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 watered-down 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 found in 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 more with some of these other translations in certain areas. Therefore, I believe it would be best to have a set of different translations on hand. This way, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, you can examine for yourself these different bibles and know what is true. 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!” (KJV)

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.” (KJV)

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 word “hands” in their text (why would they do this?):

• 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)

Below are commentary notes showing that this is a prophesy of our crucified Savior Jesus Christ:

• 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.” (KJV)

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 by the NIV translators.

• A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” 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.” (KJV)

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, REV, MKJV, EMTV, BSB, BBE, AFV, ABP, LITV, JUB, GW, Weymouth, Webster, WEBA, TS2009, TPT, TCENT, RV, AENT.

Below are those versions that change the word “Son” into “God”:

• 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)
• No man hath ever seen God; the only begotten God, he who is in the bosom of his Father, he hath declared him. (James Murdock New Testament)
• No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father - He has expounded Him. (LSV)
• No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father - that one has made him known. (LEB)
• No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him. (ISV)
• No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him fully known. (UASV+)
• No one has ever seen God; but the one and only God, in the Father’s embrace, has made Him known. (TLV)
• God no one has ever seen. The only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He unfolds Him. (CLT)
• No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted him. (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible)

Below are some other versions that use the proper word “Son” for Jesus. However, they wrongfully include the word God or something similar in describing Jesus.

• No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (GNB)
• No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known. (BSB)
• No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like. (CEV)
• No one has ever seen God; the only son, Deity Himself, who lies upon His Father's breast, has made him known. (Williams)
• No human being has ever seen God, except God’s One and only Son - Jesus Christ, who stands with his Father and has perfectly made the Father known - because Jesus and the Father are One: one in character, power, divinity and authority. (Remedy)

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (KJV)

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.” And yes, that last portion does makes it much clearer that John is talking about Jesus after his death and resurrection. However, even without that last portion, we can still see from the wording that it’s talking about Jesus who has already died and rose again.

But that all being said, almost all versions (even those mentioned above) make it even more confusing. For they make it as though Jesus was speaking in verses 13-21. However, I believe (as well as others) 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 more sense at this point that it’s John who is now 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 is now speaking, not Jesus.

Below are those versions that don’t have the words “who is in heaven.” However, we still can see from these verses that Jesus already rose out of hell and is now with God the Father:

• And no one has ever gone up to heaven but he who came down from heaven, the Son of man. (BBE)
• No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. (BSB)
• No one has gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from there. (CEV)
• No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven - the Son of Man. (CSB)
• The only one who has ever gone up to heaven is the one who came down from heaven- the Son of Man. (ERV)
• No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. (ESV)
• And no one has ever gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from heaven." (GNB)
• No one has gone to heaven except the Son of Man, who came from heaven. (GW)
• And no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven- the Son of Man. (LEB)
• And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. (LSB)
• No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. (NASB20)
• No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man (NASB95)
• No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven – the Son of Man. (NET)
• No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man. (NIV)
• No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven. (NLT)
• No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. (RSV)
• No one has gone up into heaven except the One who came down from heaven—the Son of Man. (TLV)
• And no one has gone up into the heaven except He who came down from the heaven – the Son of Aḏam.(TS2009
• And no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man. (UASV+)

Below are those versions that do include “who is in heaven” (or the like). This would even make it more clearer that Jesus was already in heaven at this point. So, please don’t believe that this was Jesus who was speaking. For he being completely human like us, could not be both on earth and heaven at the same time. For this would make him omnipresent which is completely unbiblical:

• And no one has ascended into the heaven, except the one from out of the heaven descending  the son of man, the one being in the heaven. (ABP+)
• And no one has ascended into heaven, except He Who came down from heaven, even the Son of man, Who is in heaven. (AFV)
• No one has gone up into heaven, but there is One who came down from heaven, the Son of Man [Himself - whose home is in heaven]. (AMP)
• And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven. (ASV)
• And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of A’dam which is in heaven.(Cepher)
• And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. (Darby)
• And no one has gone up into heaven except He who came down out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. (EMTV)
• No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. (HNV)
• No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven. (ISV)
• And no one has ascended up to the heaven but he that came down from the heaven, even the Son of man, who is in the heaven. (JUB)
• And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (KJV)
• And no one has gone up into Heaven, except He having come down out of Heaven, the Son of Man who is in Heaven. (LITV)
• And no one has gone up to Heaven, except He who came down out of Heaven—the Son of Man who is in Heaven. (LSV)
• And no one has ascended up to Heaven except He who came down from Heaven, the Son of Man who is in Heaven. (MKJV)
• No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. (NKJV)
• And no one hath ascended to heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. (Murdock)
• And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven. (RV)
• No one has ascended into heaven, except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. (TCENT)
• No one has risen into the heavenly realm except the Son of Man who also exists in heaven. (TPT)
• No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. (WEB)
• And no man hath ascended to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven. (Webster
• There is no one who has gone up to Heaven, but there is One who has come down from Heaven, namely the Son of Man whose home is in Heaven. (Weymouth)
• and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down—the Son of Man who is in the heaven. (YLT)

Below is a translation that totally inserted their own words to make this passage read as though Jesus was speaking:

• No human now living on earth has gone into heaven except the One who lived in heaven and came to earth from heaven - which is I, the One speaking to you - the Son of Man. (Remedy)

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2 ESV)

In that passage above, we read that Phoebe is a “servant of the church in Cenchrea.” This is true for most of the translations out there. Now, there are some bibles versions use the words deacon or deaconess which is fine also. For the bible clearly shows that women can serve within the church as well. However, the DBY and a few others 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 are a few passages that make it clear that Phoebe is a deacon in the church:

• I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. (NLT)
• I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. (NIV)
• I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cen'chre-ae, (RSV)
• Now I introduce and commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess (servant) of the church at Cenchrea, (AMP)

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)
• And I commend you to Phebe our sister -- being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea (YLT)

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 righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (KJV)

Now, we came to those words that are being toned down in our bibles. For there are bible translators that are changing the meaning of God’s word to maybe make it less offensive to the readers. But wait a minute, are not the words in the bible inspired by God in the first place? And if God put these words on the hearts of the saints, who are we to change their meaning? For let’s remember that our “Father (God) knows best.” Amen.

So that being said, if we look at the original meaning of the word “filthy rags” above, we can see that it means a “menstrual rag.” This would clearly show that our best works are unclean before God. But again, there are those translators who think they need to tone done the word of God.

First, we have those versions which make it clear that our own righteousness is not good:

• But we are all as the unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a menstruation cloth. And we all fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (MKJV)
• 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. (NET)
• And we are as unclean - all of us, and all our righteous acts are as garments of menstruation; And we fade as a leaf - all of us. And our iniquities take us away as wind. (LSV)
• But we are all as the unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a menstruation cloth. And we all fade as a leaf, and like the wind our iniquities take us away. (LITV)
• And we all have become like the unclean, and all our deeds of justice like a menstrual cloth, and we all wither like a leaf, and our iniquities take us away like the wind. (LEB)
• And became as unclean is as a menstrual rag sitting apart All our righteousness. And we flowed away as leaves on account of our lawless deeds; thus the wind shall bear us away. (ABP+)
• We are all dirty with sin. Even our good works are not pure. They are like bloodstained rags. We are all like dead leaves. Our sins have carried us away like wind. (ERV)

Below are those versions which have toned down this passage. Now, I have left out those translations who use the word “filthy rags.” For one can still get the idea that it means a menstrual rag:

• All of us have been sinful; even our best actions are filthy through and through. Because of our sins we are like leaves that wither and are blown away by the wind. (GNB)
• For we have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteousness is like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (UASV+)
• For we have all become like an unclean person, and all our good acts are like a dirty robe: and we have all become old like a dead leaf, and our sins, like the wind, take us away. (BBE)
• For we have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteousness is like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (WEBA)
• For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteousness is like a filthy garment, and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities carry us away, like the wind. (TLV)
• For we are all become as one that is unclean, and all our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment: and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (RV)
• 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. (KJV)

Here in this passage above, we can see God using an illustration of a whore giving herself over to fornication. For this is done to expose Israel of her sins against him. Now, there are many bible versions out there that do get the message across to us. One who I believe gets it right is the NIV bible, which I listed below. However, there are those bible versions who do tone-it-down a little too much. These I also have listed below as well.

Below is the one version that made it very clear on what’s being said:

• “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.” (NIV)

Below are those versions that watered-down the literal words. However, we should instead be making it very clear what God’s word is saying to us. Wouldn’t you agree?

• 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)
• You built your mounds at the head of every road. Then you degraded your beauty. You used it to catch every man who walked by. You raised your skirt so that they could see your legs, and you acted like a prostitute with those men. Then you went to Egypt, your neighbor that is always ready for sex. With more and more sexual sin, you made me angry. (ERV)
• where you disgraced yourself by having sex with anyone who walked by. And you did that more and more every day! To make me angry, you even offered yourself to Egyptians, who were always ready to sleep with you. (CEV)

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

• Strong’s Definitions: 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 those 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
• Oxford English dictionary: Pudenda: A person’s external genitals, especially of women.

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 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 line. However, there are those bible versions where the translators are again toning down God’s word. For they have removed the literal inspired words “pisseth against the wall” (or urinate in our modern English language) and the word “dung” (which means poop) from the bible. And why? Do they think it’s offensive or inappropriate to use the literal words of the bible? We are not called to sterilize the Bible but to present it in all its truth.

Now, even though most translations do include the word “dung,” 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. 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 look, I will bring calamity upon the house of Jeroboam and will cut off from Jeroboam anyone urinating against a wall,N2 both bond and free in Israel, and I will make a clean sweep of the house of Jeroboam, just as one sweeps away dung until it is all gone. (UASV+)
• therefore, behold, I will bring evil on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam everyone who urinates on a wall, he who is shut up and he who is left at large in Israel, and will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as a man sweeps away dung, until it is all gone. (WEB)
• therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam and will cut off from Jeroboam everyone that pisses against the wall, the one that is shut up along with the one that is left in Israel, and will burn away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man burns away dung until it is all gone. (JUB)
• therefore, behold, I am bringing evil to the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him who urinates against the wall, bound and free in Israel; and will sweep away the rest of the house of Jeroboam as a man sweeps away the dung, until it is all gone. (LITV)
• therefore, behold, I will bring evil on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam everyone who urinates against the wall, bound and free in Israel, and will sweep away the rest of the house of Jeroboam, as a man sweeps away the dung, until it is all gone. (MKJV)
• On account of this behold, I bring evil to the house of Jeroboam, and I will utterly destroy of Jeroboam the one urinating against a wall, the one coming and the one being left behind in Israel. And I shall choose over the house of Jeroboam as one chooses the dung unto finishing it. (ABP+)
• Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam everyone who pisses against the wall, bond and free in Israel, and will sweep away the rest of the house of Jeroboam as a man sweeps away the dung until it is all gone. (AFV)
• Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Yarov`am, and will cut off from Yarov`am him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Yashar’el, and will take away the remnant of the house of Yarov`am, as a man takes away dung, till it be all gone. (Cepher)

Below are some bible versions that water-down the literal wording:

• therefore, behold, I am bringing calamity to 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 puts away the dung until its consumption; (LSV)
• 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)
• 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)
• "Because of this, I will destroy your family by killing every man and boy in it, whether slave or free. I will wipe out your family, just as fire burns up trash. (CEV)

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 “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” and the “Cepher” as well shows that Joseph is the “father” of Mary in Matthew’s account. 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 also be true 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 more clearer, a 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 three translations (the Aramaic English New Testament, Revised English version as well as the Cepher) 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 are those passages found in the Aramaic English New Testament, Revised English Version and the Cepher. Notice that Joseph is not referred to as the husband of Mary, but her “guardian” or “father” in the mentioned genealogy’s:

• Ya’akov fathered Yosip, the guardian of Maryam, from whom was born Y’shua, who is called the Mashiyach. (ARNT)
• and Jacob fathered Joseph the father of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (REV)
• And Ya`aqov begat Yoceph the father of Miryam, of whom was born Yahusha, who is called Mashiach. (Cepher)

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 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 for the Catholic church, Protenant church, Non Denominal church or all the other churches out there. Therefore, it’s our job as Christians to: “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) Amen.

Back to the Top