James White - Blind Bible Scholar. This is a series of articles dealing with some issues Mr. White brings up in his book, and my conversation with him at an online discussion group.
Acts 10:11 "And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel dscending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth"
Normally I would not even address the minor textual issue brought up by examining Acts 10:11, but since Mr. James White makes such a big deal of it in his book, The King James Only Controversy, I feel I should address the issue.
In chapter nine of his book, which is titled "Problems in the KJV", James lists several silly objections to the language and text of the King James Bible, all of which can easily be refuted. Of course he is "not attacking the King James Bible", you understand, but is merely pointing out areas where it contains errors or is based on what he calls "inferiour texts". James White has no infallible, inspired, complete Holy Bible to recommend to anyone, but sets himself up as the voice of reason and authority in the midst of a complicated and difficult issue.
Let's get specific here and look at one such example of the "superior scholarship" proffered to us by the good doctor on page 236 of 'The KJV Controversy'.
Mr. White writes: "The KJV New Testament is not without its intriguing passages as well. For example, Peter saw a vision that is described in the AV, "And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending UNTO HIM (caps mine), as it had been a great sheet KNIT (caps mine) at the four corners, and let down to the earth" - Acts 10:11. One could completely miss the point here, for the KJV has "knit" for a term that refers to the means by which the sheet was lowered, hence the NASB, "lowered by four corners to the ground."
Most people who read Mr. White's book would automatically assume that he knows what he is talking about. After all, James has gone to seminary, he knows Hebrew and Greek, and surely he would not print something that was not true, would he?.
Actually James White is totally in error at every point, and I am somewhat amazed that he would even put such an example in his book. He must be really hard up for examples of where the KJB supposedly dropped the ball.
First of all, Mr. White is woefully incorrect when he says the KJB has "knit" for a term that refers to the means by which the sheet was lowered. No, what has happened here is that there are two different textual readings, one followed by all Reformation Bibles including that of Luther, the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, Tyndale , the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the French Louis Segond; and another different Greek reading followed by the modern versions which have adopted the Westcott-Hort texts. How James White could miss this obvious truth is the only thing that is "intriguing".
The reading of "knit at the four corners" or "bound at the four corners" is found in the vast majority of all remaining Greek texts, as well as P45 which dates to the third century and is older by at least 100 years than the reading found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from which the NASB, NIV, RSV were translated. So the NASB, NIV, RSV aren't even following the oldest reading here, but a minority reading found in the notoriously corrupt, confused, and contradictory Sinaiticus-Vaticanus texts - as usual.
The Traditional Greek Texts says: kai katabainon ep auton skeuos ti ws oqonhn megalhn tessarsin arcais dedemenon kai kaqiemenon epi ths ghs, while the Alexandrian text underlying the NASB, NIV, RSV has: kai katabainon skeuos ti ws oqonhn megalhn tessarsin arcais kaqiemenon epi ths ghs.
The glaring differences between these two different texts here is that the words for "knit" and "upon him" are in most Greek texts but are omitted by the few upon which the NASB, NIV are based. The information provided by Mr. White it completely wrong.
In his book, James White recommends three different bible versions as being "reliable" - the NKJV, NASB, and the NIV; Surprise!!! - the only one he doesn't recommend is the Authorized King James Holy Bible. These three versions that Mr. White recommends differ from each other in hundreds of verses either in meaning or text. The NKJV is based on a very different Greek text (5000 words worth of differences) than that of the NIV, NASB. Yet, the NKJV which Mr. White recommends contains the same reading as that found in the KJB which he criticizes! The NKJV says: "and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet BOUND AT the four corners, descending TO HIM and let down to the earth."
The NASB says: "and he beheld the sky opened up, and a certain object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground." Notice that this reading entirely omits both "knit" (or bound) and "upon him".
Not only does the King James Bible say "descending UNTO HIM, as it had been a great sheet KNIT AT the four corners" but so also do the Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, Green's MKJV 1998, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible. The NKJV, as well as Young's, and Darby say: "descending UNTO HIM...BOUND AT the four corners."
James White has committed another blunder in his vain attempts to overthrow the authority of God's pure words as found in the King James Bible. He has no Final Authority but his own mind and would like very much for you to join him and his merry Bible of the Month Club Band to find out what God REALLY said.
Will Kinney
"Little White Lies"
In his book, The KJV Only Controversy, on page 152-153 Mr. James White actually says: "Every one of the papyrus manuscripts we have discovered has been a representative of the Alexandrian, not the Byzantine text type" and "The early Fathers who wrote at this time did not use the Byzantine text-type" and "the early translations of the New Testament reveals that they were done on the basis of the Alexandrian type manuscripts, not the Byzantine text-type" and "the early church fathers who wrote during the early centuries give no evidence in their citations of a familiarity with the Byzantine text-type".
These are such huge whoppers I could not believe he actually wrote this totally false information in his book. There is tons of evidence that even the early papyrus manuscripts, all of which came from Alexandria Egypt, were a mixed bag and there are many Byzantine readings found in them where they agree with the KJB readings and not the Westcott- Hort Alexandrian copies of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Furthermore, concerning the church Fathers, Dean John Burgon compiled over 86,000 citations and quotes of the church Fathers and found that not only did the Textus Receptus exist but it predominated.
The early versions like the Old Latin contain many Traditional Text readings not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as does the Syriac Peshitta. And both of these predate Sinaiticus Vaticanus by 150 years.
Even Dr. Hort of the famed Westcott Hort text said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92---as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257).
Dean Burgon immediately comments: "We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament, ---the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short--is, according to Dr. Hort, `BEYOND ALL QUESTION the TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.'
In other words, at the very time Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were penned, the Byzantine texts were already the predominate texts of the Christian church!
Then the "scholar in residence James White" seems to contradict himself in discussing John 1:18 where the KJB says "but the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, hath made him known". Here the NASB says "the only begotten God", which is heresy, while the NIV has three different readings depending on which NIV you happen to buy.
Here James White says: "the reading for 'the only begotten Son" (he puts it in Greek) is very great indeed. It is, obviously, the majority reading of both the manuscripts, the translations, and the Fathers (though some Fathers show familiarity with more than one reading). Then he goes on to tell us that the reading found in the NASB, NIV "command little manuscript support".
For an much fuller discussion of John 1:18, its meaning, and the multitude of conflicting modern versions renderings, see my article here: http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/Jn1-18.html
What do other equally trained and "competent scholars" have to say regarding the papyrus manuscripts, the early translations and the church fathers? The NKJV editors (which, by the way, Mr. White recommends as a "reliable translation") tell us THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what Mr. White so boldly and confidently states.
The following quotes are found in the 1982 edition of the NKJV. Keep in mind that these men are not King James Bible onlyists.
In the preface of the NKJV, which was translated by some of the same men who translated the NIV, it says on page vii "The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.
However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.
On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament.
Then on page 1231 the NKJV editors say: "The Byzantine Text. This text was largely preserved in the area of the old Byzantine Empire, the area which is now Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. OVER EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of the extant manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text type. Also, from the oldest to the most recent manuscripts of this type, there is greater homogeneity than among the manuscripts of any other text type. The King James Version is based largely on a Byzantine type Greek text."
Here are a couple of quotes from Kurt Aland, one of the chief editors of the modern UBS, Nestle-Aland texts upon which most modern versions are based, regarding the Greek manuscript issue. Mr. Aland remarks, “…the greatest number of manuscripts, comprising the bloc of Majority text witnesses in most instances, are always the same --- they are manuscripts with a Byzantine text. The representatives of this text type are extremely homogeneous, exhibiting a high ratio of agreement among themselves (Aland, The Text of the NT, p. 323).”
Notice what Aland observes immediately after that – “For manuscripts with the fewest Majority readings, that is, most of the early manuscripts, exactly the opposite is true. Even the MOST CLOSELY (caps mine) related among them generally show agreement ratios of between 60 and 70 percent (Ibid, p. 323).”
Dr. Jeffrey A. Young, Ph.D, writes in his article "An Examination of Modern New Testament Text Criticism Theory and Methods" :The Peshitta (a translation into Syrian) was produced early in the second century. It is possible that this translation was in the hands of Saint John. There are 350 copies extant of this translation, and they support the traditional text. The old Latin translation that was in use when Jerome prepared the Vulgate was translated much earlier than 300 A.D. because 50 copies are still extant dated between 300 and 400 A.D. This translation is also a witness, prior to the fourth century, that testifies to the authenticity of the traditional text."
His entire article can be found here: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/examinationof.htm
Dr. H. A. Sturz has collected lists of readings found in Papyri dated between 100 and 300 A.D. that contradict the major premise of Westcott and Hort. His first list gives 150 different readings of the traditional text, that Westcott and Hort rejected because they were found in neither ALEPH, nor B, nor D. A second list of Sturz contains 170 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because they were not found in ALEPH or B but were found in D. A third list contains 80 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because either ALEPH, or B, or D did not contain the reading. - The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, H. A. Sturz, H. A. Thomas Nelson, NY 1984.
One of many examples of James White's hypocrisy - "Word" and "Turn "
In his book, The King James Only Controversy, chapter Nine, which is titled "Problems in the KJV", on page 231 "resident scholar" Mr. James White states: "Jack Lewis notes that the KJV is also well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word. Now certainly there are many times when one will wish to use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally important in determining the actual meaning of a word, but the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times."
He continues: "For example, the Hebrew term for "word" or "thing" is rendered by EIGHTY FOUR different English words in the KJV! Another term, "to turn back" is rendered in one particular grammatical form by SIXTY different English words! Those who have attempted to follow the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of the KJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder." (End of quote.)
Most people who read this in Mr. White's book would think something like: "Oh, that nasty KJV. What a lousy translation it is. How unscholarly! Why would anybody want to use that?"
Most people would never take the time to verify if there is any validity to what Mr. White quotes from a certain Jack Lewis here; they would just accept his "scholarly" statements as facts.
James White now works for the New American Standard Bible organization. He knows both Hebrew and Greek and professes to be an expert in textual matters. He either didn't check the validity of the claims of Jack Lewis, or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to bolster his attacks on God's preserved words in the King James Bible. In either case, his hypocrisy is simply inexcusable.
The Hebrew word for the English "word" or "thing" is # 1697 Dabar. I only counted 78 different meanings found in the King James Bible, but I'll give Mr. White the benefit of the doubt and let him have his 84.
A simple look at the complete NASB concordance shows that the NASB has translated this single word Dabar in at least NINETY THREE very different ways while the NIV has over 200 different English meanings for this single Hebrew word.
Among the 94 different English words the NASB uses to translate this single Hebrew word are: account, act, advice, affair, agreement, amount, annals, answer, anything, asked, because, business, case, cause, charge, Chronicles, claims, commandment, compliments, concerned, conclusion, conditions, conduct, conferred, consultation, conversation, counsel, custom, dealings, decree, deed, defect, desires, dispute, doings, duty, edict, eloquent, event, fulfillment, harm, idea, instructed, manner, matter, message, nothing, oath, obligations, one, order, parts, pertains, plan, plot, portion, promise, proposal, proven, purpose, question, ration, reason, records, regard, reports, request, required, rule, said, same thing, saying, so much, some, something, songs, speaks, speech, talk, task, theme, thing, this, thoughts, threats, thus, told, trouble, verdict, way, what, whatever, word and work.
As I said, the NIV has over twice this amount of different meanings - well over 200 - as compared to the KJB's 84.
The second word mentioned by Mr. White is "to turn back" and it is # 7725 Shub, and in this case Mr. White is correct in that the King James Bible does translate it some 60 different ways. However what James forgot to mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same single Hebrew word at least 104 different ways, while the NIV again has over 200 different meanings!
What makes the hypocrisy of both James White and Mr. Jack Lewis all the more astonishing, is the fact that Jack Lewis himself is one of the principal NIV translators. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This is the type of scholarship men like James White and Jack Lewis employ to discredit the truth of the King James Bible.
A Person to Person Conversation with James White
At RealTruthAudio on the internet James White came on to discuss these matters with me. Here is his answer at this site. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/64
I had posted: Most people who read this in Mr. White's book would think something like: "Oh, that nasty KJV. What a lousy translation it is and how unscholarly. Why would anybody want to use that?"
Then James White says: "Really? They would think that? Well, that's amazing. Why they would think that is beyond me. It is again a simple statement of fact. If facts are bothersome to you, you might consider what that means. But please note: your ascription of devious purposes to me (replete with unfounded insults) is the creation of your own imagination. Some of us can tell the truth without adding conspiracies to it just to "spice things up."
My response to James: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/69
>>>>Really? They would think that? Well, that's amazing. Why they would think that is beyond me. It is again a simple statement of fact. If facts are bothersome to you, you might consider what that means.<<<<<
James, this is exactly what I mean by hypocritical. That was exactly your intention. Why else would you quote the guy saying: "the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times. ... Those who have attempted to follow the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of the KJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder."
Since I pointed out that the NASB, NIV and the NKJV too all do the same thing and even much more so, why then this criticism of the KJB? What version did this guy use? If you yourself recommend the NASB, NIV, NKJV and they all are "guilty" of doing the same thing, is this not the dictionary picture of an hypocrite? These facts should be bothersome to YOU.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/82
I again posted: The second word mentioned by Mr. White is "to turn back" and it is # 7725 Shub, and in this case Mr. White is correct in that the KJB does translate it some 60 different ways. However what James forgot to mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same single Hebrew word at least 104 different ways! while the NIV again has over 200 different meanings!
Then I said: "This whole point in your book should never have been made. It is totally hypocritical and it seems your only desire was to make it sound as though the KJB is extremely inaccurate and sloppy when it comes to translational issues.
If you had said rather "The inconsistency of the NASB, NIV, NKJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder" you would have been more accurate and would have left a very different impression on the minds of the "lay people" for whom you say you wrote the book.
This sir, is hypocritical, and to call it by any other name would not be accurate. You should have done your homework and compare the other versions you were recommending people use, like the NASB, NIV and NKJV, before you gave such a badly thoughtout slam on the KJB.
James White then responds>>>: "A "lie" is something intentionally presented. You do not know me, hence, you would have to prove, from my writings, that I am specifically attempting to spread untruths."
Will>>> Well, one example might well be your saying that the above example is not one of hypocricy.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/106 From: "will j. kinney" Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 9:18 am Subject: Searching for some Reality
James, why is it so hard for you to come right out and just give us a straight answer about where God's preserved, infallible words are today? By my count I have asked you three times about this, and you seem to think you have already given us an answer. You even assume I haven't read your book very closely or I wouldn't be asking this question. In reality, it is precisely because I have read your book at least 3 times that I do ask the question. You are a very slippery guy and hard to pin down on a lot of things.
Here is our past correspondence regarding this question, and I confess, I must have missed where you specifically answered the question about where we can all get a copy of God's preserved words.
James >>>> Of course, you play your hand when you speak of "God's preserved words in the King James Bible." That is your starting point, and anything that does not fit with that starting point is going to be attacked and rejected. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Will >>> Yes, James, that is my starting point. I readily admit that. And your position is that there never was nor is now any inspired, infallible, perfect, preserved words of God we can hold in our hands and really believe every word (Please correct me if I am wrong).
James >>> You are wrong. Anyone who has read my book knows you are wrong. Why you refuse to see the words on a page I leave to you to figure out.
Will>>> I speak of God's preserved words because I really believe God kept His promises to do so. You do not have all the preserved words of God, do you? You did not answer the main question I twice asked you. Would you care to give it a shot, or will this "play your hand" too much?
James >>> Asked and answered, and any honest person who has read the work you seek to criticize well knows it.
Will >>> Do you believe there ever was or is now an inspired, infallible, pure Bible on this earth, or is the best we can hope for a series of different bible versions which contradict each other in both texts and meanings in literally hundreds of verses, all of which claim to be the latest and best in scholarship?
James>>> I'm sorry you have not seemed to read the book you are critiquing, sir. :-) If you had, you would not even ask the question, let alone ask it in such a flawed fashion. Did you actually read the book, or were you just looking for things you could take out of context, attach to the terms "liar and hypocrite," and fire off in e-mail? It is the standard MO of KJVO's that I've been seeing for eight years now.
God gave His precious Word to us at a time when the English language did not yet exist. Obviously, then, we are faced with the issue of translation. You may not like facing those issues, and as a result, choose to irrationally grab a particular translation and make it your standard, but that does not change the reality of the situation.
Will >>> Or will you tell us we have many "reliable translations", whatever that might mean?
James>>> Yes, we have many reliable translations, from the KJV through the ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV to the ESV. In fact, we have too many, in my opinion. I do not support the "each publishing house gets its own translation" movement that has begun over the past decade. It's worthless.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/72 Will>>> From what I know of you, you have no inspired, infallible, complete Holy Bible. I have heard you "correct" even the NASB for whom you presently work.
James>>> Those who have read my book well know the answer to this fallacious charge. Let me retranslate your assertion into something rational: "You have no inspired, infallible English translation of the Bible, and you are even consistent enough to criticize the NASB's renderings at points." Yes, exactly. I do not believe God inspires translations, whether we are referring to the Septuagint, or Vulgate (both of which had those who defended them as inspired), or the KJV. I believe God inspired the Scriptures as they were given to us by prophets and apostles. I do not believe God then began inspiring "versions" of those Scriptures. It is the Scriptures themselves that are theopneustos, not the translations made by men.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/110 From: James White Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:18 am Subject: Re: [realtruthradio] Searching for some Reality
James>>> You wrote: This is a real question, James. I'm not trying to be funny or superficial or rhetorical. I would appreciate a straight, clear, up front answer from you so we can all see exactly where you derive your final authority from.
James>>>I wish I could believe you, sir. But you hold my book in your hand, and anyone who has, in fact, read it, knows the answer is as plain as day. I shall not play games when I have given clear and cogent replies in the book you hold in your hands.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/111
Hi James, I would suggest in the name of being fair, you get to ask me about one verse or "error" in the KJB and then I, in turn, am allowed to ask you one. You posted a whole bunch of questions and I tried to answer some of them, but I think it is time that you address just one of the very many I also have for you, OK?
James>>>No thanks, Mr. Kinney. My position is well known. You claim to have read it.
James, I want to thank you for making your position clear on the Bible version issue. At least we can see what the "whaterist" position is. You have no final authority, no final standard but your own mind. You recommend we learn Hebrew and Greek. Of course you don't always accept the Hebrew texts, but, Hey, it couldn't hurt to learn it anyway. Even if we learned Greek, what good would that do us. According to your view, we still wouldn't know which readings were correct or how to translate them.
You recommend several versions, ASV, NASB, KJB, yada, yada, but these all differ radically from each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds of verses.
You still condemn the KJB for using 40 plus words to translate as "destroy". Have you ever searched out the other versions you recommend to see what they do?
I checked the NASB just tonight. It is a long, boring process, but I was pretty sure I would find this to be another hypocritical criticism, just like the one found in the KJV Controversy.
The NASB uses 44 different Hebrew words to come up with the words Destroy, or Destroyer, or Destroyed, just in the O.T.
I could list all the numbers if you wish, but that is very tedious. In the N.T. the NASB uses 12 different Greek words and translates them as "destroy". So, this totals out to 56 different words all translated as "destroy". I'm so glad to find out your "sound criticism" is just another unfounded case of hypocrisy - just like your book.
Will Kinney
Isaiah 19:10 "all that make sluices and ponds for fish."
Bible Critic James White posted this example at one of the Bible clubs I belong to. He attempts to prove some kind of an error in the King James Bible by trying to tell us that a particular word came from the Latin Vulgate rather than from the Hebrew texts. This is blatant hypocrisy on the part of Mr. White in that he now works for the NASB committee and his own NASB UNDOUBTEDLY OFTEN REJECTS the clear Hebrew readings. This can easily be proven by dozens of clear examples. Here they are if you care to see them.
http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/NIVapos.html
and
http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html
In spite of all these undeniable examples of the deficiencies of the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard and others, James White continues his crusade to prove that there is no such thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language on this earth today, and so he writes:
Isaiah 19:10 And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish. (KJV)
Isaiah 19:10 And its foundations will be broken. All who make wages will be troubled of soul. (NKJ)
Isaiah 19:10 And the pillars of Egypt will be crushed; All the hired laborers will be grieved in soul. (NASB)
Isaiah 19:10 The workers in cloth will be dejected, and all the wage earners will be sick at heart. (NIV)
Mr. White then comments: "Quite a range of translations, but the most obvious difference is that the KJV has "fish," following Jerome and the Latin Vulgate, rather than the Hebrew text. Is it your contention, sir, that "fish" is the inspired reading, and that it was maintained in the Latin Vulgate, while the Hebrew text was corrupted?" James White
My answer to Mr. James "No Bible is inerrant" White:
Let's compare several versions and see if we can determine whether the King James Bible reading comes from the Latin Vulage, as Mr. White asserts in no uncertain terms, or if it comes from a legitimate interpretation of the Hebrew text.
KJB - "And THEY SHALL BE BROKEN IN THE PURPOSES THEREOF, ALL THAT MAKE SLUICES AND PONDS FOR FISH."
This is also the reading of the Wycliffe Bible 1395, the Bishop's Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 1950 Douay Version. Not only do these English translations render the Hebrew phrase found here as "fishes" but so also do the Spanish Reina Valera versions of 1909, 1960 and 1995. Both the 1569 version and the 1999 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras (Holy Scriptures) also reads as does the King James Bible. They say: "porque todas sus redes serán rotas; y se entristecerán todos los que hacen viveros para PECES." - FISH. If you don't know Spanish, you might recognize the similarity to Pices, or the sign of the fish.
Likewise the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez translation reads like the King James Bible with: "porque todas sus redes serán rotas: y se entristecerán todos los que hacen viveros para peces."
The Modern Greek translation is similar to the King James Bible in that it says: "all who make gain from FISH ponds." (ixthuotropheioon)
Now, let's take a look at the wide variety of "reliable translations" found in the multitude of conflicting, more modern versions that men like James White recommend we use instead of that old fashioned King James.
NKJV - " And ITS FOUNDATIONS will be broken. ALL WHO MAKE WAGES WILL BE TROUBLED OF SOUL.
NASB - "And THE PILLARS OF EGYPT will be crushed. All the HIRED LABORERS will be grieved in soul.
NIV - "The WORKERS OF CLOTH WILL BE DEJECTED, and all WAGE EARNERS WILL BE SICK AT HEART.
The 2001 ESV - "THOSE WHO ARE THE PILLARS of the land will be crushed, and all who work for pay will be grieved."
NRSV 1989 - "Its WEAVERS will be dismayed, and all who work for wages will be grieved.
The 2001 Easy to Read Version - "The PEOPLE THAT MAKE DAMS TO SAVE WATER will have no work, so they will be sad."
Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac - "And all those WHO MAKE STRONG DRINK FOR THE DRINKING OF THE PEOPLE shall be humiliated."
Geneva Bible 1599 - "For their nets shall be broken, and all THEY THAT MAKE PONDS shall be heavy in heart."
Bible in Basic English 1961 actually omits words reading: "And the MAKERS OF TWISTED THREAD will be crushed, and those who ... will be sad in heart."
The 1970 New English Bible - "Egypt's SPINNERS shall be downcast, and ALL HER ARTISANS sick at heart."
See how true the saying by men like James White is who tell us by reading and comparing a variety of translations we can clear things up?
Now let's see what some other Bible commentators, who are not KJB onlies, have to say.
Adam Clarke - All that make sluices and ponds for fish-"All that make a gain of pools for fish." This obscure line is rendered by different interpreters in very different manners. I translate gain, and which some take for nets or inclosures, the Septuagint is "And all THEY THAT MAKE BARLEY WINE shall mourn, and be grieved in soul."
Jamieson, Faussett & Brown - all that make sluices, —"makers of dams," made to confine the waters which overflow from the Nile in artificial FISH-ponds [HORSLEY]. "Makers of gain," that is, the common people who have to earn their livelihood, as opposed to the "nobles" previously [MAURER].
John Gill - "All that make sluices and ponds for fish; or, "all that make an enclosure of ponds of soul" ; or for delight and pleasure; that is, not only such shall be broken in their purposes, ashamed and confounded, and be dispirited, mourn and lament, whose business and employment it is to catch FISH (caps are mine), or make nets for that end, and get their livelihood thereby; but even such who enclose a confluence of water, and make FISH ponds in their fields and gardens for their pleasure, will be disappointed; for their waters there will be dried up, and the FISH die, as well as in the common rivers."
John Wesley tersely comments on this verse saying: "They shall lose their hopes; for the FISHES in them shall die for want of water."
John Calvin comments on Isaiah 19:10 saying: "Where FISHES are very abundant, they are also preserved in pools and ponds; because the fishers would otherwise be constrained to sell them at a very low price. Besides, when they throw a net, they are not always successful. He therefore follows out the same subject, “It will not be possible either to take or to preserve FISHES. Pools will be of no use.”
On the other hand, Bible critic James White says: "Quite a range of translations, but the most obvious difference is that the KJV has "fish," following Jerome and the Latin Vulgate, rather than the Hebrew text."
Mr. White is mistaken in his understanding. The word renderd "fish" in the KJB (nephesh) has a great variety of meanings even in the NASB, NIV and other modern versions.
For example, some of the meanings given in the NASB for this same Hebrew word include "a living being, a life, appetite, body, breath, corpse, CREATURE, desire, heart, feelings, hunger, men, mind, number, passion, people, soul, person, slave, strength, thirst, throat, will and wish".
Likewise the NIV renders this same word as "life, soul, heart, people, appetite, CREATURES, spirit, body, corpse, needs, desires, hunger, members, being, feel, greed, perfume, slave, throats, wishes and zeal." The Hebrew word can have a great variety of meanings depending on the context.
The context is clearly talking about FISH - Verse 19:8 reads: "The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish." Then we have verse 10 "And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for FISH." Once the context is determined to refer to "sluices and ponds", we then can reasonably conclude that the creatures which live in the ponds are FISH.
As has been shown, other Bible commentators have expressed the reading of the King James Bible as being derived from the Hebrew text itself, and not from the Latin.
The Latin Vulgate has nothing to do with how the King James Bible translates the text, but rather they translated the Latin Bibles directly from the Hebrew text in this place. It is a matter of different interpretations and understanding; not a difference of the Hebrew versus the Latin texts. If the Latin bibles say "Christ died for the ungodly" are we to claim they got it wrong? I trow not. By the way, both the Latin of 425 A.D. and Jerome's earlier Latin translation of 385 A.D. both refer to the FISH in the ponds. They got it right way back then even when today's scholars can't agree even among themselves what the verse might mean.
Again, not only does the King James Bible render this word as "fish" but so also do the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960 and 1995; Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and 1999, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, the Douay version 1950, Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the Modern Greek translation, the 1994 KJV 21st Century, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.
Will Kinney