Bible Babel Buffet part 3
By Will Kinney
By Will Kinney
Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."
Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.
There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the French Martin of 1744 - “le CHRIST sera retranché, mais non pas pour soi”, the Reina Valera 1865 Angel de Mora, the 1909 Reina Valera Victoriano Baez, and the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez bible - “Daniel 9:26 Y después de las sesenta y dos semanas el Mesías será muerto, y no por sí.” but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.
Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".
The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The NIV in Spanish simply omits this last phrase altogether. The 1984 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "After the 72 weeks, the life of the elect prince will be taken away."
Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."
This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.
Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."
John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."
John Gill offers two different interpretations but he gives this one first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."
David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."
C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!
Matthew Poole was well aware of all the different theories and ideas about how to translate this passage and he comments on it in his Commentary on the whole Bible saying: - Daniel 9:26 “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself” - But not for himself - which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people, and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures: There was none to succour him ; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be. But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.”
Bible Babel in Action
Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".
Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."
Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."
The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."
Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."
Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."
The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."
The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)
1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)
The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."
The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."
The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.
The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."
Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)
The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSES THE CITY"
And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)
May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.
HOSEA
Here are just a few examples of the confusion found in the modern bibles from the book of Hosea.
Hosea the prophet was told by God to go and marry a woman who was an adulteress according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel. Israel's history of unfaithfullness is portrayed, and God rebukes Israel for her sins, and pledges to heal their backslidings and bring her again into the covenant of grace.
Hosea 2:1 "PLEAD with your mother, PLEAD"
The King James Bible, Geneva, Darby, the 1936 Jewish translation, the Revised Version, Young's, RSV, NRSV, and ESV all have "plead with your mother, plead. To plead with somebody to entreat them earnestly.
The NKJV says: "Bring charges against your mother, bring charges"; the NIV - "Rebuke your mother, rebuke her"; the NASB- "Contend with your mother, contend".
Those who desire the reconciliation of another would plead with them, not rebuke, contend or bring charges against them. The new versions make it sound as though they are headed for the divorce court rather than reconciliation.
Hosea 3:1 "Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her FRIEND, yet an adulteress.." Friend is found in the NKJV footnote as being the literal word, yet the NKJV has A LOVER, the NIV has "loved by ANOTHER" while the NASB has "loved by her HUSBAND". Yet the word is "friend" and is so rendered by the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby and Douay.
4:18 KJB "Their drink is SOUR", and so also read the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, and others but the NKJV has "their drink is REBELLION"; the NIV-"their drinks are GONE" and NASB "their liquor GONE".
So is their drink sour, rebellion or gone? Hey, all bibles are the same; Don't worry about it, right?
6:6 KJB "For I desired MERCY and not sacrifice." This verse is quoted in Matthew 12:7 in the same way by all versions, and here the RV, Douay, NKJV, and NIV have "mercy" but the NASB says: "I delight in LOYALTY, rather than sacrifice." Loyalty is not at all the same thing as mercy, even though the NASB "quotes" the same verse in Matthew using "mercy".
6:9 KJB "they murder in the way BY CONSENT". Here the NKJV agrees with the KJB, and so do the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish Reina Valera, but the NIV & NASB say:"they murder on the road TO SHECHEM".
10:1 KJB "Israel is an EMPTY vine." An empty vine is also the reading of Young's, the Geneva Bible, and the Diodati. However the NKJV says "Israel EMPTIES his vine; the NIV says "Israel is a SPREADING VINE", while the NASB has "Israel is a LUXURIANT vine."
10:7 KJB "As for Samaria, her king is cut off as the FOAM upon the water."
Foam is also the reading of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Douay and Spanish versions. The NKJV reads: "As for Samaria, her king is cut off like a TWIG on the water." The NASB has: "Samaria will cut off her king like a STICK on the surface of the water"; while the NIV has something a little different still with "Samaria and its king will float away like a twig on the surface of the waters." Who here does the cutting off? God? Samaria? or do they just float away? Is it foam, a stick or a twig?
Hosea 11:2 - "As THEY called them, so they went from THEM: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images."
Here the words "THEY/THEM" refer to the prophets God sent to call Israel back to Himself (See verse 7). So read the Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, Spanish Reina Valera and the new ESV.
However the NIV, RSV, NRSV read: "But the more "I" called Israel, the further they went from ME." (NIV) Then these versions footnote that "I" and "ME" come from "SOME Septuagint manuscripts, but the Hebrew reads "they" and "them". The Holman Standard confuses things even further by saying: "The more THEY called them, the more they departed from ME." Then it footnotes that "ME" comes from the LXX but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads "THEM".
11:7 KJB "And my people are bent to backsliding from me; though they (the prophets) called them to the most High, NONE AT ALL WOULD EXALT HIM." (the people would not exalt God).
In this verse the NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby, and NASB are in agreement with the KJB but the NIV and ESV have: "My people are determined to turn from me. EVEN IF THEY CALL TO THE MOST HIGH, HE WILL BY NO MEANS EXALT THEM." This is a totally different meaning. Read it again.
Just to make things more interesting, the RSV says: "My people are bent on turning away from me, SO THEY ARE APPOINTED TO THE YOKE, AND NONE SHALL REMOVE IT." Boy, am I glad that is all cleared up for us. Remember what James White says: we get a clearer picture by comparing all the versions.
11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS." Here those bible versions that agree with the KJB in that Judah is yet faithful are the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Young, Spanish, Geneva, Green's interlinear, Hebrew-English 1936 and the Spanish.
But the NKJV puts a new twist here with its "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful."
While the NASB & NIV completely spin it around to mean the opposite with "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One." So which one is God's true word?
This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One."
The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure. If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God?
12:7 KJB "He is a MERCHANT"; surprisingly the NASB & NIV, along with the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV agree with the KJB, while the NKJV simply says: " A CUNNING CANAANITE!".
13:3 KJB "and as the smoke out of the CHIMNEY." The RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV have "chimney" while the NIV has WINDOW. Now, my wife will tell you that I am not much of a handyman, but even I know that a window is not the same thing as a chimney.
13:10 God says to Israel "I will be your king" in the KJB and NKJV, but the NIV and NASB ask "Where is your king?" The RSV has an interesting footnote here. The footnote reads " Greek, Syriac and Vulgate read "Where?" the Hebrew says "I will be your king."
One of the most beautiful verses in Hosea has been destroyed by all three modern perversions. In the KJB, RV, ASV , Darby, Geneva, Young, 1917, 1936 Hebrew-English versions, and the Spanish of 1909 we read in Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be thy plagues; O Grave, I will be thy destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."
In other words, God has promised this and He will not change His mind nor alter His purpose. But instead of "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes" the NKJV has "PITY is hidden from My eyes", the NIV has " I WILL HAVE NO COMPASSION" and the NASB "compassion will be hidden from my sight". Go ahead, look it up. It doesn't fit the context at all and it makes no sense.
These are just a few of the similar examples that are found throughout the entire Old Testament. All bibles are not the same. God is not a liar nor is He the author of confusion. All of these versions cannot be the inspired, true, preserved words of the living God.
False witnesses sometimes tell the truth, but they end up contradicting the truth in other areas and they do not agree with each other. I firmly believe the NKJV, NIV and NASB are false witnesses and false bibles. May God reveal to us the truth of His infallible words and where they are found today - in the Authorized King James Bible.
Amos 3:2 "You only HAVE I KNOWN of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."
"You only HAVE I KNOWN" is the reading of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NKJV, Darby, Young's, Geneva Bible and the Jewish translations. The word "to know" is # 3045, and means to know, as is Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew his wife Eve"; Genesis 22:12 "Now I know that thou fearest God"; and Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee." However the NASB of 1972 said: "You ONLY HAVE ME of all the families of the earth." Then in 1977 the NASB changed to read like the NIV:'"You only HAVE I CHOSEN of all the families...". Both are wrong.
Amos 3:3 except they be agreed?
In Amos 3:3 God is rebuking his people for their sin of departing from him and being rebellious. The Lord says: "Can two walk together, except they BE AGREED?" In other words, we must be in agreement with God, see things the way He does, and assent to walk in fellowship with Him or we shall surely suffer the consequences.
Other versions that agree with the KJB here are the ASV (the version so highly praised by the NASB as being the Rock of Biblical Honesty), Revised Version, the Geneva Bible, both the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English versions, the Spanish Reina Valera, Darby, Douay, New Life Version, Websters Bible translation, NKJV, Green's interlinear and others.
However the NASB says: "Do two men walk together unless they HAVE MADE AN APPOINTMENT?" There is no word for "men" in the Hebrew, so the meaning that this is talking about God and his people walking together is lost. The NASB is speaking about just two men. The phrase "they have made an appointment" completely changes the meaning. People can make an appointment to meet together physically, yet they can totally disagree with each other and hold opposite views. The whole meaning of the verse has been changed.
The NIV has: "Do two walk together unless THEY HAVE AGREED TO DO SO?, and Daniel Wallace's goofy NET version actually says: "Do two walk together WITHOUT HAVING MET?"
Amos 4:12 "Thus saith the LORD; As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of a lion two legs, or a piece of an ear; so shall the children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria, and IN DAMASCUS in a couch."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary remarks: in Damascus in a couch--Jeroboam II had lately restored Damascus to Israel (2 Kings 14:25, 28). So the Israelites are represented as not merely in "the corner of a bed," as in Samaria, but "in a (whole) couch," at Damascus, living in luxurious ease."
John Wesley's commentary says: "Damascus - The chief city of Syria taken by Tiglath - Pilneser about the time when he wasted Israel."
"and IN DAMASCUS IN A COUCH" is the reading of Coverdale 1535, Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company's translation, Young's, THE NIV, and TNIV!!!, Douay, Green's interlinear, the Modern KJV, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Pe****ta, Webster's 1833 translation, Luther's German, Calvin's Latin translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.