Genesis 2: 18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
“.... I will make him a helper comparable to him.” NKJV.
Feminists will hardly approve of the NKJV rendering of neged (AV=meet) which suggests one worthy to be compared, or conforming in every respect. Was this God’s intended role for the wife? Is the woman to be assessed as coming up to the man’s standard?
To be a help according to Scripture is to fulfil a most precious and high calling. Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield. Ps. 33: 20. A wife is a help and is meet (this is not an archaic word) for her husband. He looks to her and keeps her ever before him for he cannot operate fully on his own. She is his counterpart.
Genesis 3: 15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
This is the first prophecy in Scripture concerning Christ as Redeemer. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus (Acts 13: 23). This man being David, seed of Eve. In Luke ch. 3, the Lord’s genealogy is traced back, via David, to Adam. The prophecy is very clear.
Yet the RC Westminster version (1958 AD) reads “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” The change of gender is very audacious and is designed to promote Mariolatry.
Not even the RSV Catholic edition makes such a change, but reads “…he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel”.
The Catholic New American Bible; (1970AD) retains the masculine form and a footnote links this verse with the promise of a Redeemer.
According to M Marlowe; Bible Research, this NAB version displeased Pope John Paul II because of its inclusive language.
Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Anyone with no knowledge of Hebrew but able to use a Hebrew/English interlinear Bible in conjunction with a Bagster's Lexicon will discover that the Hebrew gohr is singular, (=skin, not skins). The plural would spoil the type, we are told, speaking of the redemptive work of Christ. The clothing of Adam and Eve is indeed a beautiful picture of redemption in Christ, but is the AV translation wrong? No type can sufficiently portray the anti-type, the Lord Jesus. Hence two goats were required on the day of Atonement. Also the tabernacle required a covering of rams' skins dyed red, and a covering above of badgers' skins. One skin simply would not have been sufficient. All, together, must speak of the glories and perfections of the Lord Jesus, and then only faintly.
In this connection we find an interesting verse, I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, Ezek.16:10. Here God speaks of His love towards an erring Israel. We suggest, in view of the use and symbolism of badger skins that these animals were used to clothe Adam and Eve. One skin would not be enough to cover one person nor to speak of Christ.
For those who still demur at the AV translation, we refer to the verse before Ezek.16:10, where we read in v.9, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, then note the marginal reading, "Heb.=bloods" . Putting bloods into the English reading would make nonsense of our language, so the translators used the singular instead of the plural. Skins is a faithful translation. Bear in mind that there is probably none alive today with the command of languages that these AV translators had. They were right in Gen.3:21, we conclude.
Genesis 4: 7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Whether khat-taw-aw’ should be translated “sin” or “sin offering” depends on the context. Where a sin offering is involved it is usually obvious from the passage, as we find in the first mention in the Bible ─ But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering. Ex.29: 14
(The first time an offering is mentioned is in Gen. 4: 3,5 where the offerings were voluntary.) Cain’s offering, a bloodless offering, was unacceptable to God. Cain sinned in making such an offering and with this he was charged. If he would not acknowledge his error, sin, lying at the door would enter and seize hold of him, desiring to master him. Failure to master (rule over) sin in his life would have disastrous consequences.
Those who insist that the English Bible is defective in this reading will need to explain how a sin offering would desire Cain, and how he could rule over it.
Genesis 4:8
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
The editor of What the Bible Teaches tells his readers that “all the authors share the conviction that the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God”. But the first contributor, the author of the Genesis commentary, wrote concerning 4:8, (p.50),
Verse 8 also contains a verbal oddity. It opens with the incomplete statement, “And Cain told Abel his brother...” (RV). The Septuagint reads, “And Cain said to his brother Abel, Let us go out into the field/plain”. If this is a correct reading then a clause has dropped out of the Hebrew manuscripts because it had an ending similar to the next clause. This is the solution followed in the REB, NIV and other versions; it is also noted in the RV margin. This text would lead smoothly into the account of the murder, but it is difficult to be sure it is correct.
The author lacks the conviction that verse eight is the word of God in any version! He thinks that a part of the Bible has got lost, or else it has been tampered with making it difficult [for the critics] to be sure it is correct. Thus verbal inspiration is denied.
The words of Matt.11:25 are pertinent in this connection: Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. That is, the verse in our AV Bible is clearly understood by simple believers to mean exactly what it says.
Genesis 36: 24
And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules (yem) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.
The RV and most modern versions has “....this is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness.”
There are no Hebrew manuscripts carrying a variant reading. The word is yem and means mule.
However, Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica has a footnote showing that the Versio Syriaca Hexaplaris has a variant reading, changing the word (in Syriac) to mean springs. Jerome’s Vulgate (Latin) has the same change. It is suggested that the author of the Syriac version altered yemim (mules)to mayim (springs) and Jerome later took this up.
Clarke tells us that Bochart believed the Emim are meant.
yem occurs here only in the O.T. and is not the common word for mules but this is no excuse for altering the word of God.
Isaac Leeser in his The Twenty four books of the Holy Scriptures, carefully translated ACCORDING TO THE MASSORETIC TEXT after the best Jewish Authorities; Bloch Publishing co. 1907, reads “....this was that Anah that found the mules...”
Anah discovered (found) how to cross horses with asses and he produced the first mules. After this mules are referred to in the O.T. as pered ....and they brought ....horses and mules (1 Kings 10: 25). So the reason mules are not mentioned in Scripture before this point is simple: there weren’t any.
Genesis 37:3
Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.
The latest volume of John Ritchie’s What the Bible Teaches, a commentary on Genesis, has this to say about this verse:-
Our translation “of many colours” (PASSIM-6446) derives from the ancient Greek versions, for the word is not common. The word is found in Scripture only in this chapter and in 2 Samuel 13:18,19 where David’s daughter Tamar had a similar garment, for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled¨. Most modern translators prefer to translate the word as meaning “long¨ or “long-sleeved¨. A long or long-sleeved, robe might mark the favoured son out as being above manual labour.
We note that modern translators are not too sure what kind of a coat Joseph had. The AV is specific. The Ritchie commentary tells us that our AV translators had no idea what the Hebrew word meant so they had to go to a later Greek translation.
In fact, the AV translators were aware of the possibility of a different meaning, so they put the less likely meaning in the margin. The word they put in the margin was ”pieces”, not “long¨ or long-sleeved” for which there is no authority whatsoever.
Genesis 49: 10
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
It is generally agreed that this prophetic verse refers to the second coming of Christ to earth and the setting up of His millennial kingdom. Modern versions read peoples (amim) but there is no need for this. Believers from all nations will enter that kingdom when He returns.
Modern versions also alter gathering to read obedience.
Exodus 25: 31 (see also Revelation 1: 12)
And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold.
An unfortunate blunder occurs in the Precious Seed publication, Day by Day. In the reading for June 6th, commenting on this verse,the writers J Bennet and J Scarsbrook write, “lampstand is preferable to ‘candlestick’. The latter is self consuming whereas the lights of the lampstand were fed with oil continuously.”
But gold is self consuming? Did these writers not notice that the manufacture of a gold candleSTICK is being described? Do these writers consider the AV translators to be dimwits? In Exodus (AV), Oil is mentioned 23 times. Must we assume they did not comprehend what they were translating?
The oil was fed continuously! Only if a human being kept the flow going! Could a human being not remember to keep replacing a wax candle before it burnt out?
The word Candelstikke was in use before 1000AD. Candel originally meant light or torch. The meaning of “candlestick” is very simple as far as our Bible is concerned; it is a LIGHTBEARER. Lampstand improves on this not one little whit.
“The Hebrew word denotes properly any kind of candle or lamp or torch.” — from Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
Num 23: 22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn.
Those who like to rubbish the Bible pretend that this verse ( and Num.24: 8; Job 39: 9,10; Ps.29: 6, 92: 10) is referring to some mythical creature. A few think it might refer to a wild ox. They show their ignorance. They have never heard of the Rhinoceros Unicornis which is also known as the
Asian Rhinoceros. It has only one horn, hence its name. Simple isn’t it?
Deuteronomy 1:1,5
These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness....
The NIV has "east of Jordan" instead of this side Jordan. Critics will argue that this is quite correct. It was on the east side of Jordan, in the wilderness, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel. Moses died there in the wilderness and the people then journeyed westward into the promised land.
The implication behind this change is that the authorship of Deuteronomy is challenged. If the words this side are correct then Deuteronomy was written in the wilderness prior to the occupation of Canaan, and could only have been written by Moses. By making this change the NIV is suggesting that though Moses spoke the words, they may not have been recorded until a much later date. The RV (an obsolete version) read "beyond Jordan", declaring thereby that Moses certainly did not write the book of Deuteronomy. Most other versions have something similar.
So is this side a true translation? Those turning to a concordance might feel that doubt remains because the Hebrew word is geh-ver which may be translated "the other side", "the side of", "beyond", "this side", etc. depending on the context. All translators therefore have to make a judgment as to which word to use.
There is no problem for the believer because Deuteronomy states that when Moses had made an end of WRITING the words of this law in a book, he commanded that the book be placed in the side of the Ark of the Covenant, (31:24). "This law" is the whole book of Deuteronomy, which Moses began to declare on this side Jordan (1:5).
The AV translators believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. They knew that Moses both spoke and wrote Deuteronomy in the wilderness, east of Jordan, which from his point of view was this side. To translate any other wise is mischievous, deceitful, an abuse of the word of God. It reveals a heart of blind unbelief and wilful opposition to the things of God. Such versions cannot be trusted and need to be rejected in their entirety. The strange thing is that modern versions do acknowledge Moses to be the writer ("so Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests" 31:9,NIV). Presumably they think he did it posthumously.
We hear one last cry from the unbeliever; "if Moses wrote the whole of Deuteronomy how is it we read o f his death and burial in the final chapter?" We patiently reply, "because God had told him all about it. Why don't you read the book?
Deuteronomy has been under attack very largely because of its prophetic character. Moses forewarned the children of Israel before they ever entered into the promised land that they would deny their God and therefore would be driven back out into captivity, scattered among the nations. (As they are today).But they would be restored to their land at the coming again of the Lord (30:1-5). Moses believed in the premillenial return of Christ. Those who do not believe Moses do not believe Christ. He said, Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me (John 5:46).
Challenging the authorship of books of the Bible is the work of Higher Criticism. Those who hold to the NIV show that they are tainted by both Higher and Lower (Textual) Criticism. The two cannot be divorced.
Judges 6:11,12
Gideon threshed wheat by the wine press, to hide it from the Midianites. And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
Perversions of Scripture, from JND's New Translation (1878) onwards, and unbelieving commentaries (What the Bible teaches; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, edited by W S Stevely and D E West) would have Gideon threshing wheat IN the wine press, thus discrediting him and the angel of the Lord. There would have been nothing particularly valiant in this. It would have been physically impossible to THRESH wheat in a wine press, especially if he were using a stick, as some suggest. He might have trodden out a few grains for his own use but the reference to his valour tells us he was doing it for all Israel. No one else had sufficient courage to do what he was doing, for fear of the Midianites. So he would need space. The Midianites would be watching the threshing floors, so, it not being the time of the grape harvest, he threshed BY the wine press. The Midianites would not think to look there.
The scholars will tell us that the Hebrew preposition may be translated "in" as well as "by", but they merely follow that parody of Scripture, the Septuagint. The use of "in" here makes a mockery of the truth. Reliable translations read "by".
1 Samuel 13:21
Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.
“The charge for sharpening was a pim for plowshares, mattocks, three-pronged forks, and axes, and for setting the goads”. Jewish Study Bible.
Prof. David Gooding wrote concerning this verse: " In 1 Sam.13:21 there occur the Hebrew letter [sic] pym. Now for centuries no one knew exactly what these letters meant in this context. The AV Translators did their best and came up with a translation of the verse, 'they had a file for the mattocks'. In comparatively recent times, however, as Alan Millard has reminded us in a very interesting article (Bulletin of the Anglo Israel Archeological Society, Vol.6, 1986-8, p.46), archeologists discovered a number of ancient weights inscribed in the early Hebrew script with the letters pym - just like years ago we used to see big brass weights in butchers' shops stamped with the letters 1lb, or 2lbs. From the weight of these ancient Hebrew weights it was easy to deduce that the letters pym inscribed on them meant 'two thirds of a shekel'.
In the light of this new information we can see that 1 Sam. 13:21 means, not 'they had a file for the mattocks', but' and a charge was a pym for the ploughshares'.... We should be grateful to God for the work of archeologists and scholars which enable us to obtain ever more exact and precise renderings of His infallible word". The Word; issue 34; p.4.
The professor has not done his homework. The AV Old Testament is based on the Masoretic text in which the word pym occurs nowhere. It is therefore not a Bible word. The Hebrew word found in 1 Sam.13:21 is p'tzee-rah, which our translators, being Hebrew scholars as yet unsurpassed, knew meant 'a file'. they gave a fuller meaning in the margin without any hint of a doubt attached to it.
It is likely that the Hebrew text was first mutilated by Origen when he produced his Septuagint version. Certainly the change is made there. this has been seized upon by modern Bible mutilators who cannot bear to think that God would faithfully preserve His word.
I have an exact and precise translation of God's infallible word. It is called 'The Holy Bible'. It is the Authorized Version. One blemish alone would make it unholy, but there are no flies in this precious ointment. I do not need ungodly and apostate men scrabbling in the dirt for MY bible to be ever updated. I am not an evolutionist!
The verse tells us that though no smith was to be found in the land (what a sad day that was!) yet they had a file which maybe they had hidden from the Philistines. Just as Saul and Jonathan had managed to hide their swords from the Philistines, v.22.
It is the height of folly to alter Scripture solely on the basis of some archeological discovery.
2 Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Chron.22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother¡¦s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
The Bible critics love these verses as they seem (to them) to be a plain contradiction. They reason for this contradiction (they say) is that some careless scribe made the error, writing forty two instead of twenty two in 2 Chronicles.
This is very strange because most of the alterations in the manuscripts are made by scribes correcting earlier errors (so they tell us). But they missed this one. So one scribe got it wrong and for the next few millenia it was accepted as a known error that nobody knew how to deal with until the NIV came along and changed it without so much as a footnote to let you know that the word of God had been altered.
There was no possibility of a scribal error. Those who think so deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture. The suggestion of scribal error is made out of ignorance because the Jews and the Masoretes took a most exquisite care in copying the manuscripts. Any mistake would have been instantly noted and the whole page destroyed and rewritten. The same care was taken with the New Testament documents.
The believer accepts the word of God as it stands. He may not always understand it and may not always have a slick answer to explain away difficulties. But he does believe it. We do not have to have an “answer” in order to believe what we read on the holy page. We believe it and then wait for the Holy Spirit to teach us.
But the difficulty is not so great with these verses. Here is one very simple explanation. The Chronicler is obviously writing from a different viewpoint to that of the writer of the book of Kings.
In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah was anointed king at the age of twenty two but because of continuing conflict he was not able to occupy the throne until he was forty two. And then it was necessary for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to intervene. A reason for this is given by Bullinger in his Companion Bible:-
Forty and two years old = a son of forty-two years: i.e. of the house of Omri, on account of his connection with it through his mother (832-790=42). In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah¡¦s actual age (twenty-two years) is given when he began to reign (790) during the two years of his father¡¦s disease. His father, Jehoram, was thirty-two when he began to reign with Jehoshaphat, two years before the latter’s death (2 Kings 8:16). This was in 796. Jehoram therefore was born in 828. Ahaziah, his son, being twenty-two when he began his co-regency, was therefore born in 812; his father being sixteen years old.
Some like to tell us that there were two Ahaziahs, uncle and nephew, and that sometimes close relatives are counted as having the same parentage.
It has also been pointed out that Ahaziah is sometimes referred to as Azariah and that 2 Chron.21:2 tells us of two Azariahs, both sons of Jehoshaphat. Bullinger¡¦s explanation seems the most likely. In any case we know that the Bible is true.
Nehemiah 4: 23
None of us put off our clothes saving that everyone put them off for washing.
JND “none of us put off our garments; everyone had his weapon on his right side.” (footnote: others [read]: “to the water”.)
NASB “….each took his weapon to the water”.
RV “everyone went with his weapon to the water.” (footnote: Some scholars emend the MT reading “the waters” to “in his right hand” or “they held on the right side”)
ESV “each kept his weapon at his right hand”
JERUSALEM BIBLE (Jewish) everyone brought his weapon with him, even to the water.”
NIV “…each had his weapon, even when he went for water”. (footnote: The meaning of the Hebrew for this clause is uncertain”.
There are a number of versions and translations that agree with the AV. Among them are the Bishops Bible, Geneva Bible, Newberry Bible, and also the Latin Vulgate and RC Bibles. The RV footnote gives the game away! It is not a matter of some Hebrew manuscripts having a different reading —The Massoretic Text (MT) is accepted here but the scholars don’t like it. Bear in mind that most of these scholars are unconverted men. The AV translators had little problem with the text and the way the AV reads makes perfect sense. The AV margin (Or, everyone went with his weapon for water) shows that the translators were aware of a possible alternative meaning but gave it less weight.
The alterations to the AV made by the critics demonstrates that they do not trust any Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Darby’s reading implies that everyone was left-handed. They would have to be to draw their weapon from their right side. Read Judges 3: 15,16, Ehud was a left-handed man and had his dagger on his right thigh. It was one cubit in length. It is not possible to draw such a weapon from the right side with the right hand; even less so a full length sword. This is enough to show up Darby’s ignorance. He made up his own reading.
Job 28:2
Iron is taken out of the earth and brass is molten out of the stone.
The opening verses of Job 28 are sometimes referred to as the mining passage. Verse two may imply a mining activity but the Hebrew does not actually say so. Therefore a false translation is made in modern translations to accommodate the idea. In v.4 "flood" (nah-ghal) is made to read "shaft" and the rest of the verse is mangled beyond recognition. But how do they arrive at "shaft"? GESENIUS says "probably a mine" without any evidence. We note that WILKINSON wrote, "Gesenius, a notorious liberal, specialised in hanging the theological terminology of the Bible into that of liberals". (Our Bible Vindicated; p.104)
The NEB suggests in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure, but the AV translators never thought so. The word is not uncommon in the OT and is translated consistently in relation to torrents of running water, (Ps.18:4, 74:15, etc.). So JND and a host of others perpetuate the error. Lest any should think there really is uncertainty in the meaning of the Hebrew word, let a company of modern orthodox Jews have the last word. In 1988, in Jerusalem, they published a bible based on the most accurate Masoretic text available (they say) in which the word nah-ghal is translated "watercourse". I have the book in front of me. It is a parallel Hebrew/English edition, known as the Jerusalem Bible. (Not the RC one by that name!).
Psalm 8: 4,5
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour.
The ESV has “....yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings. A footnote then gives -or than God: Septuagint, than the angels.
In this case the Septuagint has a correct translation and the ESV has a false humanisitic translation. This is born out by the reading in Hebrews 2: 6,7 where the Greek word aggelos which can only be translated “angels”. The ESV has “angels” here with no footnote so plainly they did not need one in Psalm 8.
Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.
This verse is quoted by Peter in Acts 2:27 where the Greek word hades is translated "hell". Thus we see that the OT sheol is equivalent to the NT hades meaning hell. But hell is an unpopular word among the critics so it must be removed. We are assured by these critics that any changes are made for clarity or accuracy. One Bible critic, Mr Vine, would rather have the word hades put into our English NT instead of hell. So we ask him what does the word hades mean? But he confesses that he does not know. I quote from his dictionary, "It has been thought by some that the word etymologically meant the unseen (from a negative, and eido to see), but this derivation is questionable; [by whom?] a more probable derivation is from hado, signifying all-receiving". His words "more probable" means that he hadn't got a clue and his guess is no better than anyone else's.
This interpretation allows for the two-compartment hell popularized by Schofield. That is, everybody went to hell in OT times, the good to the Paradise side and the bad to the burning side. When Christ rose He took Paradise with Him. But this is mere conjecture. There is no verse that says any such thing.
That hell (sheol) was not all embracing can be seen from Ps.9:17.The wicked shall be turned into hell. If all go to hell anyway, why do the wicked need to be spoken of? Or else why does not Scripture specify "the wicked shall be turned into hell-badside"? David never expected to go DOWN into sheol (See Bible margin; grave=hell).Ps.49:14. That was for the wicked. He expected to go UP to heaven, Ps.55:15. Amos assures us that heaven is up and hell is down. Amos 9:2. That is how it has always been. That is how it still is. No saint ever went down into hell. Some suggest that Jacob thought he might end up there in hell, but no Scripture says that he ever did.
So does "Hades" clarify the reading? It is only the anglicised form of the Greek word that does not help us at all. The scholars put it in because they don't know what it means! But they do know what hell means, and that may be why they fear the word and leave it out.
The Greek word gehenna is also translated "hell" in the AV, e.g. Mt.5:29 The whole body shall be cast into hell. Comparing Scripture with Scripture we note that the body is not cast into the hades/hell. It is the soul which goes down into that hell. Gehenna relates to the Lake of Fire into which hades/hell will eventually be cast, Rev.20:14. There death and hell give up their prey, the body from the grave and the soul from hell to be reunited in the Lake of Fire at the end of time. This is the dreadful fate of those who die in unbelief. I have no difficulty over one English word being used to translate two different Greek words. The fire of hell is for ever. Just use your concordance and look up all the references and the meanings become clear. There is no need to tamper with the translation.
Psalm 45: 13
The king’s daughter is all glorious within
The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace. NKJV
In her chamber, the royal daughter is all glorious. HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
All glorious is the princess in her chamber. ESV.
NKJV and HCSB have their additions to the text in italics, which is an admission that the added words, “palace” and “chamber” have no Hebrew manuscript authority. Kittel gives two mss, Cod. Alexandrinus and Cod. Vaticanus. which have variant readings, but these two are Greek translations and he thinks v.13 is possibly corrupted. In any case he thinks vv 12 to 16 are an interpolation. Most modern versions carry similar additions to the text as the above three.
What the Bible mutilators don’t want you to think is that the king’s daughter has an inward purity. Very grievously, the commentaries (William McDonald and others take their wisdom from the perverted versions. This is the benefit of modern scholarship. Jim Flanigan tells us ‘this “within” is disputed. (What the Bible Teaches; Psalms; J. Ritchie.)
Flanigan doesn’t believe the Book on which he bases his commentary.
Psalm 58:1
Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
A commentator tells us,
It is universally agreed that the opening words of the Psalm are obscure. The word which by the AV is rendered “congregation” (482) is the word elem, and is found elsewhere only once, in the title of Psalm 56, “Jonath-elem-rechokim”. .Apart from those who argue a textual corruption it is agreed by all others that the word is elem and means “silence”. JN Darby will therefore translate, “Is righteousness indeed silent?” -What the Bible Teaches-Psalms.
The obscurity of the verse is not universally agreed of course. Men will make such assertions in order to promote their own rationalistic views and to ape the apostate scholars. Bible believers see no obscurity and accept the verse as it stands. The AV translators saw no obscurity for they made no account of it in the margin.
Darby is compelled to ignore the verb to speak which is also plainly in the Hebrew reading. Otherwise we get the gobble-de-gook version “Do ye indeed speak righteousness in silence?”
This congregation did not speak righteousness. They did not judge uprightly. These conditions repeat themselves in our day.
The preface to this commentary assures the reader,
The authors of these volumes are not scholars of the original languages and rely for guidance on the best modern views [my italics] of word meanings and similar matters. all it However all the authors share the conviction that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God. They believe it to be reliable, accurate and intended “for our learning”.
If it is the conviction of these men that the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God,(they do not call it Scripture) then it is mischief of a high order for them to question it and alter it as they repeatedly do. But in this day of double talk, when they say ”Bible” they don’t mean what I understand by the word Bible. Their bible is a nebulous thing, not confined to a single version or translation. They do not believe that the word of God in its entirety is to be found between the covers of one single Book. This is the view held and taught not only among the liberal but also by those once regarded as conservative fundamentalist brethren. By their own confession they are Modernists.
So how is "Congregation¨ to be justified as the correct interpretation of elem? It is justified by its presence in the English Bible. The believer does not call into doubt the words that he finds on the holy page of Scripture. Let our modernist friends attempt to justify their alteration. They tell us they rely on “modern views”.
They turn to H F W Gesenius (1786-1842), a noted German rationalistic theologian. His lexicon was translated into English by S P Tregelles who spent some time among the Exclusive Brethren.
Gesenius wrote of elem,
[elem] m. silence. [“It may be worth inquiry whether [elem] should not be dropped, having sprung perhaps from a careless repetition of nma¡”. This conjecture is wholly needless.]
In this Gesenius showed his contempt for the verbal inspiration of Scripture. His words are those between the speech marks. He is described by B Wilkinson as “Gesenius a notorious liberal, [who] specialised in changing the theological terminology of the Bible into that of liberals”. Our Authorized Bible Vindicated p104.
Psalm 84:3
Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King and my God.
Mr H. Paisley, (brother of Ian who does believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God), tells us, "It seems evident that a sparrow or swallow could not build a nest in the altars, or their vicinity. The two altars, the copper altar of the burnt offering and the golden altar of incense, were things most holy unto the Lord. The reading of the text in the AV and RV would infer the possibility, but the law of the altar prohibits such an action of birds building nests in or around the altars. The passage should be read:' My soul longeth, yea even fainteth for the courts of the Lord, My heart and flesh crieth out for the Living God' (v.2). A parenthesis follows (yea the sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she might lay her young) Even thine altars, O lord of hosts. The last clause of verse 3 is a continuation of verse 2.
Mr Modern Man knows better than the Psalmist. There is no parenthesis in any version that I know of and I looked at several. Paisley doesn't cite one. He doesn't tell us what this anti-bird law is either. Men who do not understand the Scriptures frequently seek to mutilate it to fit their own whim and fancy.
The Psalmist, probably David in exile, longed to enjoy what the sparrows and the swallows freely enjoyed. I believe my Bible. I don't need anybody to tell me what must be read into it. I accept the page of Scripture as it stands.
Psalms 120-134
A song of Degrees. (Ps.122, 124, 131, 133, A song of degrees of David; Ps.127 A Song of degrees for Solomon).
Some modern versions read “A Song of Ascents”. But some of our brethren , wishing to appear erudite and thereby displaying their ignorance, change it to “A Song of THE Degrees”. They point out that the Hebrew definite article is present. (Ask them to show it to you in a Hebrew Bible. That will flummox them! ) Certainly the definite article is present but if they think that the AV translators were not aware of this then they must think the Bible was translated by imbeciles. Those AV translators were master linguists. And don’t swallow the modernistic lie that not much Hebrew or Greek was known in those days.
Just ask our critics to explain to you the use of the generic definite article in the Masoretic text. Our translators understood the usage and that’s why it was omitted in the English translation.
The critic next has to look for an interpretation. His theory is if he doesn’t understand a word or sentence or passage in the Bible then the Bible is wrong and must be altered to fit his own views. You will come across this theory whenever you insist that a particular AV word is correctly translated. The response from the critic will be to ask you what it means. They don’t know. The Bible is right or wrong according to the critic’s understanding. The believer accepts the word of Scripture whether he understands it or not. He waits on the Spirit of God to reveal the meaning to him. He approaches the Scriptures in faith.
So the critic gives us a fanciful interpretation for his “song of THE degrees. “The only ‘degrees’ of which we read in the Bible are ‘the degrees’ on the sundial of Ahaz, by which the sun went backward in the says of his son Hezekiah....Scripture knows of no other steps or ‘degrees’ that can be connected with the shadow of the sun”, says one commentator, quoting a Dr Thirtle. This really is convoluted thinking. Where in Scripture do we read that the Psalmic ‘degrees’ have to be connected thus?
In fact the statement that the only degrees mentioned in Scripture are those pertaining to the sundial of Ahaz is false.
We find the same word for degrees (mah-ġălāh’) used over forty times in the Old testament. It is translated “steps”, “stairs”, “to go up”, “things that come into”, “stories”, and “degrees”.
Ahaz’s sundial saw the shadow move TEN degrees. But there are fifteen degree psalms. Well, never mind, Hezekiah lived another fifteen years so there is the connection, say the Bible mockers.
So what about the SIX steps of 1 Ki.10: 19; the SEVEN steps of Ezek. 40: 22; the EIGHT steps of Ezek. 40: 31? Should there not be six, seven, and eight songs of THE degrees?
We do not believe Hezekiah had anything to do with Psalms 120-134. They are not HIS songs as another false teacher tried to tell us. They were probably all David’s, written about 250 years before Hezekiah came along. Neither do these fifteen psalms relate to the fifteen steps of the temple. This is an old wives’ fable. Nobody knows how many steps there were.
For an explanation of the term “A song of degrees” think about the final reference, Amos 9: 6, It is he that buildeth his stories (as in the stories of a house – RS) in the heaven. these psalms are heavenly spheres, lifting one ever higher.
Psalm 133; 1
Behold, how good and how pleasant for brethren to dwell together in unity!
“How wonderful it is, how pleasant, for God’s people to live together in harmony.” (Amity bible – NRSV?)
The ungodly masses of humanity like to refer to themselves as “God’s people”. But this living together in harmony hasn’t existed since Cain slew his brother. However, brethren (the term implying all of ONE family) are able to DWELL TOGETHER (implying or more settled state than mere living) in UNITY (implying a far higher standard than mere harmony.)
Amity’s abuse of Scripture carries political undertones.
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
The NIV has “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” This is a misleading translation of the Hebrew word goh-lahm” (Strong’s 5769). It presents entirely the wrong meaning of verse.
The word has to do with time and not eternity. Certainly the word is frequently translated in the AV Bible as “everlasting” or “for ever” but it is in relation to time and tells of time past (Deut.32:7, Josh.24:2 etc.) as well as time future (Isa. 45:17, where we read of world (goh-lahm) without end).. B Currie writes,
The first use in the Old Testament gives a clue as to how [gio-lahm] should be understood: “and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. 3; 22) — What the Bible Teaches; Ecclesiastes; p.431.
We understand indeed! For Adam, TIME would have no end! The verse does not imply Adam would gain eternal life through knowledge. Currie has missed the point.
There is a time limitation in the word so that the everlasting statute of Lev. 16:34 is not applicable today. The servant for ever is servant no more (Deut.15:17). There is a time factor on the whole of Ecc.3:11; it is in his time!
It is a long time, (Isa. 42:14), so that the puny mind of man cannot take it all in. It is a temporal world, from the beginning of time to its end in which men cannot find out the work of God. The last clause of the verse spells this out this long time to us - from the beginning to the end.
Proud men do not like to be told that there are earthly things set in their heart that they cannot find out so they perversely alter the meaning of Scripture.
Eternity is not set in the heart of men, though they fear it and deny it.
Isaiah 3: 3, 4
He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not....yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted...
According to the Revised English Bible this reads, “He was despised, shunned by all, pain-racked and afflicted by disease...while we thought of him as smitten by God, struck down by disease and misery.”
This is one of the most highly blasphemous perversions of Scripture I have come across. The REB is teaching that Christ was riddled with disease and men though he deserved it. But they came to realise he was struck down with disease for their sakes. One must have a diseased mind to put this construction on this passage.
When we learn that the REB was planned by representatives of Baptist Union, Methodist Church, Society of Friends, Roman Catholic Church, Salvation Army, United Reformed Church , Bible Society, and a few other similar organizations, we are not surprised at the outcome.
The use of the word grief in Jer. 6: 7, and Jer. 10: 19 demonstrate the reasonableness of the AV translation in Isaiah 3:3,4. All the words are in plain non-archaic English, easy to be understood.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
A comment on this verse, found on the internet site Truth and Tidings, for October 2001, reveals the inevitable fruit of textual criticism. Readers are told that Isa.7:14 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The word “virgin” is clearly understood by all to mean a pure young woman who has never known a man. But the Truth and Tidings implication is that almah is a vague word with more than one meaning. In which case the Hebrew Bible lacks a word equating to our English “virgin”. almah occurs at Gen. 24:43, Ex.2:8, Ps.68:25, Prov.30:19, S.of S.1:3, 6:8, and Isa.7:14 only. If Isaiah meant only that a young woman capable of bearing children conceived, all would reply, “some sign!”.
The Angel of the Lord told Joseph unequivocally, that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. Joseph clearly believed this. Isaiah knew that the prophecy did not relate to himself. He never called his son Immanuel. He did relate verse 15 to the subject of verse 14, without allowing the possibility of double fulfillment. We have no problem with this either. Luke tells us that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom. (2:40). Luke speaks of the Lord in His humanity; His growth as a child.
Truth and Tidings tells us the sign in Isaiah was for Ahaz. It was not.Isaiah tells us it was for the whole House of David. (v.11) . To Ahaz he says, Ask THEE a sign. Ahaz refused to hear it. The sign to Ahaz would be the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, born of Isaiah’s wife, and not a virgin. So Isaiah turned and addressed the House of David; The Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign. After this, in v.16, it is back to Thou (Singular) with a prophecy in relation to Ahaz.
It is very regrettable that the crystal clear prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah is now denied by those who regard themselves as the fount of all truth.
Isaiah 9:3
Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
Regarding Isaiah 9:3, the Masoretic Text has the word "not" (the Heb. letters lamed aleph.) Therefore the AV is accurately translated here„oas everywhere. The exquisite care taken by the Masoretes in copying manuscripts is well known and there are no grounds whatsoever for altering the Hebrew Text. The AV translators were obviously puzzled by this. (They had no difficulty translating it) so they put in a marginal note: "or to Him." but they kept "not" in the reading. The AV stands entirely alone in this. No commentator attempts to explain the AV reading. All without exception ignore it.
The verse tells us that joy was not increased. It doesn't say that joy was not given, only that in this prophecy the existing joy was not increased. We must simply read the verse as it stands.
This is a significant case where the critics have altered the original Scripture in the modern versions on the ground that it doesn’t make sense to them. There are no alternative Hebrew readings that I know of.
Isaiah 9: 6
....and his name shall be called,.... The everlasting (Heb.= Ad) Father,....
“....Father of Eternity...” JND
“....Eternal Father....” GNB
“....Eternal Father....” ESV
“....the Father of the world to come....” DRB (Douay-Rheims bible)
J M Flanigan writes,
In the translation by J N Darby this appellate [sic] of Messiah is rendered “The Father of Eternity.” Others will suggest “The Father of the Ages” which is substantially the same. It is a declaration of the sovereignty of Messiah over all the cycles of time....
— Assembly Testimony, No.337; September/October 2008.
We are aware that ‘ad may be translated “eternity”, seeing that it is translated thus in Isa 57: 15. We note also the word is often translated “for ever and ever”. In Isa. 9: 6 the word is an adjective and is an attribute of the Son of God. In His Fatherhood He is everlasting He never ceases from being the everlasting Father.
But Flanigan wishes to prove that aion as in by whom he made the worlds (Heb. 1: 2) means “by whom he made the ages” He writes, “The word ‘worlds’ there is in fact [my italics] the word ‘ages’. He claims that Thayer shows this to be the basic meaning. He doesn’t explain that the Spirit of God is not compelled to use “basic” meanings. He does not tell his readers that Thayer (a Christ denying Unitarian, by the way) defines aion as also meaning “the worlds, the universe, i.e the aggregate of things contained in time. “
What Flanigan is leading to is the final statement of his article,
There will then be an eternal Sabbath, which is reckoned by many to be the eighth of the cycles of time. All these are ordered for His glory who is the Father of the Ages
The first seven ages being the seven great dispensations. If there is to be “time” in heaven we shall need clocks to measure it! And what when this eighth cycle ends?
Let J Riddle have the final word;
“The everlasting Father” Whilst this is often quoted as “the Father of eternity” (following JND) the AV rendering appears to convey the meaning more accurately. ....the title states that God’s people will never lack the divine love and care of a true father.
—What the Bible Teaches; Isaiah p.171
Isaiah 14: 12, 15
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! ... Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.
Floyd Nolen Jones wrote the following concerning these verses. I quote them here to give an answer to the false notion given by D Oliver in Truth and Tidings, August 2006, that Lucifer may be referred to as “the Old Testament’s Morning Star”.
(We see how the blind acceptance of modern versions demonstrated repeatedly in the above mentioned magazine leads to blasphemous doctrines.)
However, the New International Version pens:
How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn ... but you are brought down to the grave.
Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer
[G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, (Munroe Falls, OH: A.V. Publications, 1993), pp. 40-55]. In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.
The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the
Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star -kokab nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB . [the ESV also reads, “how are you fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!” – Ed.]
– not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel (lleyh, Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.
Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also 2:28 and II Pet.1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (II Pet. 1:19, cp. Luk. 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").
The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing II Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel, lleyh) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel, lleyh) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.
Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".
The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (I Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you.”
─ Which Version is the Bible; Floyd Nolen Jones; p.vii, 17th Ed. 1999
Isaiah 17: 12
Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the roaring of the seas;
The NIV does away with woe so we read, “Oh, the raging of many nations,
They rage like the raging of the sea.” The NRSV has “Ah [which makes it an expression of admiration], the thunder of many peoples!¨ . JND doesn’t like woe either so he has “Ha! A tumult of many peoples!” Ha can be an expression of joy.
We do know that the AV translates the Hebrew word hoh-¦ee as “ah” in seven places. This is why it is vital to consider the context.
But now we find much worse; the AV itself is tampered with. A friend tells me she has acquired a Cambridge AV Bible with this woe” printed in capitals. My facsimile 1611AD does not have capitals and I cannot find the word capitalised in any other edition. It is the practice for the first word in each chapter to be capitalised and as a new paragraph begins at 17: 12 this may be the reason for capitals here. However, new paragraphs are indicated by the symbol and capitals are not needed.
Isaiah 38: 8
Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.
Most modern versions and parodies of Scripture read similar to the GNB ─ “On the stairway built by King Ahaz, the LORD will make the shadow go back ten steps. And the shadow moved back ten steps.”
The Hebrew word translated ‘degrees’ is ma’alah (Str.4609). I could find no manuscript variants. Modern versions accept this word but translate it ‘steps’. The word ‘dial’ is also ma’alah which word is found translated ‘steps’ in Ex.20: 26, Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar.
The modern translators therefore jump to the conclusion that Ahaz’s sun dial was a succession of steps on which the length of the shadow would indicate the hour. Actually a post knocked into flat ground would have served the same purpose. The length of the shadow would be measured more effectively.
But the modern men are making gobble-de-gook of the Scripture. These mighty steps would need to be swung through 180o at midday, otherwise there would be no shadow at all for the rest of the day.
Persisting in this nonsense some tell us that David’s songs of degrees (Psalms 120-134) were composed on these steps. David lived more than 200 years before Ahaz.
The AV translators were well aware that ma’alah has a variety of meanings. Here is a third; 1 Chron. 17: 17, a man of high degree.
The Egyptians had invented a sun dial long before the days of Ahaz. Perhaps his sun dial was based on theirs. It was ‘T’ shaped with a raised cross bar causing a shadow to fall on the stem. This instrument lay flat on the ground and was rotated through 180o at midday. (See sundial: Enc. Brit.)
Textual critics are proven deceivers. Beware.
Isaiah 53: 5
….and with his stripes we are healed.
Isaiah 52: 15
So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him.
“...so now he will startle many nations”. CJB (Complete Jewish Bible).
One must not think that being Jewish, these translators better understand the language.
Rather, they have accepted the variant in Kittel’s footnote to this verse, in his Biblia Hebraica;( my ed. 1909.)
The variant is thaumasontai from the Greek Septuagint and means “startle”. There are no other variants. This is an interpretation and is not a translation of the Hebrew word nazah meaning “sprinkle”.
nazah is consistently translated sprinkle in the OT. (24 times) and can apply to blood, water, , and oil, in a good or bad sense. Note the first reference; Ex. 29: 21 and thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron...
The Septuagint is an extremely defective document. There is no evidence it existed before the first century AD or that currently there is a definitive version of it.
The alteration in this verse is designed to deny the Messiahship of Christ.
Some of us remember how Hitler startled the nations, causing them to wonder with great astonishment.
Wilson tells us concerning this word,
The uniform use of the word [nazah] in the sense of sprinkling with blood, in order to purify, establishes a most important application of this passage to the virtue of the Messiah’s atonement. — Old Testament Word Studies
William Macdonald, in his Believer’s Bible Commentary gives,
But when He comes again men will be startled (NKJV marg.)
In many places Macdonald takes the line of rationalism. His commentary is best avoided. The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John Walwoord is much more reliable. It is available online to those using E-sword.
(1 Peter 2: 24
….by whose stripes ye were healed.)
Peter makes it plain that the prophetic words of Isaiah 53: 5 have been fulfilled in the death of Christ upon the cross. The Hebrew word chabburah translated “stripes” in Isaiah is singular as also is the Greek word molopes translated “stripes” in 1 Peter. Some critics make a great play of this, suggesting that the AV translators were confused. But they had Wycliffe who in 1 Peter reads “bi whos wane wounde ye bin heelid”. They were also fluent in Hebrew and Greek. Wycliffe had only Jerome’s Latin Vulgate to go by but not even the Rheims has the singular. Tyndale, Cranmer and the Geneva all translate in the plural, as do most modern versions
including the NASB and Darby.
Dave Hunt, in his November ’04 Newletter makes a great play of this alleged error in the KJV pointing out that the MacArthur Study Bible shows the word to be singular and a number of eminent scholars wrote in to confirm this. We’ll just say here that Tyndale knew it as well.
Our modern men think their theology is upset by the plural form. They argue that we cannot be healed by the stripes that men laid on the Saviour; rather, our God laid one stripe upon Him which has brought our healing. But men nailed Him to the cross and the Scriptures speak much of the cross. Men put Him to death but He said, concerning His life, no man taketh it from me. I lay it
down of my self. Of course our salvation lies in what Christ did for us. It could not depend on the actions of wicked men. All that He endured was according to God’s predeterminate will and counsel.
Our translators knew what they were doing and were also masters of the English language. By His stripe we are healed simply would not make sense.
Isaiah 45: 7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.
Some of our brethren take exception at the thought of God creating evil. They reject the plain statement of Scripture because they do not understand it.
Evil, in this verse, is the English translation of rag. It is used first in Gen. 2: 9, And out of the ground made the LORD to grow....the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Its fruit was forbidden, but God created it!
Jacob, concerning Joseph, thought an evil beast hath devoured him. Gen. 37: 33. He would not have doubted that God had created this evil beast.
Jonah 3: 10 reads God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them.
Micah 1: 12 tells us, evil came down from the LORD unto the gate of Jerusalem.
No doubt there are many more verses that the critic regards as offensive. They do not understand the Scriptures and they do not understand the nature of God.
God cannot sin and rag does not imply the presence of sin. It may simply be adversity, or rottenness ─ the evil figs of Jer. 24: 8 were not sinful we presume. Evil is everything which is not good, beneficial, wholesome. God in His permissive will allows a lot of this.
If our brethren would only read a little more of the Bible and not wrench verses out of context they would save themselves a lot of embarrassment.
Jeremiah 17:15
The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?
The critics winced when they came across this verse, so they (Westcott & Hort) changed it in the RV to 'the heart is desperately sick'. turning the man into “an object of a weak compassion where the old translators made him guilty, an object of wrath” (G. Bishop; The Doctrines of Grace).
JND changes it to “....and incurable". which again is a false translation. It is not what the text says. The NIV gives “beyond cure”. None of these critics regarded their hearts as desperately wicked, which is why we do not red anywhere in their biographies of a conversion taking place.
The Hehrew word translated “desperately wicked” in the AV Bible is ah-nash. It is translated as 'incurable' in the AV Bible at Job 34:6, Jer. 15: 8, 30:12,15 and Micah 1: 9. It is 'verv sick' in 2 Sam.l2:15.
Critics will rush to tell us that the AV Bible therefore contradicts itself'. We point out that the AV translators clearly had a grasp of the various shades of ' meaning in the word ah-nash'. Physically it relates to disease; spiritually it relates to morality. Deceit is immoral and cannot he associated with sickness. Thus the deceitful heart is rightly described as desperately wicked.
The psalmist wrote, How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: Therefore I hate every false way. Ps. 119:103, 104..
Precepts are comprised of' words, of course. The psalmist loved the very words of God. They were sweeter than honey, so the precepts were not irksome to him. It was a joy and nourishment to his soul to keep them. They caused him to hate every false way.
It is not so with the revisionists. The NIV has, 'How sweet are your promises to my taste.... I hate every wrong path.' Promises are always for the future. Once fulfilled they is no longer a promises. So the NIV's psalmist doesn't hate every false way - just the wrong paths. That which is false is deceptive, counterfeit, treacherous.
The wrong path may be no more than inconvenient at the time. Modern versionism is a false way.
Jeremiah 23:30
Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.
The neighbour in this context was the ordinary man who should have been taught the word of God by the prophet. The neighbours therefore were the common people, but they were happy with what their prophets and priests were giving them. So, in Jer.8:8,9 we read, the pen of the scribes in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord.
The result of this infidelity brought disaster to Israel. National life was destroyed and the people went into captivity.
History repeats itself„-because men will not learn„- and again there are religious leaders, self-styled bible teachers who fawn after the prophet-scholars of our day. The result must be the same„-a professing, but apostate, Christendom, disowned of the God of Heaven.
The critics and modern versionists steal God’s words. They tell the people that words, phrases, sentences, whole verses and passages ought not to be in the Bible. Their own words they will insert. Their efforts do not produce increased godliness and faith. What we see among those who ¡§prefer¡¨ the NKJV or the NIV is ungodliness, worldliness, and immorality. The judgment of God is against such.
What will the NIV make of Jeremiah’s words? Therefore, declares the Lord, “I am against the prophets who steal from one another words supposedly from me”.
The word supposedly does not occur in Scripture. The NIV is not giving what they like to call Dynamic Equivalence.The meaning itself is changed to what the NIV thinks Jeremiah meant to say. What they were stealing, says the NIV, may not have come from God at all, there is some doubt in it. So they reject the preceding verse, Is not my word like as a fire? Saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?
The NIV verse regards this as no more than infighting among the prophet fraternity, stealing from one another. Perhaps the NIV thinks it is no more than plagiarism . The prophets were doing what the NIV does, i.e. giving false words to the people and passing it off as the word of God.
Jeremiah 31: 22
How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.
Modern Versions deny the teaching of the Virgin Birth.
Compass (saw-bab’) commonly means to surround, as the men of Sodom, compassed the house round. Gen. 19: 4
A woman in pregnancy compasses the child. The changes in modern versions listed below (which is far from being an exhaustive list) show a conscious wilful attack on the virgin birth of Christ, because no man is involved in this creatorial act. It is a new creation on the Lord’s part.
“.... A transformed woman will embrace the transforming God.” The Message (MSG)
“....A woman will protect a man” God’s Word. Is this a new thing?? It is certainly not God’s word.
“....A woman turned into a man” REB
“....A woman with the strengths of a man.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
The NIV has “A woman will surround a man” and then uses a footnote to deny the Virgin Birth teaching in the verse; “or, will go about seeking, or, will protect”
William MacDonald in his Believer’s Bible Commentary, which is based on the NKJV denies there is any reference here to the virgin birth. He claims “The woman here is Israel and the man is Jehovah... the prediction is that the virgin of Israel will cease to go ‘hither and thither after idols’ and will seek and cleave to Immanuel.”
Those who read the prophecy of Jeremiah may note that about 40 times the nation is urged to return. RETURN, RETURN, RETURN. But this is to be a NEW creation so how can they return to a relationship that never before existed? Had Israel NEVER enjoyed a close relationship with God?
If God can reverse the backslidings of a nation through a creatorial act why has He not already done so? What love is this?
He goes on to quote Kelly (but does not identify which Kelly. J N D Kelly, William Kelly?) “a devout scholar of undoubted orthodoxy, explains why a popular interpretation is not valid...compassing a man has no reference whatever to the birth of a child.” Q E D??
So what about “In Jer.31: 22, ’A woman shall compass a man’ is a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah from a virgin”—Wilson’s Old Testament word Studies. Kregel.
The man here is gheh-ber’meaning a warrior or valiant man. The word is not used in relation to deity. But when we come to Isaiah 9: 6 which is an unequivocal reference to the virgin birth of Christ, we find another word used from the same root as gheber-ber’. It is unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.... The mighty( ghib-bore’) God.
Now we shall add our QED.
Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Nebuchadnezar knew what he was saying. He said (v28), Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him.
Nebuchadnezer was not some untutored clod. He knew the history of the Jewish people and he knew the Angel of the Lord, referred to in v28, to be the Son of God. He did not say in v25, ¡¥the fourth is the Son of God¡¦ but he was saying that the fourth person in that fiery furnace had the appearance of One who could not possibly be any other than the Son of God. Believers today have no doubt either that it was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who stood with the three in their hour of need. We believe the manifestation of the Son of God was for Nebuchadnezzar¡¦s benefit as well as for the three.
J N Darby had different views. He translated the phrase as, the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God. He gives a footnote to this verse, which reads. “Or “of the gods” Elah, Aramaic, in the plural, corresponding to the Hebrew Elohim.” ( in which case Genesis 1:1 might well be in the beginning some gods (elohim) created the heavens and the earth). Darby grievously aligned himself with the Russellite (JW) perversion which reads the appearance of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods.
The NIV reads, the fourth looks like a son of the gods, together with many other modern versions. This is not what Nebuchadnezer said and it is not what Scripture says.
Daniel used the Chaldee word Elah 48 times, sometimes to indicate other gods but mostly with reference to his God. The meaning in v25 is made crystal clear by the context.
If the critics argue about the inclusion of the definite article„o the Son of God„o when one is not present in the original, they align themselves with the Russellites who in John 1:1 have the Word was a god which is a key statement in the JW heresy.
Amos 3: 3
Can two walk together except they be agreed?
“Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment?” NRSV
Some modern versions add “...to meet with each other” or similar words. The first mention of “together”, yakh’-ad is in Gen. 13: 6, the land was not able to bear them that they might dwell together. The meaning is being with each other, and not moving towards each other as modern versions teach. This latter produces a false idea that distance (from God, or my brother) does not matter as long as the intention is to meet up on some common ground. It is based on Strong’s definition that the word carries an implication to meet.
Rather, if there is to be continuing unity there has to be agreement on the course. If there is disagreement on fundamentals there can be no united testimony.
In Amos the two are God and Israel. Israel should have been in communion with her God but she was in disagreement because of her iniquities and so the walk together was disrupted.
Zech.5:6
This is their resemblance through all the earth.
The reliability of the OT Scriptures has never been seriously challenged until recent times. The exquisite care of the Jews in transmitting the text from generation to generation was too well manifested for any attempt to falsify it in any part. The English translation in the AV Bible is acknowledged to be a 100% accurate translation of that text. It is a serious error therefore to think that the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures commonly known as the Septuagint is superior. Even liberal scholars are ready to admit that the Septuagint is a very defective translation. Yet we hear brethren quoting from it against the AV.
We have an example in this verse. "Resemblance" is a translation of the Hebrew word gah-yin which is more commonly translated "eyes", or "in the sight of". Orthodox Jews accept the AV translation. A modern Jewish bible puts it "their appearance". When the Septuagint changes it to "this is their iniquity" it has first of all to change the Hebrew word to gah-vohn without any authority. There is no ms. in existence with that reading. Darby notes this alternative but relegates it to a footnote without changing the text. The NIV has "iniquity" in the text, and “appearance" in a footnote. It is the NRSV-Catholic Edition which reads "this is their iniquity in all the land" and that is exactly how it was quoted by one of our leading Bible-teachers recently.
If public men think that their intellect is superior to the Scripture, so that they may change words to suit their own interpretations, then the great apostasy is well and truly upon us. Read the passage as we have it in the AV and ask what is being resembled by what? Then note a fourfold "this is" and the explanation is right before us. This is an ephah; this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah; this is their resemblance; this is wickedness. It is wickedness personified.
Zechariah 9: 16, 17
And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land. For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.
The words in v.17, in the AV reading above, For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! are altered in modern versions as shown below, robbing Christ of His goodness and great beauty.
“How very beautiful they will be” NIrV.
“Then how they’ll shine, shimmer, glow!” The Message
“How lovely they will be” CEV (Contemporary English Version)
“For what comeliness and beauty will be theirs” NASB (The ASV was nearer to the AV)
“How great is their goodness and how great their beauty”. NKJV
