A Word to the Reader:
It is my intent fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, to remind you what Jesus said when he warned us about the doctrines of men. For he said: “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. ... How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matthew 16:6-7, 11-12) For there are those who teach of the “silent years” between the last recorded prophet in the Masoretic text and the preaching of John the Baptist. But didn't Jesus plainly declare: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13)? So, this shows us that there were those who prophesied and preached the law during those supposed three hundred years of silence. This of course is where the Apocrypha text of the bible comes in. For the Apocrypha is not only part of the Greek Septuagint, but was part of the Geneva as well as the King James bible which contained it for over 200 years (which you can still find in some new KJV bibles of today).
Now, let me first say this? I’m not one of those who believes that we should throw out all the modern bible translations. For I do believe that God’s plan of salvation can be revealed even through these other translations. However, we should make it our aim to read those translation that more closely represents what God is saying to us. So, from what I can see, the King James Bible is the most literal translation when it comes to word usage. However, I do find myself at times trusting other translations when it comes to passage originality. So, that should make it clear that I’m not one of those KJV only persons, nor do I believe that its translation is perfect or infallible.
So, building on what was mentioned above, I do also study the Septuagint Old Testament as well. And in some cases, I even prefer it over the Masoretic text which we find in almost all of today’s translations. This is due to the fact that there are inconsistencies in the Masoretic text when it comes to New Testament quotes. Also, it contains corruptions such as in the genealogy of Seth where it makes him outlive many of his descendants. And let’s keep in mind that the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew by Jews over 200 years before the birth of Christ. However, the Masoretic text we have today came hundreds of years after the resurrection of Christ by the Masoretic Jews. Therefore, I trust the Septuagint more than the Masoretic text because it’s closer to the time of the original manuscripts. But as said before, I do consult the Masoretic text when it comes to proper word usage. For I find the Masoretic text is more literal in its translation and has a better choice of words.
Below are some of those passages found in the New Testament which are quotes from the Old Testament. I have compared the New Testament, Septuagint and the Masoretic text. 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 it was the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text that the early church was using and quoting from. For we can see this because it’s almost always word for word between the New Testament and the Septuagint text. (see videos and articles below for more details on why we should include the Septuagint text in our daily reading)
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls, do they support the Septuagint? Well, 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 below:
“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, asking: “Did Hannah bring one bull or three bulls as an offering at Shiloh? (1 Samuel 1:24)” So Emanuel Tov goes on to answer saying:
"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, we can see from scripture itself that even the Masoretic text was showing its own error. For we don’t see anywhere about a three-bull requirement being offered in the law of Moses.
Now, A Case for the Apocrypha
Now for something else that might get controversial for some. I do believe that the writings of the Apocrypha are part of the God inspired scriptures. Now, I’m not talking about the one in the Catholic bible, but the one you can still find in copies of the 1560 Geneva bible and todays King James Bibles (Both of these bibles are still available for purchase today at: ChristianBook.com, thekjvstore.com or even amazon.com).
And please remember that the King James bible had the Apocrypha in it ever sense day one of the original 16ll 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. It wasn’t until around the 1800 hundreds that publishers started printing some bibles without the apocrypha in it. But thank God there are those publishers who still rightfully include it in their versions of the King James Bible today.
Now, you may have heard someone preach to you about the “300 years of silence” that supposedly existed between the last recorded prophet of the Masoretic Old Testament and the New. Well, 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.
And one more note on all what’s said above. The Septuagint Old Testament does contain the apocrypha which has been used by the Greek Orthodox Church for almost 2000 years.
Below you will find some interesting cross references between the new testament & the Apocrypha.
Below are some links on videos, articles and where to get a complete bible with the NKJV New Testament and Septuagint Old. And just to let you know, I’m not involved in the Greek Orthodox Church (except in sharing the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ). However, just as they do, I do except the septuagint over the Masoretic text and believe that the apocrypha (which is part of the septuagint) is the inspired word of God.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2)
A few words to the reader
I would like to remind you my fellow brothers and sister in Christ, of the importance of God’s word that has been handed down to us from generation to generation. Therefore, I would like to point out the slight changes made to God’s word in these newer modern translations. Now please don’t get me wrong. I do believe that God can speak to us even in these other bibles of today. However, by reading some of these other translations, you may not get the full meaning of the text. So, I encourage you to read on and lean more of what’s being said here. Oh, and just to let you know, I’m not saying that my text of choice (the King James version) is perfect and the only one I read. But again, we must be diligent and examine for ourselves the evidence within these different bibles we have before us. And that we must do with God’s help. Amen.
I first 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 the newer versions find it offensive to use the literal words which God himself used. However, God used those literal words so that we would easily get the point of his message. Also, I’ve found that some of these more modern versions have a few passages that are not properly translated as well. Anyway, you can see this for yourself below.
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
This passage in Proverbs above declares that the LORD possessed Wisdom in the beginning, before He made the earth. Here, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB rightly proclaims that truth and declares that Wisdom was never created, made, birthed or formed but “brought forth” (or to dance) during God's creating act. Reading the other versions quoted below can cause you to believe that there was a time that wisdom did not exist. Other versions that support the reading that “Wisdom always existed and was not created” are the Geneva, NASB, NKJV, ESV, ASV, HNV, MKJV, UKJV, Darby and the Webster bible.
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 our Creator Himself. For we read first: “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.” (Revelation 22:16 NKJV) Next we read: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19 KJV) 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 “heylel” and the YLT says “shining one,” thus I didn’t include them below.
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Here we have a prophesy of Jesus Christ himself. For he was the Word which was manifested in the flesh among us. Now in this verse in Micah, we are told that He was from “everlasting” which means He never had a beginning but always existed. This word “everlasting” in the Hebrew means a “vanishing point” or “eternity.” But if you would read some of these other translations quoted below, you may come to a different conclusion, even believing that Jesus had a beginning. Those versions that hold to the eternal existence of Jesus are the Geneva, ASV, DBY, HNV, Webster, NKJV, HCSB and the NASB bible.
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). Also, before this in verse six, we read about someone that would receive wounds upon himself by those who reject him. In the literal Hebrew, it says that he would receive these wounds in his “hands” at the house of his friends (see Psalms 22:16 and Luke 24:39). I, as well as others believe this is talking about our Lord Jesus who was crucified for our sins, having his hands nailed to the cross. (see commentators below)
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? Yes, of course there is, for we read in the Hebrew that is says: (a)The Hebrew for arm - zer-o'-ah the arm (as stretched out), or (of animals) the foreleg; figuratively, force. (b) The Hebrew for Back - gav; another form for H1460; the back:—back. (c) The Hebrew for breast (chest) - khad-ee'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H2373; a breast:— breast.
So, wouldn’t it make sense if God wanted any of these other words to be used, He would 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, wouldn’t it make sense for them to us the literal? Some other versions that also use the literal translation “hands” are the Septuagint, Geneva, the original NKJV (1982 edition only), Webster, Darby, Young's, MKJV, and the UKJV.
Commentators notes in reference to the passage above:
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 the Leper. The Geneva and all the modern versions I checked use the word “compassion” or “pity” for the feeling that Jesus had for the leper except for the NIV that says that Jesus was “indignant” which is to show anger. What is interesting however, is that the NIV uses this same Greek word everywhere else as having compassion or pity. This is poor scripture translating at work.
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 a clear declaration that only Jesus, the Son of God, has seen the Father and no other. However, we have other versions that make this passage confusing by using the word “God” instead of the word “Son” as quoted above. However, it makes more sense to use the word “Son” when referring to Jesus and his relationship with the Father. Other versions that use the word “Son” 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.
John, starting at verse 13 and ending at verse 21, is giving us detailed information concerning Jesus after his death and resurrection. Now, in verse 13 we read that Jesus went to the Father in heaven. However, there are those versions that leave out the last portion of the passage which reads: “which is in heaven.” However, this portion of passage is important to help us understand that it’s John (not Jesus) who is declaring that “the Son of man” is now in heaven. For John has written this in view of Christ’s death and resurrection which has already taken place. This thought follows through all the way to verse 21 as well. But again, these other versions make it appear that Jesus himself is declaring that he is now in heaven, thus making things confusing. However, we know that Jesus emptied himself (Philippians 2:5-8) of all his heavenly attributes, which would include his omnipresence. 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.
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
The word “servant” in the bible passage above means just that, a servant. However, bibles versions listed below are using the words deacon, deaconess or minister in this same passage. This can be confusing because it may appear as if she’s a leader in the church. But the truth is, she is simply a waiter or an attendant serving in one capacity or another in the assemble. A good example of this would be the disciple Stephen who was chosen to be a helper in the church at Jerusalem. For in the book of Acts chapter 6 we read that he was appointed to serve tables in the church fellowship along with seven others as well. We can see this to be true in Peter’s own statement in this same chapter. For he, being an Elder said that it would not be proper that he should leave the teaching of God’s word and serve tables. So, he made a clear distinction between a deacon who is a servant and an Elder who is a teacher and leader in God’s assembly (church).
Other versions that support KJV are the Geneva, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, CLNT as well as a few others. Therefore, these verses listed below should not be used as some sort of proof texts to show that a woman can have a leadership possession in the church.
1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Here in this passage we read that Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh (see John 1:14). The other translations quoted below fall short to point out this truth by using the word “He” instead of “God.” Yes, one may come to the same conclusion by reading these other versions. However, they fail to make it clear that he is that true image and likeness of God. Other bible versions that do include “God” are the Geneva, NKJV, YLT, DBY, WEB and the HNV.
We now came to those passages of the bible that have been toned down in various translations. For it seems that are some translators who feel the need to make God’s word less offensive to today’s readers. But aren’t these “offensive” words inspired by God in the first place? And did not the original copies contain them as well? 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.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness’s are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
If we look at the original meaning of the word “filthy rags” in that passage above, we can see that it means just that. For these words in the Hebrew mean a “menstruated cloth” 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.” Other translations that also make this passage clear are the NKJV, DBY, WEB, NLT, NIV and of course the clearest of them all, the NET.
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 above, we see God using the illustration of a whore giving herself over to fornication. This God did 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 the KJV translators even toned it down slightly compared to the NIV version. Those versions that do make it clear (or clearer) as the KJV in both verses 25 and 26 are: NIV, CSB, ASV, HNV. The NASB, NET, YLT, DBY, WEB only have it right in one verse or the other.
Below are those versions that seem to think that the literal words in this passage of scripture are a little over the top for God’s people.
1 Kings 14:10
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Is
You built your high places at the head of every road, and made your beauty to be abhorred. You offered yourself to everyone who passed by, and multiplied your acts of harlotry. You also committed harlotry with the Egyptians, your very fleshly neighbors, and increased your acts of harlotry to provoke Me to anger. – NKJV
Here we can see another example of toning down God’s word. Instead of using the inspired word “pisseth” (or in modern English, urinate), as well as the word “dung” (fecal matter), the publishers felt the need to change this and thus obscure (maybe not intentionally) its true meaning. Why would it be offensive or inappropriate to use a words that Got Himself inspired? For 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” as the KJV has it. However, they do make it clear that it’s the males that God is talking about here. Those versions that do obscure the meaning in one form or another are listed below.
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)