2 Samuel 14:14 - Does God take away life or not? A Theological error in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard versions.
Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."
There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14.
The context is when Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.
In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."
The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard. John Wesley briefly comments: "Respect - So far as to exempt him from this common law of dying."
Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.
The Bishops' Bible of 1568, and the Geneva Bible of 1599 say: "For we must needes dye, and we are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered vp againe: NEITHER DOTH GOD SPARE ANY PERSON, yet doeth he appoynt meanes, not to cast out from him, him that is expelled."
The new Judaica Press Complete Tanach translation done by Rabbi Rosenburg says: " For die we must, and [are] as water that is spilt on the ground which cannot be gathered up again; AND GOD FAVORS NOT A SOUL, but He devises means that he that is banished be not cast from Him." This rendering agrees with the sense found in the King James Bible.
However when we get to the New KJV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NIV, The Message, Green's MKJV, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is a lie and a contradiction.
Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David, in his adulterous affair with Bathseba, that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." 1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."
In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ says in Luke 12:5 "But I will forwarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."
God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error here in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.
The same Hebrew words used in 2 Samuel 14: 14 are also translated as "not RESPECT PERSONS" in other places in the NKJV, NIV and NASB. The word RESPECT is # 5375 nah-sah, and has many meanings such as "to accept, to respect, to regard, to take up, take, lift up, carry away, to pardon, to set up and to bear."
PERSONS is # 5315 nephesh and the NASB itself has translated this word as "persons" some 90 times. It also can mean spirit, soul, life, ghost, heart, breath, and himself or herself. Both words have multiple meanings and the context and sound theology must determine how they are to be translated correctly.
The NKJV has translated this same verb as "to respect" in Lamentations 4:16 "they do not respect the priests" and as "you shall not be partial to the poor" in Leviticus 19:15.
Likewise the NASB and NIV have translated the verb as "respect, accept and show partiality" many times. The NASB has "the LORD accepted Job" in Job 42:8, and in 2 Kings 5:1 says that "Naaman was a great man with his master and highly RESPECTED." The NIV has "without RESPECT for the old" Deut. 28:50 and in 2 Kings 3:14 "If I did not HAVE RESPECT for the presence of Jehoshaphat I would not look at you."
At least eight times the NIV, NKJV and NASB translate this verb as "to show partiality". For example, in Deuteronomy 10:17 the KJB, the ASV, Young's, Darby and the Jewish translations say: "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, WHICH REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, nor taketh reward." Here the NIV, NKJV and NASB say: "God..who SHOWS NO PARTIALITY."
So it is not a case of the Hebrew not being able to carry the meaning as found in the King James Bible and all the others, but the modern bible translators were blinded to an obvious truth of Scripture - "Neither doth God respect any person". God does indeed take away life.
Commentators are not inspired. Lexicons are not inspired. And any bible version that contains a falshood is not inspired. Only the true Holy Bible providentially given to us by God Almighty is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I firmly believe all the true words of God are found in the King James Bible, and not the others.
I thought it would be instructive to show just how the Bible Babel is going in regards to other translations of this phrase "neither doth God respect persons".
The New English Bible: "God WILL SPARE THE MAN WHO DOES NOT SET HIMSELF TO KEEP THE LAWLESS in banishment."
Today's English Version, and the Good News Translation 1992: "We will all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which can't be gathered again. Even God DOES NOT BRING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE". (He doesn't?)
The Greek Septuagint is little help here to the modern versionists. It says: kai leepsetai ho theos psuxen - "God receives a soul"
The New Jerusalem bible: "NOR DOES GOD RAISE UP A CORPSE".
New Living Bible: "that is why God TRIES TO BRING US BACK when we have been separated from him."
God's Word translation: "But DOESN'T GOD FORGIVE A PERSON?"
Bible in Basic English: "God WILL NOT TAKE AWAY THE LIFE OF THE MAN WHOSE PURPOSE IS THAT THAT HE WHO HAS BEEN SENT AWAY MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY CUT OFF FROM HIM." - say what?
Easy To Read Version 2001 - " No person can gather this water back from the ground. YOU KNOW GOD FORGIVES PEOPLE. God made plans for people who are forced to run away for safety--God doesn't force them to run away from him!"
There you have it. All of these are modern "bibles" written by scholarly men who have gone to seminary and have given us the various fruits of their labours.
I hope this clears up everything for you. Remember the famous words of James White "It is good to have a variety of translations so you can get a better understanding of what it says."
Will Kinney
Luke chapter 24 - Which Bible is inspired?
This simple study of Luke 24 should show to any sincere and open mind that all the Bible versions on the market today cannot all be the inspired words of the living God.
We shall look at the texts used and the variations that are found among the King James Bible, the New American Standard, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. None of them are in total agreement, and the changes may surprise you.
In verse 3 we read: “And they entered in, and found not the body OF THE LORD JESUS.” These last words “of the Lord Jesus” are omitted by the RSV 1952 and the NRSV 1989. Only manuscript D omits these words. They are still in the RV, ASV, NIV and NASB. Now the revision of the revision of the revision - called the ESV (English Standard Version of 2001) has come out, and it too once again puts these inspired words back into the text.
In verse 6 “HE IS NOT HERE, BUT IS RISEN” is omitted in the RSV, because not in D, though found in all others, but the NRSV puts these words back in their version. They are also found in the NIV and NASB.
The whole of verse 12 is again omitted in the RSV. “Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes LAID by themselves, and departed, WONDERING IN HIMSELF at that which was come to pass.” This verse is put back in by the NRSV.
It is also found in the NASB and NIV, but the NASB and NIV have omitted the word LAID. This word is keimena and is in the majority, A, TR, and P75 which predates by more than 100 years both Sinaticus (N) and Vaticanus (B). N & B omit this little word, and so the NIV/NASB omit it too, though it is found in the Catholic Douay Version, the KJB, NKJV and many others.
The part about “he departed, wondering in himself” is the same in the NKJV and NIV, but the NASB has rendered this as “he went away TO HIS HOME, marveling at that which had happened.” There is no word for "home" here in any text.
We now jump all the way over to verse 32 where things really begin to pick up in this little study. I love this verse. It says in the KJB: “Did not our heart burn WITHIN US, while he talked with us by the way, AND while he opened to us the scriptures?”
Here Vaticanus omits the words “within us”. But they are found in Sinaiticus, the Majority, A and the TR. In this case the NASB and NIV reject B and follow Sinaiticus. You see, these so called “oldest and best” manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone, yet they are the main ones used by the NASB, NIV,RSV and NRSV to omit about 7% of the New Testament from the King James Bible.
If you were to put all these omitted words together, it is like removing all five chapters of 1 Peter and the three chapters of 2 Peter from the Holy Bible. In this same verse, that little word AND, or kai is omitted by both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The NASB, ESV also omit it, but the NIV and the Holman Standard retain it.
Verse 36 says: “And as they thus spake, JESUS himself stood in the midst of them, AND SAITH UNTO THEM, PEACE BE UNTO YOU.” Here the word JESUS is omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the NASB and Holman, but it is found in the Majority, A and the ESV and NIV.
The Last part of this verse “And saith unto them, peace be unto you” is omitted by the NASB and the RSV. Yet these words are in the NIV and the NRSV, ESV and Holman! They are found in all Greek copies including P75, N, B, A and majority. They are also found in the ASV of 1901, the predecessor to the NASB. So why does the NASB omit these words? Because they are not in one Greek Mss. D. The NASB of 1977 has a footnote which says: “SOME ancient mss. insert”. SOME? Is the word “some” a fair description of “all except one”? In addition to this, the NASB Update 1995 has now come out and it has replaced several readings not found in the previous 1977 NASB. The 95 Update copy I have here on my desk still omits the words "And saith unto them, Peace be unto you", but others have told me that their 1995 copies do include the words.
Verse 40 is a very interesting example. “And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” This entire verse is omitted in the NASBs from 1963 to 1972, and by the RSV. But it is in the NIV, and the NRSV. The NASB of 1977, and the 95 update have again included this verse they previously left out, but now they have it in brackets, thus casting doubt upon its authenticity.
The New KJV also casts doubt on this verse by its footnote which reads: “Some printed New Testaments omit this verse.” Do you see how all this undermines confidence in God’s word. Whom do you suppose would want us to ask “Yea, hath God said?” Yet this verse is in the majority, P75, N, B, Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian and Georgian ancient versions.
Again, only manuscript D omits this verse. Why did the NASB first omit it, and then put it back in? Not because of any new evidence discovered in a cave somewhere; the evidence is still the same.
Are you beginning to get the picture? These modern scholars change their opinions every few years on a mere whim. They have no final written authority. They do not believe that any Bible is inspired today. They tell us that no Bible is perfect, all have errors, and God apparently has not been able to fulfill His promises to preserve His words for us today.
The originals are long gone, and all they can do is try to approximate what they think may have been the true words of God. Yet they do not agree among themselves about which texts to include nor how to translate them. All these bibles differ in hundreds of verses throughout both Testaments. No wonder the world laughs at our “inspired Bible”.
Again there are some words left out of verse 42. Here we read: “And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN HONEYCOMB.” The NASB and NIV omit these words because not found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and D. Yet they are found in every text both uncial and cursive except about 10. It is so quoted by at least 18 ancient church fathers, many long before Vaticanus and Sinaticus were even written, and in numerous ancient versions including the Old Latin, the 382 Jerome Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Palestinian, Harkelian, and Curetonion; the Coptic Boharic, Slavonic, Georgian, Armenian and Ethiopic. Yet the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard omit them. They are however found not only in the King James Bible, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Spanish Reina Valera, Luther's German, the French Louis Segond, the Italian New Diodati 1991, but also in the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 and the 1950 Douay version, though the more recent Catholic versions like the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible now omit the words "and of an honeycomb".
Verse 44 says: “These are THE words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you.” Here only Vaticanus adds MY words, instead of THE words. MY is not found in Sinaiticus, Majority nor in Douay, yet the NASB and NIV have MY words.
In verse 46 the words “AND THUS IT BEHOVED Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day” are removed in the NASB and NIV, though they are found in the Majority, A and 24 uncials.
The NASB and NIV disagree with each other again in the next verse. “And that repentance AND remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations...” This little word AND is kai, and is found in the Majority, A, C, D the Douay, ASV, RV, ESV and the NIV. But the NASB and Holman have followed Sinaiticus and Vaticanus with eis instead of kai and read: “repentance FOR remission of sins”.
Verse 49 says: “And BEHOLD, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city OF JERUSALEM, until ye be endued with power from on high.” Here the word BEHOLD is in Vaticanus, and Majority, A and C and in the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NASB. But Sinaticus omits it and so does the NIV!
You see, they don’t agree even among themselves. The word JERUSALEM is also omitted by the NASB and NIV, though found in the Majority and A.
Verse 51. “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN.” These last 5 words, “and carried up into heaven” are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, the Geneva Bible, the NIV, the Revised Version, the ASV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman. But they are omitted by the RSV 1952 edition and all seven editions of the NASB from 1963 to 1977.
These words are found in P75, Majority, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only manuscript D omits these words. The Critical Texts again are in a state of constant change. Wescott and Hort originally double bracketed the words “and carried up into heaven” and “worshipped him and” in the next verse. Then in 1961 the Nestle-Aland critical text COMPLETELY REMOVED from their texts all these words. But once again in the latest Nestle-Aland they have put all these words back in their texts and this time not even in [brackets]! Go figure. Yet the NASB’s first seven editions from 1963 to 1977 omitted the fact of the ascension of our Lord by removing the words “and carried up into heaven” and removed the words “and worshipped Him” from verse 52. The 1989 Revised English Bible, and the 1970 New English Bible still omit all the words “and was carried up into heaven” and “and worshipped Him”.
But wait, now the 1995 edition of the new and improved NA$B has put them back in for us. Now we can get the late$t in $cholar$hip. So, were the previous NASBs not the inspired words of God, but now in 1995 it is?
We are not quite done beholding the marvels of modern scholarship. Just a couple more brief examples.
In the next verse the reaction of the disciples at seeing our risen Lord ascend into heaven was that “they WORSHIPPED HIM AND, returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” Here again the NASBs from 1963 to 1977 (Seven distinct editions) omitted the words WORSHIPPED HIM AND, and have merely “And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”
Nothing about worshipping Jesus Christ, which of course is a strong testimony to the fact that He is God in the flesh, because we may only worship God. The RSV 1952 also omits this phrase and so does the Revised English Bible 1989 and the NEB 1970, but the NRSV, ESV and Holman put it back in and so does the 1995 NASB. Again only D omits these words.
You should be able to see by now that the so called “science of textual criticism” is about as scientific as throwing darts at a board, and the modern scholars are nothing more than the blind leading the blind.
The last verse in chapter 24 of Luke has two changes in the NASB and NIV. "And were continually in the temple, PRAISING and blessing God. AMEN." Here the word PRAISING is omitted by the NIV and NASB because not in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, though in the Majority, A and many ancient versions. The very last word of this chapter - AMEN - is also left out of the NASB and NIV. This is because it is not in Sinaticus. But the word AMEN is in Vaticanus, A and the majority!
Do you see the total lack of consistency here? Sometimes they follow Sinaiticus, other times Vaticanus, sometimes they follow D, and then change back again from one edition to the next. And the NIV and NASB still do not agree with each other nor the RSV with the NRSV, nor the NRSV with the ESV.
Are you a Bible of the Month Club member, or are you settled on the Rock of God’s true words as found in the King James Bible?
The KJB text has never changed in almost 400 years. There were some minor printing errors, which have been corrected, and the spelling of some words has changed, like Sonne to Son, but the text itself, both in Hebrew and Greek, and the resulting English translation has not changed at all.
It is the fulfillment of God’s promises to preserve His inspired, complete and inerrant words. God knew what would become of the English language and how the King James Bible would be used to carry His words to the farthest regions of the world during the time of the great missionary outreach.
Every legitimate revival in the history of the English speaking people has been accomplished using the King James Bible, and millions have been converted through its use. God has not failed to preserve His words and we can believe and trust them with all our hearts for time and eternity.
“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” Jeremiah 6:16
Will Kinney