The Foolishness of Textual Criticism in the book of Romans

[brandplucked]

The Foolishness of Textual Criticism in the Book of Romans

The book of Romans, just as every other New Testament book, is full of examples where the two so called oldest and best manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are at odds with each other.

Without exception, any modern version promoter who tries to tell you that our King James Bible is based on just a few late manuscripts, and that in the last few years we have made many important textual discoveries, is full of hot air. He himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is now the inspired, complete and 100% true "book of the LORD". Scripture tells us that "in the last days perilous times shall come" and that "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13.

We don't have to look far before we run into the first example of where these two false witnesses, upon which most modern versions are based, disagree with each other. The first example is found in the Romans 1:1.

Romans 1:1 reads: "Paul, a servant of JESUS CHRIST, called to be an apostle...". Here the majority of all Greek texts read JESUS CHRIST, and so does Sinaiticus. In fact, so too do Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', the Geneva Bible, the RV of 1881, ASV of 1901, Douay, NKJV, and even the RSV and NRSV. So too does the up and coming ISV (International Standard Version.)

However Vaticanus reverses the order and says: CHRIST JESUS and so too do the NASB, NIV, and the ESV.

Romans 1:16 "...to the Jew FIRST (prooton) and also to the Greek." Here Vaticanus omits the word FIRST, but it is found in Sinaiticus and in most versions.

Romans 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by JESUS CHRIST according to my gospel." Again the reading of JESUS CHRIST is that of the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus correction and A. It is also the reading of Wycliffe, Bishops, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, NKJV, the RV, ASV, NRSVand the NIV.

However Vaticanus again reverses the order and says CHRIST JESUS, and now also do the NASB, RSV and the ESV. Notice that the previous ASV read like the KJB, but then the NASB changed it, and that the RSV and ESV now follow Vaticanus, but the NRSV didn't. This whole process is very "scientific" don't ya know.

Romans 3:2 "...chiefly, BECAUSE (gar) unto them were committed the oracles of God." Here the little word BECAUSE is found in the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits it and so do the NASB, NIV.

Romans 4:19 "And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body NOW (eede) dead...". The little word "now" is found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C, D, and is in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB and the NRSV.

However Vaticanus omits the word and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman. Westcott-Hort used to omit the word entirely, but now the latest UBS critical text puts it back in but within brackets. Notice that the RSV omitted it, then the NRSV put it back in, and then the ESV once again has taken it out. But wait! The new 2007 ISV is coming out and they have put it back in again!

Romans 5:2 "By whom we have access BY FAITH into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

The words "by faith" are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A and C, and the words are still found in the NASB, NIV and ESV. However Vaticanus omits the words "by faith" and so do the RSV, NRSV and the New English Bible 1970. Again, notice that the previous RSV, NRSV's omitted the words, but not the latest revision of the revision of the revision (ESV) has once again put them back in their text.

Romans 6:11 "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ OUR LORD."

The final words "our Lord" are in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and C, as well as some Old Latin copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopic and Slavonic ancient versions.

The words are also in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, KJB, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version, Spanish Reina Valera, and many others. But Vaticanus omits the words "our Lord" and so do the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman versions. Even though the reading is found in Sinaiticus, the modern versionists unite in following the Vatican manuscript here.

Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT."

There is tremendous confusion among the Greek texts for the reading of this verse. All the capitalized words are found in the Majority of Greek texts, including Sinaiticus correction, D correction, some Old Latin copies like ar and o, the Syriac Harkelian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

Agreeing with the full reading found in the Majority of Greek texts and the King James Bible are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Luther 1545, Italian Diodati 1649, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 - 1995, Young's, the NKJV, KJV 21st Century, Green's MKJV, World English Bible, Amplified Bible, and the Modern Greek Bible.

However Sinaiticus original, and Vaticanus omit all these words and so do versions like the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard.

Manuscripts A and D original have part of the words and omit the others. These include "who walk not after the flesh", but omit "but after the Spirit". The Catholic Douay version reads this way, but more recent Catholic version like the St. Joseph NAB and the Jerusalem Bible now read like the NASB, NIV, and ESV and omit the last part of the verse.

So, in other words, it is mainly because of the Vatican manuscript that modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV and Holman unite in omitting the whole last phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta reads differently than them all with: "THERE is therefore no condemnation to them who walk in the flesh after the Spirit of Jesus Christ."

Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life hath made ME free from the law of sin and death."

Here again is where the multitude of conflicting modern versions strut their stuff. The reading of "made ME free" is found in the Majority of all texts including A, C, D, the Old Latin copies of d, dem, e, mon, x and z. So too the Syriac Harkelian, Coptic Sahidic, Gothic, Armenian, Geogian and Slavonic ancient versions.

Agreeing with the KJB reading of "made ME free" are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Coverdale, Geneva, NKJV, Youngs, Amplified Bible, and Douay.

Not even the early revisions went along with the Sin/Vat reading, nor do all the modern ones either. The Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, and the RSV of 1954 all kept the reading of "made ME free", and so too do the NIV and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version.)

But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have the reading of "made YOU free", and so read the NASB, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard. Thus the new versions are not even in agreement with each other.

Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

So read the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, as well as translations like Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, NKJV, the Revised Version, American Standard version 1901, and the ESV.

However Vaticanus has an additional reading not even found in Sinaiticus and some modern versions like the NASB follow it instead. The NASB ALONE reads: "And we know that GOD causes all things to work together for good to those who love GOD, to those who are called according to His purpose." This additional word "GOD causes all things to work" was originally left out even by Westcott and Hort. Then it was later added to the Nestle text in brackets, and later on once again removed from their text. The latest Nestle-Aland, UBS text omits this extra word taken from Vaticanus and still found in the NASB 1995 edition.

The NIV follows no known Greek text here and reads like the previous RSV: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love HIM, who have been called according to his purpose."

But now the newer NRSV and the latest ESV, Holman Standard have all gone back to the reading found in the King James Bible - "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." - ESV.

Romans 8:34 "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again..." So read the Majority of all texts, as well as Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, NKJV. However Sinaiticus adds the word Jesus to the text, though not found in Vaticanus.

Versions like the ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV and Holman all add the word JESUS based on Sinaiticus. However in this same verse Sinaiticus also adds additional words to the text, that are not found in the Majority nor in Vaticanus. The Sinaiticus mss. goes on to say: "that is risen again FROM THE DEAD". (ek nekroon).

So the continuing confusion is seen in that the RV, ASV and RSV all added both the extra word "Jesus" and the words "that is risen again FROM THE DEAD", based on the Sinaiticus reading. But wait! Now the revisions of their predecessors have once again "scientifically" decided to omit these extra words from Sinaiticus, (but keep the extra word "Jesus") and so versions like the NASB, NIV, NRSV and ESV now read " it is Christ JESUS ...who was raised" (thus omitting "from the dead")

The new versions now go back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus readings in the very same verse. God only knows what will come down the pike next. In fact, Wallace's NET version has already done away with the extra word "Jesus". This is the true nature of "the art and science" of textual criticism.

Romans 8:35 "Who shall separate us from the love OF CHRIST?". Again, so read the majority of all texts, and this time even versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV and Holman say "the love of CHRIST". BUT, the Sinaiticus manuscript says "the love of GOD", while the Vaticanus mss. says "the love of GOD IN CHRIST JESUS". What would James White have to say about his "expansions of piety", I wonder. In any event, we see that none of the versions follow the conflicting "oldest and best manuscripts" in this particular verse, though they HAVE omitted THOUSANDS of other words from the New Testament, based on these same two false witnesses, and then have the nerve to call this "science"!!

Romans 10:3 "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own RIGHTEOUSNESS, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

The word "righteousness" is found three times in this verse in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus and in all previous English Bibles like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva. It is also found in the NKJV, and more recently in the Holman Standard and even Wallace's NET version.

However Vaticanus omits the middle word "righteousness" and the NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV omit the word saying "seeking to establish their own". Westcott and Hort originally included the word, then later Nestle's took it out, but then the latest Nestle-Aland Critical text has once again put the word back in their texts.

Romans 11:6 "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE; OTHERWISE WORK IS NO MORE WORK."

So read Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops bible, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV and many other translations throughout the world.

The absurdity of calling Sinaiticus and Vaticanus the "best" manuscripts is fully revealed in this great verse. All the capitalized words are found in the majority of all Greek texts, and even in the Sinaiticus correction. When we examine the Vaticanus manuscript we find an amazing blunder right on the surface. Vaticanus turns things on its head saying: "But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no longer GRACE."!!!

Primarily on the basis of A, C and D (which also constantly disagree not only with the majority of texts, but also among themselves) versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman have omitted all these words "BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE; OTHERWISE WORK IS NO MORE WORK."

Romans 13:9 "...Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Thou shalt not covet..." The words "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are found in multiple manuscripts and ancient versions like the Old Latin, the Syriac Harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic. They are also in Sinaiticus. They are included in all English Bibles from Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', and the Geneva. However Vaticanus omits these words and so do the versions from the Revised Version, to the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman Standard.

Romans 14:21 - "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, OR IS OFFENDED, OR IS MADE WEAK." The capitalized words are again found in the Majority of all Greek texts and even in Vaticanus, plus the Sinaiticus correction. They are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, Douay-Rheims, NKJV and the Spanish Reina Valera. Even some modern versions that usually follow the Westcott-Hort text include the words. Among these are the Amplified Bible (put out by the same people who give us the NASB), and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version). However Sinaiticus original had a different reading that said "or is grieved". Then it was corrected to agree with the KJB reading. In spite of all this evidence, versions like the RV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman omit "or is offended, or is made weak" - all done on a strict "scientific method", don't ya know.

Romans 15:7 "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received US to the glory of God." "received US" is the reading of the majority of Greek texts including Vaticanus and D. It is also the reading of the previous Westcott-Hort, and the Nestle Critical texts. I have a Nestle 4th edition 1934 copy, and it clearly says US in the text. This is also the reading of the NKJV AND the NASB.

However Sinaiticus, A and C read "received YOU" and now the newer Nestle critical texts have "scientifically" changed their previous reading and decided to now follow Sinaiticus and so versions like the RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman say "received YOU".

The final reading we will consider in the book of Romans reveals the blatant absurdity of this so called "art and science of textual criticism". This is a mind blower. You may not even believe it, but it is true and is well documented. The so called Critical Text has actually changed FOUR times over the last hundred years, and the multiple choice "Bible of the Month Club" versions make this confusion very clear.

Romans 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the SPIRIT OF GOD..." The reading of "the SPIRIT OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts including P46 and Sinaiticus. Even when Westcott-Hort produced their new Greek text, they read it this way.

However just a few years later (4th edition, 1934) they changed their critical text to read "the power OF THE HOLY Spirit", all based on the reading of Alexandrinus, and the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Versions of 1901 and the RSV 1952 read this way - "the HOLY Spirit". The Vaticanus copy differs from the others in that it only says "the power of the SPIRIT", omitting both "God" or "holy".

Then the Nestle-Aland again changed their text to omit the word "holy" and it merely read "power of the Spirit" (thus following the Vaticanus mss.) and so read the NIV and the NASB. But wait. There's more. Now the Nestle-Aland scholars have once again changed their minds and have now gone back to reading like the KJB had it all the time. The UBS 4th edition now reads "power of the SPIRIT OF GOD", and now so do the NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard and the NET versions.

These are the FACTS and anyone can verify them for themselves. The next time you hear some puffed up scholar wannabe who does not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS NOW the inspired and 100% true Holy Bible try to talk you into abandoning your King James Bible in favor of "the latest findings of the art and science of Textual Cricitism", tell him to go fly a kite.

Will Kinney

[Christian1stBaptist2nd]

But judging from that posting and information the NKJV seems like a good translation.I'm still torn as to why it is "looked down upon". :puzzled:

[brandplucked]

But judging from that posting and information the NKJV seems like a good translation.I'm still torn as to why it is "looked down upon". :puzzled:

Hi Christian, there are lots of problems with the NKJV. You can go to my site and pick almost any topic and you will see where the NKJV is wrong. Here is just one article to get you started.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nKJvsm.html

God bless,

Will K

[Christian1stBaptist2nd]

To be truthful with you I have a KJV Study Bible by Thomas Nelson............it's the Bible I've used for the past 15 years or so...........I love it.......however, I went to your link with my Bible in hand and proceeded to look up each verse that was listed on the article.......as I did, I noticed that on EVERY verse, my KJV Bible had a center column reference note for EVERY word that you thought was changed in the NKJV, and the center column reference in my KJV was EXACTLY what was printed in the NKJV!!..........EVERY TIME!...in other words, the center column reference was to help the reader understand better the "old English" words used, and they were EXACTLY what the NKJV had.....I think this only reassures me that the NKJV is a good translation..... :tip:

[brandplucked]

To be truthful with you I have a KJV Study Bible by Thomas Nelson............it's the Bible I've used for the past 15 years or so...........I love it.......however, I went to your link with my Bible in hand and proceeded to look up each verse that was listed on the article.......as I did, I noticed that on EVERY verse, my KJV Bible had a center column reference note for EVERY word that you thought was changed in the NKJV, and the center column reference in my KJV was EXACTLY what was printed in the NKJV!!..........EVERY TIME!...in other words, the center column reference was to help the reader understand better the "old English" words used, and they were EXACTLY what the NKJV had.....I think this only reassures me that the NKJV is a good translation..... :tip:

Hi Christian, you might find all these marginal notes in your Thomas Nelson KJV because it is Thomas Nelson who puts out the NKJV. I checked my Cambridge KJB and there are no marginal notes that suggest the NKJV readings at all in places like Gen. 20:6, Exodus 15:2; 1 Kings 10:28, 1 Chron. 4:10, 1 Chron. 20:3 etc. I'm not going through the whole list for you.

The marginal notes are not inspired and God didn't put them in the text. The NKJV is far inferiour to the King James Bible and I would not recommend it to anybody. If you choose to use this hack job translation, then go right ahead, but don't pretend to believe it is the inspired word of God because it clearly is not.

Just two of many examples. Which is right in Matthew 12:40, the KJB or the NKJV?

It says Jonas was three days and three nights in THE WHALES belly, but the NKJV does not say this. Which is right?

In Revelation 19:8 the KJB says the fine linen is "the righteousness of saints", but the NKJV says the fine linen is the "righteous acts" of the saints. Not at all the same thing. Which one is right?

Thanks,

Will K

[Christian1stBaptist2nd]

So in the KJV it says "whale" and in the NKJV it says "fish"?...but in the book of Jonah, in the KJV, it says God "prepared a great FISH" .....so they BOTH are right....that seems a small point to argue anyway..BTW, I LOVE the KJV Bible, I just have to tell you that I think your "reasons" against the NKJV don't hold much water and are really kind of petty.

[Jerry]

No, the differences are not petty. If you care about researching the issue, check out this link for some of the problems with the NKJV. They are not the same.

http://www.av1611.org/nKJv.html

[Christian1stBaptist2nd]

I've read that particular article several times,,,,,,,seems like grasping at straws to me...........BTW...........I TRULY want a reason to agree that the KJV is a BETTER translation, I much prefer it....but so far the reasons you are posting are not very convincing.

[Jerry]

Well, you might as well give up the search then... If that article has no points that convince you, then go ahead and enjoy your NKJV, because you lack discernment.

For those who care, the NKJV also puts salvation in the present tense as an ongoing action: being saved, perishing. Now there is no longer the sheep and the goats, but those who are somewhere stuck in the middle. You can also do a search in this forum for other articles on the New King James Version.

[brandplucked]

So in the KJV it says "whale" and in the NKJV it says "fish"?...but in the book of Jonah, in the KJV, it says God "prepared a great FISH" .....so they BOTH are right....that seems a small point to argue anyway..BTW, I LOVE the KJV Bible, I just have to tell you that I think your "reasons" against the NKJV don't hold much water and are really kind of petty.

Hi Christian, the KJB is more accurate.


Matthew 12:40

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

The Greek word correctly translated in the King James Bible as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary called Diury's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dicionary 1974. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It's just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up the Greek word ketos it simply says whale. If you look up whale, it says ketos.

In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The word is not "fish", which is an entirely different Greek word - ixthus.

Jonah 1:17 refers to a "great fish" which the LORD had prepared to swallow the errant prophet Jonah. The whale, though by today's man-made "scientific" classification is a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined in all dictionaries as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. This "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is of no relevance to the way God classifies His creatures. Most people even today, when they see a whale, say: "Wow, that's one big fish!" That is, until some pedantic type says: No, that's a mammal.

God's classification system differs from that of man's. In 1 Corinthians 15:39 we read: "All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than correctly translating what the Greek word really means, the NKJV, and ESV have "the great fish"; the NIV has "the huge fish" while the NASB, and the NRSV have "the sea monster"!

Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, Mace's N.T. 1729, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1909, the Italian Diodati, the Douay-Rheims, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the New American Bible of 1970, the Hebrew Names Version, the World English Bible, the 2004 Updated Bible version, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible.

What big fish would have swallowed up Jonah alive except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER?

The ever revolving door of modern scholarship can't seem to get its act together. The RSV, NRSV, and ESV are all revisions of each other, yet the RSV says "a whale", the NRSV has "a sea monster" and the ESV reads "the great fish".

The Greek word itself means "a whale"; it does not mean a fish nor much less a sea monster. The Lord Jesus Christ said Jonah was swallowed by a whale and the King James Bible is correct while the NKJV, NIV and NASB are in error.

Will Kinney

[brandplucked]

I've read that particular article several times,,,,,,,seems like grasping at straws to me...........BTW...........I TRULY want a reason to agree that the KJV is a BETTER translation, I much prefer it....but so far the reasons you are posting are not very convincing.

Hi Christian. You might want to take a look at this NKJV rendering. It is not at all the same as the KJB and carries the opposite meaning of the verse.

Jeremiah 8:8 The pen of the Scribes is in Vain
King James Holy Bible: "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

The meaning of the King James Bible is NOT that the scriptures themselves had been altered by the scribes, but rather that the Scriptures did not profit the people because they were not listening to them nor obeying them. It was not the Scriptures which had been changed or altered, but the people who thought themselves wise even in their rejection of God's word.

Consider the context of verses eight and nine. "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?"

Agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB that the Scriptures had not been altered, but rather written in vain for a disobedient people, are the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Jewish translations of the New Jewish Publication Society, and the 1936 Jewish translation (Hebrew Publishing Company, New York), the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (but not 1960), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.

The 1999 Spanish version called Las Sagradas Escrituras also agrees with the King James Bible reading: ¿Cómo decís: Nosotros somos sabios, y la ley de Jehová es con nosotros? Ciertamente, he aquí que en vano se cortó la pluma, por demás fueron los escribas.

Bishops' Bible 1568 "Howe dare ye say then, we are wyse, we haue the lawe of the Lorde among vs? Truely in vayne hath he prepared his penne, and vainely haue the writers written it."

The Geneva Bible 1587 "Howe doe yee say, Wee are wise, and the Lawe of the Lorde is with vs? Loe, certeinly in vaine made hee it, the penne of the scribes is in vaine."

This is much like the situation today with the Bible Version debate. Those who promote the modern versions think God's word has been corrupted by spurious readings, altered by the scribes, and parts of it are lost to us. The stated position of all those who are behind such versions as the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard is that the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted or lost in several places. All these versions often reject, depart from, or replace the Hebrew texts with other readings, and often not even in the same places.

For undeniable proof of the fact that these modern versions all often reject the Hebrew readings and not even in the same places, see my two articles on how versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, and Holman often depart from the preserved Hebrew texts.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

Modern bible translators have no sure words of God and deny that God has preserved His words in any Bible version or any text in any language on the earth today. They think themselves wise to decide which are God's words and which are not. They have in fact rejected the word of the LORD in the King James Bible and set themselves up as the final authority. And each and every one of their individual versions differs from those of everyone else.

Compare the comments of a few commentators on this verse, and then take a look at how many modern versions have changed the meaning of this verse from that found in God's true words.

Geneva Bible 1599 with notes.

"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain he hath made it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

The law does not profit you neither need it to have been written for all that you have learned by it.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

Possessing the law, on which they prided themselves, the Jews might have become the wisest of nations; but by their neglecting its precepts, the law became given "in vain," as far as they were concerned. . "In vain" copies were multiplied.

Matthew Henry

Lo, certainly in vain made he it; surely never any people had Bibles to so little purpose as they have. They might as well have been without the law, unless they had made a better use of it. God has indeed made it able to make men wise to salvation, but as to them it is made so in vain, for they are never the wiser for it: The pen of the scribes, of those that first wrote the law and of those that now write expositions of it, is in vain. Both the favour of their God and the labour of their scribes are lost upon them; they receive the grace of God therein in vain.

John Wesley

" In vain - For any use they made of it; neither need it ever have been copied out by the scribe."

However many popular modern versions have changed the text to mean that the scribes had altered the Scriptures, and implicitly deny God's preservation of His words. If the scribes had messed up the word of God and changed it, how would we ever be able to sort it all out to know what God really said to us? The Lord Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees for many things, but never for having changed the words of God into a lie. He constantly referred them to "what is written in the law of the Lord."

King James Bible

"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

NKJV 1982

"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."

NASB 1995

"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."

NIV 1984

"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

ESV 2003

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."

J.P. Green's Modern KJV - "Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has written falsely."

The Message 2004

"How can you say, "We know the score. We're the proud owners of God's revelation"? Look where it's gotten you--stuck in illusion. Your religion experts have taken you for a ride."

The NET version is most interesting. On one hand there is a blatant tampering with the text - "those who teach it", and then Daniel Wallace and Co. acknowledge their own tampering in the footnotes.

NET version: "How can you say, "We are wise! We have the law of the Lord"? The truth is, those who teach it (2) have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean. (3)

(2) "those who teach it" - tn (text altered) Hebrew "the scribes." (3) tn (text altered) Hebrew "The lying pen of the scribes have made [it] into a lie."

Then Dr. Wallace explains: "The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, "Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes," surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e. it hasn't done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow."

In Wallace's footnotes we see how they get close to acknowledging that the Jewish translation (NJPS) gets it right, without pointing out that the KJB had the right text almost 400 years ago!

There are now many anti-Christian atheistic or Islamic sites that try to debunk the infallibility of the Bible, and they use Jeremiah 8:8 as it reads in most modern versions to prove that the Bible itself teaches that the Biblical texts have been corrupted.

At this Islamic site they begin their article with these words and a quote from the NIV to prove their point.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm

[deputydog530]

When I got saved I used a nKJv bible and was told it was the best. The Pastor who lead me to the Lord sinerly believed that and so did I. When I first discovered the bible verson issue. I said I would never change from my nKJv. I prayed for a long while and realized that I was being very closed to the issue. I asked the Lord to give me an open heart and mind. The very first thing I found was that the nKJv removed over 22,000 words from the text. Over one hundred of the words removed were THE VERY NAME OF GOD! I was shocked and greatly offended that man would remove God's name from his Holy Word. I then embarked on a in depth study, far to much information to post here. I still review my studies and it only convinces me the Lord chose to preserve his word to the English Speaking People in the KJV. :ideas:

It all comes down to this one point. God said he would preserve his word, and the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. If you believe God's Word (who is not the author of confusion) then you believe he preserved his Word. Every new version I have studied has areas that change doctrine or remove God's name. Therefore I ask you to study the whole topic with an open mind and heart and ask the Lord for wisdom and the answer will be clear. The KJV is the preserved word of God. Also check out www.jesus-is-lord.com

One more thing I might add. I have never "pushed" the KJV on anyone. If they ask, I will gladly spend the time to talk with them about the issue. However, several of my friends who use new versions constantly attack me, without provokation, for using the KJV. That right there should tell you someting.

God Bless you in your studies :thumb

[KJV1611AV]

Since the argument that " they are so close the differences seem petty" is brought up, id like to share something i was taught a while back. A pastor asked me "If you were Satan, how would you penetrate the church?" I wasnt sure what he meant at first, but he went on to say that you would not make dramatic changes. You would make small,subtle ones here and there. Time would pass and few would notice. After a lot of time passes and a lot of subtle changes are made, you end up with something way different than the original. It is not wise to deviate from what is right, not even a little tiny bit.