av verses ot to 56

8/14/2019 AV verses OT to 56

1/22

1

AV Verses Vindicated (collated from Waymarksissues 1-53)

In recent years it has become fashionable to question the reliability of translation in hundreds ofplaces 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 theseis justified. Holding to the AV Bible is not merely a matter of faith or tradition. There is ampleevidence 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 Scripturetoday for ALL Scripture IS given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim.3:16. What is not inspired is notScripture. But inspiration is not lost through translation as the many OT (Hebrew) verses quotedin the NT (Greek) prove.A correspondent has reminded me of a statement made by Mr. Newberry in his introduction to hisEnglishman's Bible. There we read "The plenary inspiration of the original Scriptures is taken forgranted. The original Scriptures disappeared a long time ago so we conclude that there are noplenary inspired scriptures existing today, according to Mr. Newberry. So we have no trustworthyBible today and we are compelled to accept the opinions of the "experts". But having given Hisinspired 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 Godand originally set down in Hebrew and Greek are the same words we now have translated intoEnglish. 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? Heavenand Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away , Mt.24:35. That the originalmanuscripts no longer exist is not surprising, as they would have been very quickly worn outthrough constant handling. But they were faithfully copied multitudes of times. Early translationswere also made such as the 2nd Cent. Peshitto in the Syriac language. The vast majority ofmanuscripts 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 stillthe 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 theverses referred to have appeared in Waymarks between August 1993 and February 2002.

It is recommended that in order to understand the comments in this work, the context of eachpassage under consideration is read and meditated upon.


2/22

2

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1:1,2In 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 Teachesseries, the author quotestwo verses from the RV; ...waste and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, andGod...formed the earth and made it; he established it, he created it not a waste, he formed it tobe inhabited.(Isa.45:18).These two spurious readings favour the Gap Theory which teaches that God didnt originallycreate the world a waste but by Gen.1:2 it had become so. Therefore the first day of creationactually 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 ofsteps had to be gone through. Initially the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon theface 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 ofcreation the earth was unformed and unfilled. Isaiah 45:18 tells us he created it not in vain, heformed 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 acontradiction exists and the only acceptable explanation is the Gap Theory where a cataclysmicdisaster occurs between the first two verses of Genesis, and God has to start again. Pember inhis book Earths Earliest Agestaught the existence of a pre-Adamic race. The Gap Theory deniesthat sin came in by one man, but that it existed in a race previous to Adams. It is therefore aserious error, denying Romans 5:12 and with it the gift by grace, which is by one man, JesusChrist.

Genesis 2: 18And the LORD God said, It isnot good that the man should be alone; I will make him anhelp 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 oneworthy to be compared, or conforming in every respect. Was this Gods intended role for thewife? Is the woman to be assessed as coming up to the mans standard?To be a help according to Scripture is to fulfil a most precious and high calling. Our soul waitethfor the LORD: he isour help and our shield. Ps. 33: 20. A wife is a help and is meet (this isnot an archaic word) for her husband. He looks to her and keeps her ever before him for hecannot operate fully on his own. She is his counterpart.

Genesis 3: 15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; itshall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is the first prophecy in Scripture concerning Christ as Redeemer. Of this mans seed hathGod according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus (Acts 13: 23). This manbeing David, seed of Eve. In Luke ch. 3, the Lords 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


3/22

3

woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for herheel. 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 headand you shall bruise his heel.The Catholic New American Bible; (1970AD) retains the masculine form and a footnote links thisverse with the promise of a Redeemer.According to M Marlowe; Bible Research, this NAB version displeased Pope John Paul IIbecause of its inclusive language.

Genesis 3:21Unto 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 inconjunction with a Bagster's Lexicon will discover that the Hebrew gohris singular, (=skin, notskins). 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 AVtranslation wrong? No type can sufficiently portray the anti-type, the Lord Jesus. Hence two goatswere 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 beensufficient. All, together, must speak of the glories and perfections of the Lord Jesus, and then onlyfaintly.

In this connection we find an interesting verse, I clothed thee also with broidered work, andshod thee with badgers' skin, Ezek.16:10. Here God speaks of His love towards an erringIsrael. We suggest, in view of the use and symbolism of badger skins that these animals wereused to clothe Adam and Eve. One skin would not be enough to cover one person nor to speak ofChrist.For those who still demur at the AV translation, we refer to the verse before Ezek.16:10, wherewe 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 AVtranslators had. They were right in Gen.3:21, we conclude.

Genesis 4: 7If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at thedoor. And unto thee shall behis desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Whether khat-taw-awshould be translated sin or sin offering depends on the context. Wherea sin offering is involved it is usually obvious from the passage, as we find in the first mention inthe Bible But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with firewithout the camp: it isa sin offering.Ex.29: 14(The first time an offering is mentioned is in Gen. 4: 3,5 where the offerings were voluntary.)Cains 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 doorwould enter and seize hold of him, desiring to master him. Failure to master (rule over) sin in hislife would have disastrous consequences.Those who insist that the English Bible is defective in this reading will need to explain how a sinoffering would desire Cain, and how he could rule over it.

Genesis 4:8And 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.


4/22

4

The editor of What the Bible Teachestells his readers that all the authors share the convictionthat the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God. But the first contributor, the author of the Genesiscommentary, wrote concerning 4:8, (p.50),

Verse 8 also contains a verbal oddity. It opens with the incomplete statement, And Cain toldAbel his brother... (RV). The Septuagint reads, And Cain said to his brother Abel, Let us goout into the field/plain. If this is a correct reading then a clause has dropped out of theHebrew manuscripts because it had an ending similar to the next clause. This is the solutionfollowed in the REB, NIV and other versions; it is also noted in the RV margin. This textwould 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 thata 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 andprudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. That is, the verse in our AV Bible is clearlyunderstood by simple believers to mean exactly what it says.

Genesis 36: 24

And these arethe children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was thatAnah that foundthe 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 thewilderness.

There are no Hebrew manuscripts carrying a variant reading. The word is yemand means mule.However, Kittels Biblia Hebraicahas a footnote showing that the Versio Syriaca Hexaplaris hasa variant reading, changing the word (in Syriac) to mean springs. Jeromes Vulgate(Latin)hasthe same change. It is suggested that the author of the Syriac version altered yemim(mules)tomayim(springs)and Jerome later took this up.Clarke tells us that Bochart believed the Emim are meant.

yemoccurs here only in the O.T. and is not the common word for mules but this is no excuse foraltering the word of God.Isaac Leeser in his The Twenty four books of the Holy Scriptures, carefully translatedACCORDING TO THE MASSORETIC TEXT after the best Jewish Authorities;Bloch Publishingco. 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. Afterthis mules are referred to in the O.T. as pered ....and they brought ....horses and mules (1Kings 10: 25). So the reason mules are not mentioned in Scripture before this point is simple:there werent any.

Genesis 37:3Now 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 Ritchies What the Bible Teaches, a commentary on Genesis, has thisto 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 2Samuel 13:18,19 where Davids daughter Tamar had a similar garment, for with such robeswere the kings daughters that were virgins apparelled. Most modern translators prefer totranslate the word as meaning long or long-sleeved. A long or long-sleeved, robe mightmark the favoured son out as being above manual labour.


5/22

5

We note that modern translators are not too sure what kind of a coat Joseph had. The AV isspecific. The Ritchie commentary tells us that our AV translators had no idea what the Hebrewword 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 lesslikely 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.

Exodus 25: 31 (see also Revelation 1: 12)And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold.

An unfortunate blunder occurs in the Precious Seedpublication, Day by Day. In the reading forJune 6

th, 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 werefed with oil continuously.

But gold is self consuming. Did these writers not notice that the manufacture of a goldcandleSTICK 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 theywere translating?The oil was fed continuously! Only if a human being kept the flow going! Could a human being notremember to keep replacing a wax candle before it burnt out?The word Candelstikkewas in use before 1000AD. Candel originally meant light or torch. Themeaning 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 Eastons 1897Bible Dictionary

Num 23: 22God 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 showtheir ignorance. They have never heard of the Rhinoceros Unicornis which is also known as theAsian Rhinoceros. It has only one horn, hence its name. Simple isnt it?

Deuteronomy 1:1,5These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in thewilderness....

The NIV has "east of Jordan" instead of this side Jordan. Critics will argue that this is quitecorrect. It wason the east side of Jordan, in the wilderness, that Moses spoke to the children ofIsrael. 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 thewords this side are correct then Deuteronomy was written in the wilderness prior to theoccupation of Canaan, and could only have been written by Moses. By making this change theNIV is suggesting that though Moses spoke the words, they may not have been recorded until amuch later date. The RV (an obsolete version) read "beyond Jordan", declaring thereby thatMoses certainly did not write the book of Deuteronomy. Most other versions have somethingsimilar.So is this side a true translation? Those turning to a concordance might feel that doubt remainsbecause the Hebrew word is geh-verwhich may be translated "the other side", "the side of",


6/22

6

"beyond", "this side", etc. depending on the context. All translators therefore have to make ajudgment as to which word to use.There is no problem for the believer because Deuteronomy states that when Moses had made anend of WRITING the words of this law in a book, he commanded that the book be placed in theside of the Ark of the Covenant, (31:24). "This law" is the whole book of Deuteronomy, whichMoses began to declare on this side Jordan (1:5).The AV translators believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. They knew that Moses bothspoke and wrote Deuteronomy in the wilderness, east of Jordan, which from his point of view wasthis side. To translate any other wise is mischievous, deceitful, an abuse of the word of God. Itreveals a heart of blind unbelief and wilful opposition to the things of God. Such versions cannotbe trusted and need to be rejected in their entirety. The strange thing is that modern versions doacknowledge 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 weread o f his death and burial in the final chapter?" We patiently reply, "because God had told himall about it. Why don't you read the book?

Deuteronomy has been under attack very largely because of its prophetic character. Mosesforewarned 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 thenations. (As they are today).But they would be restored to their land at the coming again of theLord (30:1-5). Moses believed in the premillenial return of Christ. Those who do not believeMoses do not believe Christ. He said, Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for hewrote of me (John 5:46).Challenging the authorship of books of the Bible is the work of Higher Criticism. Those who holdto the NIV show that they are tainted by both Higher and Lower (Textual) Criticism. The twocannot be divorced.

Judges 6:11,12Gideon threshed wheat by the wine press, to hide it from the Midianites. And the angel ofthe Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man ofvalour.

Perversions of Scripture, from JND's New Translation (1878) onwards, and unbelievingcommentaries (What the Bible teaches; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, edited by W S Stevely and D EWest) would have Gideon threshing wheat IN the wine press, thus discrediting him and the angelof the Lord. There would have been nothing particularly valiant in this. It would have beenphysically impossible to THRESH wheat in a wine press, especially if he were using a stick, assome suggest. He might have trodden out a few grains for his own use but the reference to hisvalour tells us he was doing it for all Israel. No one else had sufficient courage to do what hewas doing, for fear of the Midianites. So he would need space. The Midianites would be watchingthe 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 mockeryof the truth. Reliable translations read "by".

1 Samuel 13:21Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for theaxes, and to sharpen the goads.

The charge for sharpening was a pimfor plowshares, mattocks, three-pronged forks, and axes,and for setting the goads. Jewish Study Bible.


7/22

7

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 AVTranslators did their best and came up with a translation of the verse, 'they had a file for themattocks'. In comparatively recent times, however, as Alan Millard has reminded us in a veryinteresting 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 withthe letters pym- just like years ago we used to see big brass weights in butchers' shops stampedwith the letters 1lb, or 2lbs. From the weight of these ancient Hebrew weights it was easy todeduce 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 forthe mattocks', but' and a charge was a pym for the ploughshares'.... We should be grateful to Godfor the work of archeologists and scholars which enable us to obtain ever more exact and preciserenderings 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 textin which the word pymoccurs nowhere. It is therefore not a Bible word. The Hebrew word foundin 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 attachedto 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 Biblemutilators 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 isthe Authorized Version. One blemish alone would make it unholy, but there are no flies in thisprecious ointment. I do not need ungodly and apostate men scrabbling in the dirt for MY bible tobe 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!) yetthey had a file which maybe they had hidden from the Philistines. Just as Saul and Jonathan hadmanaged 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 inJerusalem. And his mothers name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chron.22:2Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year inJerusalem. His mothers name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

The Bible critics love these verses as they seem (to them) to be a plain contradiction. Theyreason for this contradiction (they say) is that some careless scribe made the error, writing fortytwo instead of twenty two in 2 Chronicles.This is very strange because most of the alterations in the manuscripts are made by scribescorrecting earlier errors (so they tell us). But they missed this one. So one scribe got it wrong andfor 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 wordof God had been altered.There was no possibility of a scribal error. Those who think so deny the verbal inspiration ofScripture. The suggestion of scribal error is made out of ignorance because the Jews and theMasoretes took a most exquisite care in copying the manuscripts. Any mistake would have beeninstantly noted and the whole page destroyed and rewritten. The same care was taken with theNew Testament documents.The believer accepts the word of God as it stands. He may not always understand it and may notalways have a slick answer to explain away difficulties. But he does believe it. We do not have tohave an answer in order to believe what we read on the holy page. We believe it and then wait


8/22

8

for the Holy Spirit to teach us.But the difficulty is not so great with these verses. Here is one very simple explanation. TheChronicler 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 continuingconflict he was not able to occupy the throne until he was forty two. And then it was necessary forthe inhabitants of Jerusalem to intervene. A reason for this is given by Bullinger in his CompanionBible:-Forty and two years old = a son of forty-two years: i.e. of the house of Omri, on account of hisconnection with it through his mother (832-790=42). In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziahs actual age(twenty-two years) is given when he began to reign (790) during the two years of his fathersdisease. His father, Jehoram, was thirty-two when he began to reign with Jehoshaphat, two yearsbefore the latters 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; hisfather being sixteen years old.

Some like to tell us that there were two Ahaziahs, uncle and nephew, and that sometimes closerelatives are counted as having the same parentage.It has also been pointed out that Ahaziah is sometimes referred to as Azariah and that 2Chron.21:2 tells us of two Azariahs, both sons of Jehoshaphat. Bullingers explanation seemsthe most likely. In any case we know that the Bible is true.

Nehemiah 4: 23None 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 MTreading the waters to in his right hand or they held on the right side)ESV each kept his weapon at his right handJERUSALEM 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 theHebrew for this clause is uncertain.

There are a number of versions and translations that agree with the AV. Among them are theBishops Bible, Geneva Bible, Newberry Bible, and also the Latin Vulgate and RC Bibles. The RVfootnote gives the game away! It is not a matter of some Hebrew manuscripts having a differentreading The Massoretic Text (MT) is accepted here but the scholars dont like it. Bear in mindthat most of these scholars are unconverted men. The AV translators had little problem with thetext and the way the AV reads makes perfect sense. The AV margin (Or, everyonewent with hisweapon for water) shows that the translators were aware of a possible alternative meaning butgave it less weight.The alterations to the AV made by the critics demonstrates that they do not trust any Bible to bethe inspired word of God.

Darbys 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 hisdagger on his right thigh. It was one cubit in length. It is not possible to draw such a weapon fromthe right side with the right hand; even less so a full length sword. This is enough to show upDarbys ignorance. He made up his own reading.

Job 28:2Iron 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 mayimply a mining activity but the Hebrew does not actually say so. Therefore a false translation is


9/22

9

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 intothat of liberals". (Our Bible Vindicated; p.104)The NEB suggests in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure, but the AV translators never thoughtso. The word is not uncommon in the OT and is translated consistently in relation to torrents ofrunning water, (Ps.18:4, 74:15, etc.). So JND and a host of others perpetuate the error. Lest anyshould think there really is uncertainty in the meaning of the Hebrew word, let a company ofmodern orthodox Jews have the last word. In 1988, in Jerusalem, they published a bible basedon the most accurate Masoretic text available (they say) in which the word nah-ghalis translated"watercourse". I have the book in front of me. It is a parallel Hebrew/English edition, known as theJerusalem Bible. (Not the RC one by that name!).

Psalm 8: 4,5What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Forthou hast made him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory andhonour.

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 humanisitictranslation. This is born out by the reading in Hebrews 2: 6,7 where the Greek word aggeloswhich can only be translated angels. The ESV has angels here with no footnote so plainlythey did not need one in Psalm 8.

Psalm 16:10For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.

This verse is quoted by Peter in Acts 2:27 where the Greek word hadesis translated "hell". Thuswe see that the OT sheolis equivalent to the NT hadesmeaning hell. But hell is an unpopularword among the critics so it must be removed. We are assured by these critics that any changesare 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 hadesmean? But heconfesses that he does not know. I quote from his dictionary, "It has been thought by some thatthe word etymologically meant the unseen (from a negative, and eidoto see), but this derivationis questionable; [by whom?] a more probable derivation is from hado, signifying all-receiving". Hiswords "more probable" means that he hadn't got a clue and his guess is no better than anyoneelse'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 burningside. When Christ rose He took Paradise with Him. But this is mere conjecture. There is no versethat says any such thing.That hell (sheol) was not all embracing can be seen from Ps.9:17.The wicked shall be turned intohell. 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 goDOWN into sheol(See Bible margin; grave=hell).Ps.49:14. That was for the wicked. He expectedto 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. Somesuggest 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 nothelp us at all. The scholars put it in because they don't know what it means! But they do knowwhat hell means, and that may be why they fear the word and leave it out.The Greek word gehennais also translated "hell" in the AV, e.g. Mt.5:29 The whole body shall be


10/22

10

cast into hell. Comparing Scripture with Scripture we note that the body is not cast into thehades/hell. It is the soul which goes down into that hell. Gehennarelates to the Lake of Fire intowhich hades/hell will eventually be cast, Rev.20:14. There death and hell give up their prey, thebody 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 wordbeing used to translate two different Greek words. The fire of hell is for ever. Just use yourconcordance and look up all the references and the meanings become clear. There is no need totamper with the translation.

Psalm 45: 13The kings daughter is all glorious within

The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace. NKJVIn her chamber, the royal daughter is all glorious. HCSB (HolmanChristian 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 addedwords, 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 Greektranslations and he thinks v.13 is possibly corrupted. In any case he thinks vv 12 to 16 are aninterpolation. Most modern versions carry similar additions to the text as the above three.

What the Bible mutilators dont want you to think is that the kings daughter has an inward purity.Very grievously, the commentaries (William McDonald and others take their wisdom from theperverted versions. This is the benefit of modern scholarship. Jim Flanigan tells us this within isdisputed. (What the Bible Teaches; Psalms; J. Ritchie.)Flanigan doesnt believe the Book on which he bases his commentary.

Psalm 58:1Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons ofmen?

A commentator tells us,

It is universally agreed that the opening words of the Psalm are obscure. The word which by theAV is rendered congregation (482) is the word elem, and is found elsewhere only once, in thetitle of Psalm 56, Jonath-elem-rechokim. .Apart from those who argue a textual corruption it isagreed by all others that the word is elemand 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 inorder to promote their own rationalistic views and to ape the apostate scholars. Bible believerssee no obscurity and accept the verse as it stands. The AV translators saw no obscurity for theymade 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 forguidance on the best modern views [my italics] of word meanings and similar matters. all itHowever 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 callit Scripture) then it is mischief of a high order for them to question it and alter it as they repeatedly


11/22

11

do. But in this day of double talk, when they say Bible they dont mean what I understand by theword Bible. Their bible is a nebulous thing, not confined to a single version or translation. They donot believe that the word of God in its entirety is to be found between the covers of one singleBook. This is the view held and taught not only among the liberal but also by those once regardedas 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 itspresence in the English Bible. The believer does not call into doubt the words that he finds on theholy page of Scripture. Let our modernist friends attempt to justify their alteration. They tell usthey rely on modern views.They turn to H F W Gesenius (1786-1842), a noted German rationalistic theologian. His lexiconwas 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, havingsprung 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 thosebetween 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 Vindicatedp104.

Psalm 84:3Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she maylay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King and my God.

Mr H. Paisley, (brother of Ian who doesbelieve 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 thingsmost holy unto the Lord. The reading of the text in the AV and RV would infer the possibility, butthe law of the altar prohibits such an action of birds building nests in or around the altars. Thepassage 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 ahouse, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she might lay her young) Even thine altars, Olord 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 Iknow of and I looked at several. Paisley doesn't cite one. He doesn't tell us what this anti-bird lawis either. Men who do not understand the Scriptures frequently seek to mutilate it to fit their ownwhim and fancy.The Psalmist, probably David in exile, longed to enjoy what the sparrows and the swallows freelyenjoyed. I believe my Bible. I don't need anybody to tell me what must be read into it. I accept thepage 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 ofdegrees for Solomon).

Some modern versions read A Song of Ascents. But some of our brethren , wishing to appearerudite and thereby displaying their ignorance, change it to A Song of THE Degrees. They pointout that the Hebrew definite article is present. (Ask them to show it to you in a Hebrew Bible. Thatwill flummox them! ) Certainly the definite article is present but if they think that the AV translatorswere not aware of this then they must think the Bible was translated by imbeciles. Those AVtranslators were master linguists. And dont swallow the modernistic lie that not much Hebrew orGreek was known in those days.


12/22

12

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 thats why it was omitted in the English translation.The critic next has to look for an interpretation. His theory is if he doesnt understand a word orsentence 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 correctlytranslated. The response from the critic will be to ask you what it means. They dont know. TheBible is right or wrong according to the critics understanding. The believer accepts the word ofScripture whether he understands it or not. He waits on the Spirit of God to reveal the meaning tohim. He approaches the Scriptures in faith.So the critic gives us a fanciful interpretation for his song of THE degrees. The only degrees ofwhich we read in the Bible are the degrees on the sundial of Ahaz, by which the sun wentbackward in the says of his son Hezekiah....Scripture knows of no other steps or degrees thatcan be connected with the shadow of the sun, says one commentator, quoting a Dr Thirtle. Thisreally is convoluted thinking. Where in Scripture do we read that the Psalmic degrees have tobe connected thus?In fact the statement that the only degrees mentioned in Scripture are those pertaining to thesundial of Ahaz is false.We find the same word for degrees (mah-lh) used over forty times in the Old testament. It istranslated steps, stairs, to go up, things that come into, stories, and degrees.Ahazs 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 Biblemockers.So what about the SIX steps of 1 Ki.10: 19; the SEVEN steps of Ezek. 40: 22; the EIGHT steps ofEzek. 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 asanother false teacher tried to tell us. They were probably all Davids, written about 250 yearsbefore Hezekiah came along. Neither do these fifteen psalms relate to the fifteen steps of thetemple. 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, Itis he that buildeth his stories (as in the stories of a house RS) in the heaven. these psalmsare 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 Gods people to live together in harmony. (Amity bible NRSV?)

The ungodly masses of humanity like to refer to themselves as Gods people. But this livingtogether in harmony hasnt existed since Cain slew his brother. However, brethren (the termimplying all of ONE family) are able to DWELL TOGETHER (implying or more settled state thanmere living) in UNITY (implying a far higher standard than mere harmony.)Amitys abuse of Scripture carries political undertones.

Ecclesiastes 3:11He 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 theHebrew word goh-lahm (Strongs 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 theAV 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) withoutend).. B Currie writes,

The first use in the Old Testament gives a clue as to how [gio-lahm] should be understood:


13/22

13

and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever (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 Adamwould 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 applicabletoday. The servant for ever is servant no more (Deut.15:17). There is a time factor on the wholeof 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 temporalworld, from the beginning of time to its end in which men cannot find out the work of God. Thelast 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 cannotfind 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, 4He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: and wehid as it were ourfaces 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-rackedand afflicted by disease...while we thought of him as smitten by God, struck down by disease andmisery.

This is one of the most highly blasphemous perversions of Scripture I have come across. TheREB is teaching that Christ was riddled with disease and men though he deserved it. But theycame to realise he was struck down with disease for their sakes. One must have a diseased mindto 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 , BibleSociety, 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 AVtranslation in Isaiah 3:3,4. All the words are in plain non-archaic English, easy to be understood.

Isaiah 7:14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and beara son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

A comment on this verse, found on the internet site Truth and Tidings, for October 2001, revealsthe inevitable fruit of textual criticism. Readers are told that Isa.7:14 doesnt mean what it plainlysays, that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The word virgin is clearly understood by all tomean a pure young woman who has never known a man. But the Truth and Tidings implication is

that almahis a vague word with more than one meaning. In which case the Hebrew Bible lacks aword equating to our English virgin. almahoccurs 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 bearingchildren conceived, all would reply, some sign!.The Angel of the Lord told Joseph unequivocally, that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was to befulfilled in the birth of Christ. Joseph clearly believed this. Isaiah knew that the prophecy did notrelate to himself. He never called his son Immanuel. He did relate verse 15 to the subject of verse14, without allowing the possibility of double fulfillment. We have no problem with this either. Luketells us that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom. (2:40). Luke speaks ofthe Lord in His humanity; His growth as a child.


14/22


15/22

15

Let J Riddle have the final word;

The everlasting FatherWhilst this is often quoted as the Father of eternity (following JND)the AV rendering appears to convey the meaning more accurately. ....the title states thatGods people will never lack the divine love and care of a true father.

What the Bible Teaches; Isaiah p.171

Isaiah 14: 12, 15How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! ... Yet thou shalt bebrought down to hell.

Floyd Nolen Jones wrote the following concerning these verses. I quote them here to give ananswer to the false notion given by D Oliver in Truth and Tidings, August 2006, that Lucifer maybe referred to as the Old Testaments Morning Star.(We see how the blind acceptance of modern versions demonstrated repeatedly in the abovementioned 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 broughtdown to the grave.

Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly likethe NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Churchas 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 inhell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the samebeing. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the onlyreference to his true identity in the entire Bible yet the change in these versions is not theresult of translation from the Hebrew language.The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as isfound in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published).The NIV, NASB et al. read as though theHebrew was kokab shachar, ben shacharor "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of themorning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star -kokabnowhere to be found in the text,"morning" appears only once as given in the KJB . [the ESV also reads, how are you fallenfrom 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 knowthat kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morningstars). 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 forLucifer) 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 JesusChrist is the "morning star" or "day star" (II Pet. 1:19, cp. Luk. 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning thesun not the planet Venus.

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


16/22

16

Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star doesnot find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he isconnected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14is 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 ultimateblasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing II Peter 1:19 in thereference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers toChrist Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel, lleyh) does not mean "morning star". It isLatin (from luxor 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 heavenlybody.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer isSatan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone setsthe King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is anachievement 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 greatlyalarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern hasbeen 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: 12Woe 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 ofadmiration], the thunder of many peoples! . JND doesnt like woe either so he has Ha! A tumultof many peoples! Ha can be an expression of joy.We do know that the AV translates the Hebrew word hoh-eeas ah in seven places. This is whyit 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 aCambridge AV Bible with this woe printed in capitals. My facsimile 1611AD does not havecapitals and I cannot find the word capitalised in any other edition. It is the practice for the firstword in each chapter to be capitalised and as a new paragraph begins at 17: 12 this may be thereason for capitals here. However, new paragraphs are indicated by the symbol and capitals arenot needed.

Isaiah 38: 8

Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial ofAhaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it wasgone down.

Most modern versions and parodies of Scripture read similar to the GNB On the stairway builtby King Ahaz, the LORD will make the shadow go back ten steps. And the shadow moved backten steps.The Hebrew word translated degrees is maalah (Str.4609). I could find no manuscript variants.Modern versions accept this word but translate it steps. The word dial is also maalahwhich


17/22

17

word is found translated steps in Ex.20: 26, Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto minealtar.The modern translators therefore jump to the conclusion that Ahazs sun dial was a succession ofsteps on which the length of the shadow would indicate the hour. Actually a post knocked into flatground would have served the same purpose. The length of the shadow would be measuredmore effectively.But the modern men are making gobble-de-gook of the Scripture. These mighty steps would needto be swung through 180o at midday, otherwise there would be no shadow at all for the rest of theday.Persisting in this nonsense some tell us that Davids songs of degrees (Psalms 120-134) werecomposed on these steps. David lived more than 200 years before Ahaz.The AV translators were well aware that maalah has a variety of meanings. Here is a third; 1Chron. 17: 17, a man of high degree.The Egyptians had invented a sun dial long before the days of Ahaz. Perhaps his sun dial wasbased 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 180

oat midday. (See sundial:

Enc. Brit.)Textual critics are proven deceivers. Beware.

Isaiah 53: 5.and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 52: 15So 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 Kittels footnote to this verse, in his Biblia Hebraica;( myed. 1909.)The variant is thaumasontai from the Greek Septuagint and means startle. There are no othervariants. This is an interpretation and is not a translation of the Hebrew word nazah meaning

sprinkle.nazahis consistently translated sprinkle in the OT. (24 times) and can apply to blood, water, , andoil, in a good or bad sense. Note the first reference; Ex. 29: 21 and thou shalt take of the bloodthat 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 thefirst 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 greatastonishment.

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 Messiahsatonement. Old Testament Word Studies

William Macdonald, in his Believers Bible Commentarygives,

But when He comes again men will be startled (NKJV marg.)


18/22

18

In many places Macdonald takes the line of rationalism. His commentary is best avoided. TheBible Knowledge Commentaryby John Walwoord is much more reliable. It is available online tothose 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 ofChrist upon the cross. The Hebrew word chabburahtranslated stripes in Isaiah is singular asalso is the Greek word molopestranslated stripes in 1 Peter. Some critics make a great play ofthis, suggesting that the AV translators were confused. But they had Wycliffe who in 1 Peterreads bi whos wane wounde ye bin heelid. They were also fluent in Hebrew and Greek.Wycliffe had only Jeromes 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 versionsincluding the NASB and Darby.

Dave Hunt, in his November 04 Newletter makes a great play of this alleged error in the KJVpointing out that the MacArthur Study Bible shows the word to be singular and a number ofeminent scholars wrote in to confirm this. Well 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 behealed by the stripes that men laid on the Saviour; rather, our God laid one stripe upon Him whichhas brought our healing. But men nailed Him to the cross and the Scriptures speak much of thecross. Men put Him to death but He said, concerning His life, no man taketh it from me. I lay itdown of my self. Of course our salvation lies in what Christ did for us. It could not depend on theactions of wicked men. All that He endured was according to Gods predeterminate will andcounsel.

Our translators knew what they were doing and were also masters of the English language. ByHis 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 thesethings.

Some of our brethren take exception at the thought of God creating evil. They reject the plainstatement 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 theground made the LORD to grow....the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Its fruit wasforbidden, but God created it!Jacob, concerning Joseph, thought an evil beast hath devoured him. Gen. 37: 33. He would nothave 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 understandthe Scriptures and they do not understand the nature of God.

God cannot sin and ragdoes not imply the presence of sin. It may simply be adversity, orrottenness the evil figs of Jer. 24: 8 were not sinful we presume. Evil is everything which is notgood, 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 theywould save themselves a lot of embarrassment.


19/22

19

Jeremiah 17:15The 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 theRV to 'the heart is desperately sick'. turning the man into an object of a weak compassion wherethe 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 asdesperately wicked, which is why we do not red anywhere in their biographies of a conversiontaking 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 2Sam.l2:15.Critics will rush to tellus that the AV Bible therefore contradicts itself'. We point out that the AVtranslators clearly had a grasp of the various shades of ' meaning in the word ah-nash'. Physicallyit relates to disease; spiritually it relates to morality. Deceit is immoral and cannot he associatedwith 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 mymouth! 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. Theywere sweeter than honey, so the precepts were not irksome to him. It was a joy and nourishmentto 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 hateevery 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 isdeceptive, counterfeit, treacherous.

The wrong path may be no more than inconvenient at the time. Modern versionism is a falseway.

Jeremiah 23:30Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every onefrom his neighbour.

The neighbour in this context was the ordinary man who should have been taught the word ofGod by the prophet. The neighbours therefore were the common people, but they were happywith what their prophets and priests were giving them. So, in Jer.8:8,9 we read, the pen of thescribes in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejectedthe word of the Lord.The result of this infidelity brought disaster to Israel. National life was destroyed and the peoplewent 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 thesame-a professing, but apostate, Christendom, disowned of the God of Heaven.The critics and modern versionists steal Gods 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 whoprefer the NKJV or the NIV is ungodliness, worldliness, and immorality. The judgment of Godis against such.What will the NIV make of Jeremiahs words? Therefore, declares the Lord, I am against theprophets 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 callDynamic Equivalence.The meaning itself is changed to what the NIV thinks Jeremiah meant tosay. What they were stealing, says the NIV, may not have come from God at all, there is somedoubt in it. So they reject the preceding verse, Is not my word like as a fire? Saith the Lord; andlike a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?


20/22

20

The NIV verse regards this as no more than infighting among the prophet fraternity, stealing fromone another. Perhaps the NIV thinks it is no more than plagiarism . The prophets were doing whatthe NIV does, i.e. giving false words to the people and passing it off as the word of God.

Jeremiah 31: 22How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created anew 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 thehouse round. Gen. 19: 4A 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 ofChrist, because no man is involved in this creatorial act. It is a new creation on the Lords part.

.... A transformed woman will embrace the transforming God. The Message (MSG)....A woman will protect a man Gods Word. Is this a new thing?? It is certainly not Gods 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 Birthteaching in the verse; or, will go about seeking, or, will protect

William MacDonald in his Believers Bible Commentary, which is based on the NKJV denies thereis any reference here to the virgin birth. He claims The woman here is Israel and the man isJehovah... the prediction is that the virgin of Israel will cease to go hither and thither after idolsand will seek and cleave to Immanuel.Those who read the prophecy of Jeremiah may note that about 40 times the nation is urged toreturn. RETURN, RETURN, RETURN. But this is to be a NEW creation so how can they returnto a relationship that never before existed? Had Israel NEVER enjoyed a close relationship withGod?If God can reverse the backslidings of a nation through a creatorial act why has He not alreadydone so? What love is this?

He goes on to quote Kelly (but does not identify which Kelly. J N D Kelly, William Kelly?) adevout scholar of undoubted orthodoxy, explains why a popular interpretation is notvalid...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 theMessiah from a virginWilsons Old Testament word Studies. Kregel.The man here is gheh-bermeaning a warrior or valiant man. The word is not used in relation todeity. But when we come to Isaiah 9: 6 which is an unequivocal reference to the virgin birth ofChrist, we find another word used from the same root as gheber-ber. It is unto us a child isborn, unto us a son is given.... The mighty( ghib-bore) God.Now we shall add our QED.

Daniel 3:25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and theyhave 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 heknew the Angel of the Lord, referred to in v28, to be the Son of God. He did not say in v25, thefourth is the Son of God but he was saying that the fourth person in that fiery furnace had theappearance of One who could not possibly be any other than the Son of God. Believers today


21/22

21

have no doubt either that it was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who stood with the threein their hour of need. We believe the manifestation of the Son of God was for Nebuchadnezzarsbenefit as well as for the three.J N Darby had different views. He translated the phrase as, the appearance of the fourth is like ason of God. He gives a footnote to this verse, which reads. Or of the gods Elah, Aramaic, inthe plural, corresponding to the Hebrew Elohim. ( in which case Genesis 1:1 might well be in thebeginning some gods (elohim) created the heavens and the earth). Darby grievously alignedhimself with the Russellite (JW) perversion which reads the appearance of the fourth one isresembling 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 withreference to his God. The meaning in v25 is made crystal clear by the context.If the critics argue about the inclusion of the definite articleo the Son of Godo when one is notpresent in the original, they align themselves with the Russellites who in John 1:1 have the Wordwas a god which is a key statement in the JW heresy.

Amos 3: 3Can 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 oftogether, yakh-adis in Gen. 13: 6, the land was not able to bear them that they might dwelltogether. The meaning is being with each other, and not moving towards each other as modernversions teach. This latter produces a false idea that distance (from God, or my brother) does notmatter as long as the intention is to meet up on some common ground. It is based on Strongsdefinition 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 isdisagreement 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 shewas in disagreement because of her iniquities and so the walk together was disrupted.

Zech.5:6This is their resemblance through all the earth.

The reliability of the OT Scriptures has never been seriously challenged until recent times. Theexquisite care of the Jews in transmitting the text from generation to generation was too wellmanifested for any attempt to falsify it in any part. The English translation in the AV Bible isacknowledged to be a 100% accurate translation of that text. It is a serious error therefore to thinkthat the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures commonly known as the Septuagint issuperior. Even liberal scholars are ready to admit that the Septuagint is a very defectivetranslation. 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 AVtranslation. 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-vohnwithout anyauthority. There is no ms. in existence with that reading. Darby notes this alternative but relegatesit to a footnote without changing the text. The NIV has "iniquity" in the text, and appearance" in afootnote. It is the NRSV-Catholic Edition which reads "this is their iniquity in all the land" and thatis 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 wordsto suit their own interpretations, then the great apostasy is well and truly upon us. Read the


22/22

22

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 themidst of the ephah; this is their resemblance; this is wickedness. It is wickedness personified.

Zechariah 9: 16, 17And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shallbeas the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land. For how great ishisgoodness, and how great ishis beauty! corn shall make the young men cheerful, and newwine the maids.

The words in v.17, in the AV reading above, For how great ishis goodness, and how great ishis beauty! are altered in modern versions as shown below, robbing Christ of His goodness andgreat beauty.

How very beautiful they will be NIrV.Then how theyll shine, shimmer, glow! The MessageHow 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

av verses ot to 56

Documents