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.

• Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations, you have been cut down to the ground. – HCSB
• How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! – ESV
• How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! – NASB
• How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! – ASV
• How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! – NIV
• How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning! You have been thrown down to the earth, you who destroyed the nations of the world. - NLT

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?

• The Hebrew for arm - zer-o'-ah the arm (as stretched out), or (of animals) the foreleg; figuratively, force.
• The Hebrew for Back - gav; another form for H1460; the back:—back.
• The Hebrew for breast (chest) - khad-ee'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H2373; a breast:— breast.

Below are those other translations that refused to use the proper word “hands” in their text:

• And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’ “Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, Against the Man who is My Companion,” Says the LORD of hosts. “Strike the Shepherd, And the sheep will be scattered; Then I will turn My hand against the little ones. - NKJV (newer updated version)
• And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will say, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’ “Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate,” Declares the LORD of hosts. “Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones. – NASB
• If someone asks, 'What are these wounds on your body?' they will answer, ‘The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.’ “Awake, sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!” declares the LORD Almighty. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones. – NIV
• And if one asks him, ‘What are these wounds on your back?’ he will say, 'The wounds I received in the house of my friends.’ “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me,” declares the LORD of hosts. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones. - ESV
• If someone asks him: What are these wounds on your chest? -- then he will answer: I received the wounds in the house of my friends. Sword, awake against My shepherd, against the man who is My associate -- this is the declaration of the LORD of Hosts. Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will also turn My hand against the little ones. - HCSB

Reference notes:

• Matthew Henry Commentary - Christ was wounded in his hands, when they were nailed to the cross, and, after his resurrection, he had the marks of these wounds; and here he tells how he came by them; he received them as a false prophet, for the chief priests called him a deceiver, and upon that account would have him crucified; but he received them in the house of his friends-the Jews, who should have been his friends; for he came to his own, and, though they were his bitter enemies, yet he was pleased to call them his friends, as he did Judas (Friend, wherefore hast thou come?) .....Of the sufferings of Christ, of him who was to be pierced, and was to be the fountain opened. Awake, O sword! against my Shepherd, v. 7. These are the words of God the Father, giving order and commission to the sword of his justice to awake against his Son, when he had voluntarily made his soul an offering for sin; for it pleased the Lord to bruise him and put him to grief; and he was stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, Isa. 53:4,10.
• Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary - perfects the type of Messiah, condemned as a false prophet, and pierced with “wounds between His hands.” Thus the transition to the direct prophecy of Him (Zec 13:7 ) is natural, which it would not be if He were not indirectly and in type alluded to.....The Holy Spirit in Zechariah alludes indirectly to Messiah, the Antitype, wounded by those whom He came to befriend, who ought to have been His “friends,” who were His kinsmen.

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.

• Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” - NIV

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.

• No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us. - NLT
• No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. - ESV
• No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. – NASB
• No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. - NET

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.

• The Companion Bible makes the important break at verse 13: … because the past tenses which follow indicate completed events: … because the expression “only begotten Son” is not used by the Lord of Himself, but only by the Evangelist: … because “in the name of” in verse 18 is not used by the Lord, but by the Evangelist: … because “who is in heaven” in verse 13 points to the fact the Lord already ascended at the time John wrote: … because the break at verse 13 accords best with the context. (Words taken from E. W. Bullinger’s the comment section found in the Companion Bible) 
• The “Concordant Literal New Testament” and the “Revised English Version” ends the quotation mark in verse 12 showing that John was speaking, 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 I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea; - DBY

Reference notes:

• diákonos, dee-ak’-on-os; probably froma n obsolete διάκωdiákō (to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties);
• diakonéō, dee-ak-on-eh’-o; from G1249; to be an attendant, i.e. wait upon (menially or as a host, friend)

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.

• We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. – ESV
• All of us have become like something unclean, and all our righteous acts are like a polluted garment; all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities carry us away like the wind. – CSB
• For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. – NASB
• We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. - RSV 
• For we are all become as one that is unclean, and all our righteousness are as a polluted garment: and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. - ASV 
• And we are as unclean -- all of us, And as a garment passing away, all our righteous acts; And we fade as a leaf -- all of us. And our iniquities as wind do take us away. – YLT
• For we are all become as one who is unclean, and all our righteousness are as a polluted garment: and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. - HNV

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:

• 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
• On every street corner you defiled your beauty, offering your body to every passerby in an endless stream of prostitution. Then you added lustful Egypt to your lovers, provoking my anger with your increasing promiscuity. – NLT
• At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering yourself to any passerby and multiplying your whoring. You also played the whore with the Egyptians, your lustful neighbors, multiplying your whoring, to provoke me to anger. – ESV
• at the head of every street you built your lofty place and prostituted your beauty, offering yourself to any passer-by, and multiplying your harlotry. You also played the harlot with the Egyptians, your lustful neighbors, multiplying your harlotry, to provoke me to anger. – RSV

Below are the definitions of the Hebrew words use for “spreading your legs”:

• pâsaq, paw-sak'; a primitive root; to dispart (the feet or lips), i.e. become licentious:—open (wide).
• Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: to separate, to open wide, to throw apart the (the legs).

Below are the definition of the Hebrew words for “great of flesh”:

• Strong’s Definitions: also (by euphemistically) the pudenda of a man.
• Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary: great of flesh--of powerful virile parts.
• Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee lexicon: By a euphemism for pudenda. …flesh nakedness

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.

• therefore behold! I will bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male in Israel, bond and free; I will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as one takes away refuse until it is all gone. – NKJV
• I will bring disaster on your dynasty and will destroy every one of your male descendants, slave and free alike, anywhere in Israel. I will burn up your royal dynasty as one burns up trash until it is all gone. – NLT
• Therefore, lo, I am bringing in evil unto the house of Jeroboam, and have cut off to Jeroboam those sitting on the wall -- shut up and left -- in Israel, and have put away the posterity of the house of Jeroboam, as one putteth away the dung till its consumption; - YLT

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:

• Ya’akov fathered Yosip, the guardian of Maryam, from whom was born Y’shua, who is called the Mashiyach.

Below is the commentary section from the Aramaic English New Testament concerning what was mentioned above:

• The word gowra designates a protector-male or guardian; the context of this verse determines its specific meaning. Y’shua elsewhere says “which one of gowra, if he has a son…”; obviously “father” is intended. “Gowra” also applies to other forms of protector-male type relationships depending on the context, such as “husband”, “son”, and so forth. Ancient Aramaic Matthew ends at verse 17, not verse 25. The text not only establishes the subject, but shifts from “background history” into the present, from intro to body. This means that the Yosip in verse 16 (the guardian or ... father of Miriyam (Mary) is not the same Yosip as the husband of Miriyam in verse 19. There is no reason for Matthew to use two different words for the same individual, whereas gowra sometimes means “husband” but can also mean “father”. The other term baalah can only mean “husband”. On the other hand, there would most definitely be a reason to differentiate two men named Yosip, one being the adopted father, the other the husband of Miriyam. With this differentiation we now have three full sets of 14 generations, which satisfies the demands of verse 17.

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:

• and Jacob fathered Joseph the father of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Below is the commentary section of the Revised English Version bible:

• “father.” The Greek is anēr (#435 ἀνήρ), and means “an adult human male.” Anēr is generally assumed to mean “husband” in this verse, but that cannot be the case. For one thing, the list of the three sets of 14 generations that go from Abraham to Christ (vv. 2-16), makes this impossible. If Joseph is the husband of Mary, there would only be 13 generations in the last list of “14 generations.” Also, the Aramaic text reads differently in this verse than it does in verse 19, and in verse 19 Joseph is unmistakably referred to as the “husband” of Mary. The difference in the vocabulary indicates a difference in the relationship. …The Gospel of Matthew contains the genealogy from David to Jesus via his mother Mary. In contrast, the Gospel of Luke contains the genealogy from David to Jesus via his adopted father, Joseph.

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)

Back to the Top