Hebrews - a version comparison-ch.1

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Nov 23, 2002.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Book of Hebrews - a version comparison

    Hebrews chapter One

    1:3 "when he had BY HIMSELF purged OUR sins, sat down on th right hand of the Majesty on high."

    Here the NASB, NIV omit the words "by himself" and the "our" of our sins. The NASB reads: "When He had made purification of sins, He sat down...".

    1:3 "when he had by himself PURGED OUR SINS, sat down...". This verse teaches that Christ accomplished something wonderful for His people - He actually and in fact purged our sins by His substitutionary work on the cross. It is an accomplished fact of redemption. However the NIV not only omits "by himself" and "our" but also has rendered the rest of the verse as: "After he had PROVIDED PURIFICATION FOR SINS, he sat down at the right hand..." To provide purification is not the same as to actually purge.

    1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE?" This is a reference to Psalms 2:7 and the verse is quoted three other times in Scripture. Here in Hebrews 1:5, 5:5 and Acts 13: 33. It refers to the day when God the Father raised Jesus Christ from the dead, not to His incarnation, for Jesus was the only begotten Son BEFORE His incarnation and obviously before His resurrection.

    Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary:

    this day have I begotten thee-- (Psalms 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (4) By actual possession, as heir of all . I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5).The context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb. 1:4). The "bringing the first-begotten into the world" (Heb. 1:6), is not subsequent, as ALFORD thinks, to Heb. 1:5 but anterior to it ."

    B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament:

    "This day have I begotten thee. What day is referred to in the prophecy? Acts 13:32, 33 answers the question by quoting this very passage and declaring that it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. He was born from the dead and God, who raised him, thus demonstrated that he was his Son.

    The Expositor's Greek Testament:

    " Today" is evidently intended to mark a special occasion and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated and it is as King the person addressed is God's Son. Thus Paul applies it to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 13:33.

    Hebrews 1:5 reads the same in the KJB, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV but the NIV says: "You are my Son, Today I have become your Father".!!! This is heresy and is found in no text on the face of this earth. If there was a day when God became the Father of Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ was not the Son of God before that day. There is only one other version I have seen that renders this phrase "today I have become your Father" and that is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and they do not believe that Jesus Christ is eternal God. So too does the NIV agree with the NWT in Micah 5:2 by stating that Christ had "origens" and was "from ancient times", rather than the correct reading that Christs "goings forth are from everlasting".

    If you think the "message" is the same in all bibles, your eyes have not yet been opened to tremble at the word of God.

    1:8 "But UNTO the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of THY kingdom." This verse shows God the Father directly addressing His Son as God. However the NASB says: "but OF the Son He says...the righteous scepter is the scepter of HIS (not Thy) kingdom." The word "his" instead of "thy" is found in the corrupt manuscripts of Siniaticus and Vaticanus, yet they differ from each other literally thousands of times. We will see more instances of these differences between them as we continue.

    The NASB has a misleading footnote that says: SOME mss. read Thy. Some?! How about the vast majority of all remaining manuscripts and ancient versions, including A, D, the Old Latin, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and even the NIV.

    The NIV, on the other hand, constantly adds words not found in any text, and deletes words found even in the corrupt texts they are using. For example, the NIV adds the word GOD to 1:3, and 6; to 2:8,10; and to 3:2,5,6 and 18. It adds SON to 1:2; JESUS to 2:11; and 3:4. This is just a very small sampling of how the NIV adds to God's holy word.

    You might want to take a look at the NIV complete concordance. In it you will find by their own documentation that the NIV has added the name of Jesus to the New Testament a total of 336 times when it is not found in the Greek texts they themselves are using. That's three hundred and thirty six times!.

    The NIV has omitted the name of God or JEHOVAH # 3378 thirty eight times (38 not translated) and 52 times they have added LORD, or GOD when it is not in the Hebrew text.

    The word Elohim, or God found on page 454 of the NIV concordance, has not been translated 13 times when found in the Hebrew text and it was placed in the NIV text another 52 times when not in the Hebrew for a total of the word "God" being added 104 times and not translated when it is in the text 51 times, and all this just in the Old Testament.

    The NIV has also ADDED the word God 117 times in the New Testament when it does not occur in any Greek text nor when it expresses the idea of "God forbid" and they have not translated it three times when it is in their Greek texts.

    Likewise the NIV has added the word Christ 15 times when not in any Greek text See for example Colossians 1:22; 2:9, 10 and 13. The NIV has also added the word Lord to the New Testament 6 times when it is not found in any Greek text - for example I Cor. 1:2; and 7:34.

    All this factual information is found by merely looking at their own NIV complete concordance.
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    your point?

    or perhaps your top 3 points?
     
  3. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    "your point?"

    Hi, Forever, my point is that not all bibles say the same thing, so which one is right? or is there no infallible Bible?

    Will
     
  4. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hebrews chapter 2

    Hebrews chapter Two

    NKJV changes from one edition to the next.

    One of the common objections raised by the modern version proponents are the different "revisions" made in the King James Bible. Actually the KJB has never been revised, but there have been different editions. The text has never changed but there were changes made from the Gothic style of print to the Roman type, and there have been changes in spelling, like from Sonne to Son, and various printing errors have been corrected, but the text itself has always been the same in the King James Bible.

    The KJB we have today is the same as the one in 1611. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of out present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

    On the other hand, the popular modern versions all continue to change their text from one edition to the next. Merely to illustrate these changes from one edition to the next let's look at the 1979 NKJV and compare the changes made in the 1982 NKJV of Hebrews chapter Two.

    2:1 KJB "lest at any time we should LET THEM SLIP" - NKJV "lest we LET THEM SLIP" (79) to "lest WE DRIFT AWAY " (82)

    2:12 KJB "in the midst of the CHURCH will I sing praise unto thee" -NKJV "in the midst of the CHURCH" (79) to "in the midst of the CONGREGATION" (82)

    2:15 KJB "And DELIVER them who through fear..." - NKJV "and DELIVER those who through fear" (79) to "and RELEASE those who through fear" (82)

    2:16 KJB " For verily, he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham" - NKJV "For indeed He does not give HELP to angels, but He does give HELP to the seed of Abraham" (79) to "He does not give AID to angels, but He does give AID to the seed of Abraham" (82)

    2:17 KJB "in all things it behooved him to be made" -NKJV "in all things He WAS OBLIGATED to be made" (79) to "in all things He HAD to be made" (82).

    In these 5 changes from one NKJV to the next in just one chapter, we see that 3 of these changes have gone from being like the KJB to being like the other modern versions of the NIV, NASB.



    2:7 "Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS."

    Here Vaticanus omits the whole phrase "and didst set him over the works of thy hands" and so does the NIV. However the phrase is found in the majority of Greek mss., and in Siniaticus, and this time even the NASB, RV, ASV and NKJV include it. See how the "scholars" don't agree among themselves. This same confusion is constantly repeated in the new Bible of the Month versions that continue to pour off the presses.

    "Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER THAN the angels" is quoted from Psalm 8:5. "A little lower" is the reading of the RV, ASV and NIV, but the NASB says God made man "FOR A LITTLE WHILE lower than the angels".

    The interesting thing is when you look back at Psalms 8:5 the King James Bible correctly reads: "For thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS." This is also the reading of the NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Lamsa, Webster's, New American Bible, Douay, Douay-Rheims, Spanish, Diodati, Darby, Living Bible, New Century Version, Modern Greek translation, KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.

    However the NASB actually reads: "Thou hast made him a little lower THAN GOD." One could combine the NASB readings to say: "Thou hast made him for a little while lower than God." Isn't this the ultimate apostasy and direction fallen man is headed?

    The NIV differs yet from both the KJB and the NASB in that it reads in Psalm 8:5 "You made him a little lower than the HEAVENLY BEINGS."

    Do you think James White is correct when he says we can get a sense of the real meaning by comparing all the different versions together? All we really end up with is total confusion which leads to unbelief and apostasy.

    2:16 KJB - "For verily he TOOK NOT ON HIM THE NATURE OF angels; but he TOOK ON HIM the seed of Abraham." This verse deals with the incarnation of our Lord who was made a little lower than the angels and "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He likewise took part of the same". Not only does the KJB read this way but so also do the Geneva Bible, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Lamsa's translation, Webster's 1833, Modern Greek edition and the Living Bible.

    However the NKJV, NIV and NASB read: "For indeed He DOES NOT GIVE AID TO angels, but He DOES GIVE AID TO the seed of Abraham." (NKJV). The meaning is very different, and it is also untrue. God does help and give aid to angels. Notice what John Gill and other commentators have stated.

    John Gill

    For verily he took not on him the nature of angels…
    Good angels; for they are all along spoken of in this book; and it would have been impertinent to have said this of evil angels: and this is to be understood not of a denying help and assistance to the angels; for though they have not redemption from Christ, which they needed not, yet have they help from him; they are chosen in him, and are gathered together under him; and he is the head of them, and they are upheld and sustained by him in their being, and well being: but of a non-assumption of their nature; there was no need of it with respect to good angels, and there was no salvation designed for evil ones; and to have assumed the nature of angels, would have been of no service to fallen man; an angelic nature is not capable of death, which was necessary to atone for sin, save men, and destroy Satan.

    People's New Testament commentary.
    16-18. He took not the nature. He did not lay hold of an angel form in order to save angels, but the human form and nature, in order to be our Savior. He chose to be the seed of Abraham.

    Matthew Henry

    Here the apostle proceeds to assert the incarnation of Christ, as taking upon him not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham; and he shows the reason and design of his so doing. The incarnation of Christ is asserted. He took part of flesh and blood. Though as God he pre-existed from all eternity, yet in the fulness of time he took our nature into union with his divine nature, and became really and truly man. Now Christ resolving to recover the seed of Abraham and raise them up from their fallen state, he took upon him the human nature from one descended from the loins of Abraham, that the same nature that had sinned might suffer, to restore human nature to a state of hope."
     
  5. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hebrews chapter Three

    3:1 "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, CHRIST Jesus." Here the word CHRIST is omitted in the NIV, NASB even though it is found in the majority of all mss., the Syriac Peshitta and in P13, both of which predate Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. CHRIST Jesus is also in the NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera and Luther's German.

    3:2 "as also Moses was faithful in ALL his house." Here Vaticanus omits the word "all" (holoo), but it is in Sinaiticus, and this time the NASB includes it, while the RSV, NRSV omit it, and the ESV and NIV add the word God when not in any text, saying "in all God's house".

    3:6 " But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the REJOICING of the hope FIRM UNTO THE END."

    In this verse the words "firm unto the end" are again found in the majority of mss. and in Sinaiticus and the NASB, RV, ASV, but Vaticanus omits them and so do the NIV, RSV and ESV. Again see how the "oldest and best" constantly differ between themselves and how the "scholars" also differ among themselves. They have no sure word of God, and neither do you if you follow them.

    The "REJOICING of the hope" is the reading of the KJB, Geneva, NKJV, Young's and others, but the RSV translates this as "the PRIDE of our hope" and the NASB, NIV have "the BOAST of our hope". The Greek is the same, but they have altered the meaning. We can rightfully rejoice in what God has done for us, but dare we take pride or boast?

    3:16 "For SOME, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit, NOT ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses."

    Notice this is a statement in the KJB. Not everyone provoked God, but some did. Caleb and Joshua did believe God and the thousands of children from 20 years old and under did enter the promised land. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and of Tyndale, Geneva, Webster's, KJV21, TMB, Young's, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and Diodati versions.

    However here the NKJV departs from the Greek text underlying the KJB and follows the Westcott-Hort text of the modern versions of the RSV, NASB and NIV. The NKJV reads: "For WHO, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?" The NKJV forces you to answer, Yes, it was all of them. But this is untrue.

    John Gill

    "howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses"; that is, they did not all provoke, but some did; which is another aggravation of their sin; they were just come out of Egyptian bondage; brought out of it by the Lord, with the mighty and outstretched arm of his power; and yet they provoked him: but however all did not, yet these were but few; it seems only Caleb and Joshua, out of six hundred thousand; God will have a few to serve him in the worst of times.

    Matthew Henry
    Though the majority of hearers provoked God by unbelief, yet some there were who believed the report. God will have a remnant that shall be obedient to his voice, and he will take care of such and make mention of them with honour.
     
  6. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    FYI:

    It's interesting to note that John MacArthur in his Study Bible believes the translation "take on the nature of" is the preferred translation in Hebrews 2:16.

    "The context presents the identification of Christ with mankind in His incarnation-He took upon himself a human nature (vv.9-14,17)....Therefore, the translation, 'take on the nature of' is to be preferred"
    pg 1900 John MacArthur Study Bible

    -kman

    [ November 25, 2002, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: kman ]
     
  7. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    whoops

    [ November 25, 2002, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: kman ]
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not all Bibles before 1611 say the same thing, so which one is right? Or was there no infallible Bible?
     
  9. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are over 5000 existing Greek mss and even more ancient handwritten versions. The variants between them are far more substantial than the differences between our English translations. Some of them omit books altogether. Some of them include books which we reject. All are different from each other and probably all have scribal errors.

    So... before the printing press, did Christians have the Word of God. If so, please identify for us which document(s) are perfect.

    Also, which one of Erasmus' mss was perfect. He used only 6-10, only one of which had any part of Revelation... and even that one lacked the last 7 verses. Was his Latin Vulgate perfect? His back translation of the last 7 verses in Rev. introduced text that has no Greek support anywhere such as "book of life" in Rev 22:19 which according to the Greek is "tree of life."

    You are building your arguments on sinking sand. Where they differ, one version may be correct and the others incorrect... or they may all be incorrect... unless you possess the originals you are trusting in someone's scholarship.
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, am I missing something? Since when did "the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and even the NIV" become the manuscripts that the NASB is referring to? :confused:
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 7
    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
    6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

    You have demonstrated two things in this thread. One, that the versions are different (Big News there :rolleyes: )... being the product of different translators considering different evidence. And two, that you are guided totally by your pre-conceived, biased conclusions rather than an honest treatment of facts.
     
  12. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Brian T;
    You wrote;
    You are building your arguments on sinking sand. Where they differ, one version may be correct and the others incorrect... or they may all be incorrect... unless you possess the originals you are trusting in someone's scholarship.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Make no mistake I agree with this statement but on the other side of the coin you have to do the same.That is "Rely on someone's scholarship" Because you have never seen the manuscripts you have just described.The Catholic Church owns them and there not about to bring them out and let any one inspect them.I wonder what they're afraid of.Maybe they just don't want the truth known.
    While what you say is true, I do my best to rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit.There is one thing I do know for sure and that is if you believe on the Lord as John and the other apostles said in there gospels, God will change your life. Semantics are semantics but I know this message to be true.I just can't prove it out side of one of these versions.Unless you looked at my life before saved and after you would know something was different then.
    Romanbear
    Peace
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romanbear, You were replying to my comments not Brian's.

    You are right about scholarship. Those of us who reject KJVOnlyism do so based on someone else's work. The difference is that when scrutinized, the scholars we accept line up factually while folks like Riplinger, Ruckman, Gipp, etc. fall flat. They cannot account for facts that refute their conclusions nor can the reconcile the logical inconsistencies.
     
  14. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kman writes: "It's interesting to note that John MacArthur in his Study Bible believes the translation "take on the nature of" is the preferred translation in Hebrews 2:16.
    "The context presents the identification of Christ with mankind in His incarnation-He took upon himself a human nature (vv.9-14,17)....Therefore, the translation, 'take on the nature of' is to be preferred"
    pg 1900 John MacArthur Study Bible."

    Thank you for your comments, Kman.

    The context is the incarnation of Christ and God does indeed help angels, so the NKJV, NIV and NASB are wrong.

    Will
     
  15. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    BrianT, you ask: "Not all Bibles before 1611 say the same thing, so which one is right? Or was there no infallible Bible? "

    I'm sure there was an infallible Bible, because God said He would preserve His words somewhere on this earth.

    I know where it is today and has been for almost 400 years. Can you tell us where we can get a copy of this infallible Book Christians sometimes talk about?

    I have given a more detailed answer to this question, but I will not repeat it here.

    Here it is if you care to read it. You may not like the answer, but I think it is better than the one your side can provide.

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

    Will

    Will
     
  16. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romanbear - "Unless you looked at my life before saved and after you would know something was different then.
    Romanbear"

    I'm very glad to hear that God is working in your life and revealing the only Saviour.

    Praise the Lord.

    Will
     
  17. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hebrews Chapter 4

    Unbelief or Disobedience?

    It is somewhat amusing to see the "scholars" stumble over themselves as some of them try to discredit the King James Bible. A case in point is the rendering and meaning of the word apeitheoo and its noun form of apeitheia, which are translated in the KJB as "believed not" and "unbelief" in Hebrews and other places.

    In Chapter 4 the noun form is found twice and the verb occurs in 3:18 where it says: "And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that BELIEVED NOT? 19. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Verse 19 effectively defines the contextual meaning of the verb rendered as "believed not". Apeitheoo can have the meaning of "not being persuaded", thus to not believe. We often string synonymns together to illustrate a point. If I say someone is unbelieving, without faith, incredulous, doubting, disbelieving,and not persuaded, I mean that he does not believe.

    Again in 4:6 and 4:11 we are told: "Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of UNBELIEF"..."Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of UNBELIEF." Again the context of verse 3 defines the meaning of these two nouns - "For we which have believed do enter into rest".

    Some lexicons and commentaries come right out and say this word only means disobedience and not unbelief - "as the A.V. incorrectly has it". Yet if you consult others like Liddell & Scott, Thayers and Vines we see they do allow for both meanings. The KJB sometimes translates apeitheo and its noun form as Disobedience and at othertimes as Unbelief - all the versions do this with this word.

    The whole context of the book of Hebrews is the ultimate importance of faith and the dangers of unbelief.

    John Gill comments on Hebrews 3:18 where the KJB says they "believed not" but the NKJV, NIV, NASB say they "did not obey": - "And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest but to them that believed not? the Lord; notwithstanding the signs and wonders he showed among them, they would not be persuaded by Moses and Aaron, by Joshua and Caleb, to be still and quiet, to cease murmuring, and submit to the will of God, and believe in him; Unbelief is a source of sin, and cause of judgment, being greatly provoking to God."

    The NKJV has joined an host of modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, in rendering this word as disobeyed and disobedience in 3:18 "And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did NOT OBEY?", and in 4:6 "they entered not in because of DISOBEDIENCE" and 4:11 "lest anyone fall after the same example of DISOBEDIENCE." The NKJV is not just updating the "archaic words" of the KJB, but is changing the meaning of hundreds of verses.



    Yet the inconsistency of these modern versions is that the NKJV has also rendered this same Greek word as Believed not, and Unbelief in John 3:36, Acts 14:2, 19:9, Romans 15:31 and Hebrews 11:31. The NASB has done so in Acts 14:2 and 1 Peter 2:7, while the NIV has "rejects" in John 3:36, "not believe" in 1 Peter 3:1, and Romans 15:31, and as "refuse to believe" in Acts 14:2 and 19:9.

    Other Bible versions that agree with the KJB in Hebrews 3:18, and 4:6, 11 in saying they did not enter because they believed not are Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Darbys, Wycliffe, Douay, Douay-Rheims, Italian Diodati, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, Webster's, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, MKJV (Green), New English Bible and Today's English Version.

    We are told in the Old Testament that the reason the children of Israel did not enter the promised land is because they did not believe God. Numbers 14:11 "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they BELIEVE me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?"

    Deuteronomy 1:32 "Yet in this thing (entering the promised land) ye DID NOT BELIEVE the LORD your God." And in Deut. 9:23 "Likewise when the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea saying, Go up and possess the land which I have given you; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and YE BELIEVED HIM NOT, nor hearkended unto his voice."

    Why, you might ask, is this distinction so critical here? Because we are talking about our salvation from sin and resting in the finished, redemptive work of Christ, and we do not obtain these things by our obedience or lose them by our disobedience, but rather we "believe to the saving of the the soul" Hebrews 10:39.

    Who among us can claim to be totally obedient in all things at all times? We often fail and fall far short of the character of Christ, yet if we believe in our hearts that Christ alone is our only Saviour from sin and hell, we belong to Him and can never be lost.

    Notice again this legalistic tendency in the NASB, RSV, ESV in John 3:36 where this same word apeitheoo is used. The KJB reads: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that BELIEVETH NOT the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

    Pretty straight forward, isn't it? If you believe on the Son you have life; if you do not believe, the wrath of God abides on you. This is also the reading of the NKJV, Bible in Basic English, Douay, Spanish, Tyndale, Diodati, Young's, Webster, TMB, KJV 21, French Louis Segond, Worldwide English N.T., and Wycliffe.

    The NIV paraphrases by saying "He that REJECTS the Son will not see life", but there is no great theological error here. However the NASB says: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life, but he who DOES NOT OBEY the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

    So, according to the NASB, where do you stand if you believe on the Son and yet are at times disobedient? Will God's wrath fall upon you in this condition? Is there any rest and confidence in the finished work of Christ for you?

    As Hebrews 4 tells us: "For we which have believed do enter into rest...For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his."
     

Share This Page

Loading...