Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:104-105)
Now, let me first say this. I’m not one of those who believes that we should throw out or burn all the modern translation of the bible. For I do believe that God can speak to us even through the most corrupt translations out there. So, even if you do read a poor translation, you’re still able to see God’s plan of salvation unfolding through its pages. However, we should make it our aim to read those translations that more accurately represent what God is saying to us.
Now, my bible of choice is the King James Bible. This is because I do believe that the King James bible is the most literal translation available to us today when it comes to “PROPER” word usage. However, even though I do use it as my base text for reading and studying, I do find myself at times trusting the accuracy of other translations more in certain passages. So, that should make it clear that I’m not a King James only person, nor do I believe that its translation is infallible. This is also true when it comes to the Septuagint bible. For even though I do use it at times, I don’t believe that it’s 100% perfect.
I would like to make you aware of some scriptures that were (and still are) part of both the 1560 Geneva bible and the 1611 King James bible. And even though Jesus himself quoted from these scriptures, they were removed a few hundred years later. So, what scriptures am I talking about? Well, it’s the scriptures that are found in the Septuagint bible. Now, even though the modern Protestant church has rejected these scriptures, they are still used and regarded as scripture by the Greek Orthodox Church of today.
Now, the Septuagint bible is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was written around 300 years before Christ by Jews. And as mentioned earlier, I do include the Septuagint bible in my studies of the Old Testament. And in some cases, I even prefer it over the Masoretic text. This is due to the fact that there are inconsistencies in the Masoretic text. For it doesn’t always line up with passages quoted by the authors of the New Testament. Also, it contains errors such as the ones found in the genealogy of Seth. And let’s keep in mind that the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew scriptures around 300 years before the birth of Christ by Jews. On the other hand, the Masoretic text we have today came about almost 1000 years after the resurrection of Christ by the Masoretic Jews. Therefore, I study both in the Septuagint as well as the Masoretic text. But as said before, I mostly prefer the Masoretic text when it comes to proper word usage. For I find it more literal in its translation and that it has a better choice of words.
Below are some passages found in the New Testament which are quotes from the Old Testament. I have compared the Septuagint and the Masoretic text for each New Testament passage they represent. Now, I do realize that a few of the passages in the Masoretic text below still give us the gist of the message. However, I still included them to show that the Septuagint text is almost always word for word when it comes to New Testament quotes.
New Testament quote from Matthew 4:4:
New Testament quote from Matthew 12:20-21:
New Testament quate from Matthew 13:15 KJV:
New Testament quote from Matthew 15:8-9:
New Testament quote from Luke 4:18-19:
New Testament quote from Acts 2:26-27:
New Testament quote from Acts 7:43:
New Testament quote from Act 15:15-17:
New Testament quote from Romans 11:9:
New Testament quote from Roman 15:12:
New Testament quote from Hebrews 1:6:
New Testament quote from Hebrew 2:7:
New Testament quote from Hebrews 10:5-7:
New Testament quote from Hebrew 11:21:
New Testament quote from Hebrews 13:6:
New Testament quote from 1 Peter 4:18:
Now we come to the Dead Sea Scrolls and their role in supporting the Septuagint. For according to the article “The ‘Original’ Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls” on the Biblical Archaeology Society website, we can see that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually support the Septuagint text.
For Noah Wiener writes: “Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually have more in common with the Greek Septuagint than the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text. This suggests that the Greek translators must have been translating from Hebrew texts that resembled the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then, Noah goes on and give us an example of one of the Dead Sea Scrolls that contains a clue to the accuracy of the Septuagint by quoting a question that was given to Emanuel Tov, which is: “Did Hannah bring one bull or three bulls as an offering at Shiloh? (1 Samuel 1:24)”
So, what was Emanuel Tov answer? Well, he said: “When the infant Samuel had been weaned and his mother, Hannah, finally came to Shiloh with her son, she also brought with her an offering for the Lord that is described in two ways in our textual sources. According to the Masoretic Text, she brought ‘three bulls,’ but according to the Septuagint and a Qumran scroll (4QSama from 50– 25 B.C.E.) she brought one ‘three-year-old bull.”
“I believe that Hannah probably offered only a single bull (as in the Septuagint and 4QSama); supporting this choice is the next verse in the Masoretic Text which speaks about ‘the bull.’ I believe the Masoretic Text was textually corrupted. ...The evidence of the Septuagint, being in Greek, always depends on a reconstruction into Hebrew, and consequently the Qumran scroll here helps us decide between the various options. Incidentally an offering of a ‘three-year-old bull’ is mentioned in Genesis 15:9. It shows that a Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint once existed in which Hannah brought only one three-year-old bull”
So, according to Noah Wiener, the Masoretic text was showing its own error. For we don’t see anywhere about a three-bull requirement in the law of Moses. For as mentioned above, the Masoretic text itself says in Genesis 15:9: “And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old.”
Now, for something else that might get controversial. I do believe that the writings of the Apocrypha are part of the God’s inspired scriptures. Now, I’m not talking about the one in the Catholic bible, but the one you can still find in today’s copies of the 1560 Geneva bible and the King James Bibles. These bibles are still available for purchase today at places such as Christianbooks.com or even Amazon. And as mention before, the King James bible had the Apocrypha in it since day one of the original 1611 version. This is also true for the Geneva Bible as well.
So, if those brilliant, learned men who translated the 1560 Geneva bible as well as those of the 1611 felt that it was good to include the Apocrypha in their translation, who are we to say otherwise. However, around the 1800 hundreds, certain publishers started printing some bibles without the apocrypha in it. And what is interesting is, there was a renewed interest in the Olympics around this same time these were removed. So, could this have brought about the removal of the Apocrypha? I ask this because contained within the Apocrypha is the books of Maccabees, and within these pages are the condemning of sport activities. But that being said, there are those publishers who still rightfully include it in their versions of the King James and even the Geneva Bible. And yes, as mentioned earlier, Jesus himself quoted from the Apocrypha.
Now, you may have heard someone preach to you about the three or four hundred years of silence. For they claim that this supposedly existed between the last recorded prophet of the Masoretic Old Testament and the New. Well, that’s a bunch of nonsense because the apocrypha books were written during those supposed “silent years.” Therefore, we see the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ stands true when he said: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” (Matthew 11:13) Yes, brothers and sisters in Christ, our Lord said that they would prophesy up to the time of John the Baptist. So why would we believe that they stopped at the prophet Malachi when Jesus Himself said otherwise? (see articles like at the bottom of this page for more details)
Below you will find some interesting cross references between the New Testament & the Apocrypha. (Please Note: Those that have an asterisk by them are quotes found in the margins of the original 1611 KJV bible. This shows me that the translators had a level of trust for the Apocrypha):
New Testament quote from Matthew 6:6-7*
New Testament quote from Matthew 6:19-21:
New Testament quote from Matthew 7:17, 20:
New Testament quote from Matthew 9:36:
New Testament quote from Matthew 23:34-38*
New Testament quote from Matthew 24:16-18:
New Testament quote from Matthew 27:42-43*
New Testament quote from Luke 14:13-14*
New Testament quote from James 5:4:
Below are some general cross references from the Apocrypha that are found in the margins of the 1611 bible. This again shows me that the translators had a level of trust for the scriptures of the Apocrypha.
New Testament passage being reference is John 10:22:
Apocrypha passage being referenced is 2 Esdras 5:2:
Apocrypha passage being referenced is 2 Esdras 8:3:
Below are some links on videos, articles and where to get a complete bible containing the NKJV New Testament and Septuagint Old. Now, I’m not personally involved in the Greek Orthodox Church. However, I do agree with them that the Septuagint and the apocrypha are the inspired word of God.
Note: if more references are found in the future, I’ll do my best to update this article to include them.
Sometimes you can mis out on what's really being said in your bible. For there seems to be some translators who feel that the "Litteral Meaning" in God's word can be offensive. And if that was so, why would God inspire them write it in the first place? So, to read a more literal wording, click the link below.
A few words to the reader
I would like remind you brothers and sister in Christ of the importance of God’s word that has been handed down to us from generation to generation. For there seems to be some corruption found in these newer modern translations of the bible. Now please don’t get me wrong, for I do believe that God can speak to us even in the most corrupted translation. However, by reading these inferior translations, we may not be getting the full meaning of the text.
Now, I would like to say that I do look to the King James Version for proper wording and for a more literal translation. I say this because it seems as though some newer versions find it offensive to use the literal words of scripture. Therefore, we may not get a clear picture of God’s message to us. Also, I found that some of these more modern versions have passages that are badly translated. Now, I’m not saying that my text of choice is perfect and the only one that we should be reading. For I do find myself agreeing with some of these other translations in certain areas. But again, we must be diligent and examine for ourselves the evidence within these different bibles we have before us. So, I encourage you to read on and grasp what being said here. Amen.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
In this passage of Isaiah, we have a description of Satan who is here referred to as “Lucifer” (light bearer) in the King James Bible as well as by some other versions of the bible. However, there are versions out there that make it confusing by calling him “morning star”or even “Day Star,” which are words used in the New Testament pertaining to Jesus Christ himself. Those other versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva, NKJV, Webster, DBY, as well as the Septuagint. The HNV uses the Hebrew word itself (heylel) and the YLT says “shining one,” thus I didn’t include them below.
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Here in Zechariah 13:6-7 we have a prophecy concerning our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In verse 7 we have the prophecy of what would take place on the night of his betrayal concerning him and his disciples (see Matthew 26:31). However, in verse six we read about the wounds that he would receive by those who accused him of being a false prophet. Now, in the literal Hebrew it says that the accused would receive these wounds in his “hands.” (See Psalms 22:16 and Luke 24:39). However, from what we can see from the majority of the more popular versions quoted below, this Hebrew word for hands is being change into words such as arms, back or chest.
So, my question is, isn’t there in the Hebrew language a literal word for these other choices used? I would have to say yes there is and I included them below. So, wouldn’t it make sense if God wanted any of these other words to be used, He would have had Zechariah use their literal words themselves? God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). It is also worth noting that the NASV has in its footnotes that the Hebrew is literally “hands.” So why didn’t they use it? Some other versions that also use the literal translation “hands” are the Septuagint by Benton, the Geneva bible, the original NKJV 1982 edition, the Webster, Darby, Young's, MKJV, and the UKJV bible.
Below we have those Hebrew words for “arm,” “back” and “breast.” Again, wouldn’t it make sense if any of these words were to be used, God would have put it on the heart of Zechariah the prophet?
Below are those other translations that refused to use the proper word “hands” in their text:
And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
Here we have Jesus showing love and compassion to a Leper. Both the old and modern versions I checked use the word “compassion” or “pity” except for the NIV. For the NIV uses the word “indignant” which is to show anger. What is interesting however, the NIV uses the words “pity” or “compassion” everywhere else this Greek word is being used. So, why didn’t they use it for that passage above also? This is poor scripture translating at best by the NIV translators.
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Here, we have John the apostle declaring that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. However, we have those other versions who are making things confusing by using the word “God” instead of the word “Son” here. But, didn’t John himself call Jesus the “only begotten Son” in John 3:16 and 18 as well as in 1 John 4:9 of his epistle? So, it doesn’t make sense why some translations would insert the word “God” in John 18 instead. Therefore, I believe it make more sense to use the word “Son” in reference to our Saviors relationship with the Father. Other versions that support this are the Geneva, NKJV, NIV, CSB, RSV, ASV, YLT, DBY, WEB, HNV.
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
In John 3:1-12, we have Jesus in a discourse with a Pharisee named Nicodemus. However, starting at verse 13 and ending at verse 21, John the apostle is giving us detailed information concerning Jesus after his death and resurrection. Now, in verse 13 we read that he went to the Father in heaven after his death and resurrection. However, there are those versions that leave out the last portion of the passage which reads: “which is in heaven.” But having that last portion makes it clear that John is talking about Jesus after his death and resurrection. Again, I believe that the KJV as well as the Geneva, NKJV, ASV, HNV, MKJV, UKJV, Darby, Young's, and the Webster bible have the correct wording.
But that all being said, almost all versions (even those mentioned above) make it even more confusing by making it at though Jesus was speaking in verses 13-21. However, I believe that the scriptures make it clear that this is not true. For Jesus told Nicodemus in verse 12, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” So, why would Jesus start speaking of heavenly things to the already confused Nicodemus? Therefore, it makes for sense that John was speaking in light of Jesus death and resurrection that already took place. Below are some bible versions that show John is the one who is speaking here, not Jesus.
Here are those versions that remove the words “who is in heaven” from their text. The NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NET, CSB, RSV and the NLT.
“I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.”
In that passage above, we read that Phebe is a “servant of the church in Cenchrea.” Now, there are some bibles versions use the words deacon or deaconess which is fine. For the bible clearly shows that women can serve within the church as well. However, the DBY version makes it confusing by using the word minister instead of servant or deacon. This seems deceptive because it appears as if Phebe is some leader in the church. But the truth of it is, she’s not. For the Greek word simply means a servant, waiter or an attendant. So that should make it clear that Phebe is not a Pastor, Teacher, Elder, Overseer or a Minister. Again, she is simply a servant (deacon) who is chosen to help serve in the church in one capacity or another.
Now as said above, scripture clearly shows that a woman can become a deacon. For in 1 Timothy 3:11 we have the requirement for a woman deacon: “In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” So, women that want to be deacons (servants) in the church must have these credentials. Unfortunately, we have other translations, including the KJV that make verse 3:11 to be the wives of the deacons. However, this is not true because we don’t see this being applied to the Elders wives a few verses earlier.
Now, a good example of a deacon would be the disciple Stephen who was chosen to be a helper in the church at Jerusalem as declared in the book of Acts chapter 6. He was appointed to serve tables (not the pulpit) in the church fellowship along with seven others as well. We can see this to be true in Peters own statement in this same chapter. For he being an Elder said: “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.” (Acts 6:2) So again, the word servant or deacon is a good translation.
Below is a version that’s trying to make Phoebe out to be some church leader:
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Now, we came to those words that are wrongfully toned down in the Bible. For we can see translators of the newer bibles changing the meaning of God’s word to maybe make it less “offensive” to the readers. But wait a minute. Are not these words inspired by God in the first place, and didn’t the original copies have them in there? So, if God inspired them to be there, who are we to change their meaning. For let's remember that our “Father knows best.” Amen.
So that being said, if we look at the original meaning of the words “filthy rags” we can see that it means just that. For these words in the Hebrew mean a “menstruated rag” which shows that even our best works are unclean before God. What is also interesting is that the CSB bible has in their notes that the literal meaning is “menstrual.” Then why not use it as does the NET bible which says: “We are all like one who is unclean, all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight. We all wither like a leaf; our sins carry us away like the wind.” Others that make this passage clear by using “filthy rags” are: NKJV, DBY, WEB, NLT, NIV and of course the clearest of them all, the NET. Below are those versions which have toned down the word of God.
Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to everyone that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms. Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbors, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.
Here in this passage of scripture above, we see God using the illustration of a whore giving herself over to fornication. For God used this illustration to expose Israel of her sins against him. Now, I would like to first point-out that the NIV makes it very clear on what’s being said here, for it reads: “At every street corner you built your lofty shrines and degraded your beauty, spreading your legs with increasing promiscuity to anyone who passed by. You engaged in prostitution with the Egyptians, your neighbors with large genitals, and aroused my anger with your increasing promiscuity.”Wow, I think this makes it very clear, don’t you?
So, I would have to admit that even the KJV translators have toned down this passage compared to the NIV version. Those versions that do make it somewhat clear (or clearer) are the: KJV, NIV, CSB, ASV, HNV.
Below are those versions that seem to think that the literal words are a little over the top for God’s people:
Below are the definitions of the Hebrew words use for “spreading your legs”:
Below are the definition of the Hebrew words for “great of flesh”:
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, andhim that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. (1 Kings 14:10)
Above, we have the KJV clearly showing that this passage is about the males in Jeroboam’s family. However, there are those bible versions where the translators are toning down God’s word. For they have removed the literal inspired words “pisseth against the wall” (or urinate in our modern English) and the word “dung” (which means poop) from the bible. And why? Do they think it’s offensive or inappropriate to use a word that God Himself inspired? We are not called to sterilize the Bible but to present it in all its truth.
Even though most translations do include the word “dung”in them, they still leave out the reference to “urinate.” However, they do make it clear that it is the males that God is talking about here. Those versions that use both the word “dung” and “males” are: NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NET, RSV, ASV DBY, WEB and HNV. However, as you can see below, the NKJV and the NLT do not convey much disgust as the scriptures intended. Nor does “those sitting on the wall” has anything to do with the male gender as the YLT has it.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
It’s so easy to follow traditions that have been handed down over the years. However, when those traditions involve the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we should make sure it is based on truth. So, let’s examine Matthew’s account of the genealogy. First off, according to the majority of today’s teaching, there is a big problem. For there are supposed to be three sets of fourteen generations. However, if we add all the names mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, we would see that it only has thirteen generations.
So, how can this be solved so that Matthew’s gospel would be true? Well, in the “Aramaic English New Testament,” Joseph is recorded as the “guardian” (or the “father”) of Mary instead of her husband. And in Luke’s account of the genealogy, Joseph would then be the literal son of Heli instead of his son-in-law as some proclaim. And the Aramaic translation is not alone in this. For the “Revised English Version” also shows that Joseph is the “father” of Mary in Matthew’s account as well. This would mean that Mary's father and husband both share the same names which wouldn’t be uncommon. For if we read through Luke’s genealogy account, there are others named “Joseph” throughout it as well.
Now, let’s remember that in the Greek, there is no distinct word for husband or for wife. It simply means a man or a woman. This would be true whether one is single or married. The only way to know how these words are being used is by the context of the passage itself. Therefore, one can be totally wrong by asserting that the passage in Matthew’s gospel is saying “Joseph the husband of Mary.” This would even be truer in light of the confusion surrounding the missing generation in Matthew’s account already covered above. But in the Aramaic language there is a distinct word for husband. And we see this word for husband being used in verse 19 but not in verse 16 of Matthew’s gospel. Therefore, the word used in verse 16 can mean a guardian or even father.
This all being said, Matthew’s account would be about Mary’s genealogy while Luke’s is about Joseph her husband. Therefore, I personally believe that these two translations (the Aramaic English New Testament, Revised English version as well as a few others) are declaring the truth. This would clearly solve the confusion surrounding these two genealogies. For there are one too many interpretations (which don’t make sense) that are trying to resolve the traditional account found in most of our bibles.
Below is Mathew 1:16 in the Aramaic English New Testament. Notice that Joseph is not referred to as the husband of Mary, but her “guardian” (or “father”) in the mentioned genealogy:
Below is the commentary section from the Aramaic English New Testament concerning what was mentioned above:
Below is the Revised English Version of Matthew 1:16. Notice that it says, “Joseph the father of Mary” instead of the “husband” of Mary which we find in many bibles:
Below is the commentary section of the Revised English Version bible:
So, in closing, I just want to remind you that there are so many false interpretations and watered down teachings that have crept into our churches over the years. This would be true whether it’s the Catholic church, Protenant church, or all the other churches out there. Therefore, it’s our job as Christians: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Yes, test all thing and be like those Bereans, for: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
So, the next time someone teaches you something from God’s word, go home and open up your own bible and test what was said. Pray that the Holy Spirit would open your eyes to discern truth from error. Therefore, be diligent to walk after the Spirit, and be: “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2)
Copyright © 2023 Word4Today - All Rights Reserved.