Acts 17:22 "Too Superstitious or Very Religious"?
Acts 17:22 "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things YE ARE TOO SUPERSTITIOUS...whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."
Many Bible commentators and modern critics have set forth a concentrated attack on the accuracy of our beloved Authorized King James Bible. Most of these men will piously profess a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, but when we press them about what they REALLY believe, we find that not one of them has a real and tangible book in print anywhere on this earth that they honestly believes is the complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. Each of them ends up being his own authority and feels free to edit, change, correct, omit, add to and translate any portion of what he thinks might be Scripture any way he chooses to do so at the moment. And of course, not one of them is in agreement with anybody else all the time. These same men will tell us that the King James Bible got it all wrong here in Acts 17:22 and the word translated as "too superstitious" should really be rendered as "very religious". They explain to us that Paul would not want to offend these people and start off his sermon with a slap in the face. He would be more gentle and compliment them on what they had right - or, so they tell us.
At one of the internet Bible clubs I belong to, a modern version promoter wrote: "The KJV's rendering of deisidaimonesterous as superstitious in Acts 17:22 is just wrong. Superstitious is a negative quality, and St. Paul is clearly not saying anything bad about the Athenians here because he wants them to listen to him. He is not going to win listeners if he from the outset denounces them as superstitious dolts. The modern versions usually render this word as "very religious", and this is clearly better than the KJV rendering, don't you think?"
The above criticism of the King James Bible is typical of the mindset of today's compromising religious critics. They assume the KJB's "superstitious" is wrong and are horrified that a preacher of the gospel would dare find fault with someone else's religion.
They might also find fault with John the Baptist's methods or Peter's or even Jesus' words to a misguided sinner. They perhaps were not "seeker friendly" enough. In Luke 3:7-10 we read of John the Baptist when he was just beginning his ministry. "Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O GENERATION OF VIPERS, who hath warned you to flee from the WRATH TO COME? Bring forth fruits worthy of REPENTANCE, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and CAST INTO THE FIRE. And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?"
Then there is Peter preaching his first sermon in Acts 2. "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs...Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, YE HAVE TAKEN, AND BY WICKED HANDS HAVE CRUCIFIED AND SLAIN." Acts 2:22,23.
Again in Acts 3 Peter again "slaps them in the face" by telling his audience "the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead."
Then finally, I guess Jesus Christ Himself was unkind in His words to the woman of Samaria when He told her that her religion was false. He says to her: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." Here Christ tells the Samaritan woman that she and her people were wrong in their collective worship and that the only true salvation came from the Old Testament scriptures entrusted to the Jewish people. How inconsiderate of our Lord not to compliment her on the parts of her people's religion they had right, don't you think?
Secondly, let's take a look at the word translated as "too superstitious" in the King James Bible. The word is composed of two elements. Deisidaimonesterous is in part composed of the verb deido which means to fear, and the second part is daimon, which means devils or demons. The word daimon is used six times in the New Testament and is always translated as devils in the KJB.
In Luke 8:29 a man possessed of an unclean spirit often brake his bands "and was driven of THE DEVIL into the wilderness." Revelation 16:14 uses this word when it tells us: "they are the spirits of DEVILS working miracles" and again in Revelation 18:2 "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of DEVILS" So the word is literally to fear devils or demons.
Many modern versions have united to translate Paul's sermon in Acts 17:22 as a compliment to their spirituality rather than as a rebuke of their false religion. Among these are the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, Holman Standard, and the ESV. The NKJV reads: "I perceive that in all things you are VERY RELIGIOUS".
Here is how some other modern versions translate the passage: The Message - "you take your religion seriously"; Green's "literal" translation - "I see how god-fearing you are"; Holman - "you are extremely religious in every respect."-Young's "you are over religious", and then the Amplified speaks out of both sides of its mouth with: "I perceive that you are most religious, or very reverent to demons."
The King James Bible is not at all alone in correctly translating this word as "too superstitious". Even today in modern Greek, the word deisidaimonesteros means "superstitious" and does not mean "religious". I have Diury's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English desk dictionary here in my study. If you look up the word superstitious you get precisely this same Greek word as its definition; and the reverse is also true. If you look up the Greek word deisidaimonesteros you find "superstitious" given as the only definition.
Even Daniel Wallace's NET version footnotes: " The term deisidaimonesterou" is difficult. On the one hand it can have the positive sense of “devout,” but on the other hand it can have the negative sense of “superstitious” (BDAG 216 s.v.)."
In the New Testament Greek there is a different word used for "religion" and "religious" as found in Acts 26:5 "after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee", and in James 1:26, 27 "If any man among you seem to be religious...pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this.." The word used in these places and translated as religious or religion is threskeia and is totally different from the Greek word deisidaimonesteros.
Not only does the King James Bible correctly say "ye are too SUPERSTITIOUS" in Acts 17:22 but so also do Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1858 and 1909 (supersticiosos), Luther's 1545 German bible, the Revised Version of 1881, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims version 1950, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible.
Other versions have readings that basically match the sense of the King James Bible. Darby's translation says: "I see you are given up to demon worship"; Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta says: "you are extravagant in the worship of idols"; and Rotherham's Emphasized bible says: "you are reverent of the demons". Wycliffe translated this as : "I see you are vain worshippers." John Calvin translated this Greek word as "superstitious" and comments: "Paul layeth superstition to the charge of the men of Athens, because they worship their gods all at a very venture."
The King James Bible is correct, as always. God has preserved His words and He has done so in the greatest Bible ever printed and used to reach millions of precious souls for whom Christ died. Don't let the Bible critics steal your Holy Bible from you.
Will Kinney
Bowels and Bible Mockers
Several times over the last few years I have run into people who make fun of certain words found in the King James Bible. They themselves do not believe that any Bible or any texts in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God, but they think that they are capable of criticizing the Book.
One such "Christian" writes: Philemon 1:20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord." (KJV) My bowels are refreshed when I sit on the toilet.
I wrote back to him: "----, you're mocking the word of God. Have you bothered to check out how many other Bible versions correctly translate this word as bowels? Have you bothered to look the word up in an English Dictionary to see what other meanings it has? Are you aware of the fact that the King James Bible and many others have translated the specific Greek word that is used there literally as "bowels", because that is EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS in Greek, and that even the NASB, NIV have the word bowels in them in other places?"
Another Christian wrote the following: "You tell me which of the following are more clear in English: My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my BOWELS were moved for him. (Song of Solomon 5:4 KJV)
My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my HEART was thrilled within me. (Song of Solomon 5:4 ESV, Geneva, Bishops', NKJV)
My love thrust his hand through the opening, and my FEELINGS were stirred for him. (Song of Solomon 5:4 HCSB)
NIV - "My LOVER thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my HEART began to pound for him." It is funny how the English language has changed. Most people understand "my bowels were moved" differently than they did in 1611."
So how do we King James Bible believers address this issue? It's really not that hard. Ignorance can be dispelled by a little knowledge.
The New Webster Enclyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language 1971 defines the plural word "bowels" as "The supposed seat of pity or tenderness; hence kindness, compassion or affection; the interior part of anything, i.e. the bowels of the earth."
Any good English dictionary will tell you that the word bowels has two or three different meanings in English. One refers to the intestines; another refers to the inner parts or deepest recesses of something, like "he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir" (Genesis 15:4 - KJB, Jewish translations 1917, 1936, Geneva Bible, Youngs, RV, ASV), or the bowels of the ship or the bowels of the earth. A third meaning of this word is the seat of the emotions and feelings.
The King James Bible as well as many other Bible versions use the word "bowels" to refer to the literal intestines. "And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day." 2 Chronicles 21:15 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV).
In Acts 1:18 we read concerning Judas: "and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV)
The meaning that is most often attacked is seen in verses like Genesis 43:30 "And Joseph made haste; for his BOWELS did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there."
The Hebrew word used here is #7356 and is variously translated as "bowels, mercy, compassion, tender mercies, and to be pitied". The word does not mean "heart" as the RSV, NKJV have it. The NASB and NIV both simply paraphrase it. The NASB says: "for HE was deeply stirred over his brother"; while the NIV has: "Deeply moved at the sight of his brother, Joseph hurried out..."
The earlier Geneva Bible says: "His affection was inflamed toward his brother" but then has a marginal note telling us that the Hebrew is literally "bowels".
Agreeing with the King James reading of "his bowels did yearn upon his brother" are Webster's translation 1833, the Revised Version of 1881, Young's 'literal' translation, Darby's translation, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (sus entrañas).
In 1 Kings 3:26 we read of the events that occured when king Solomon wisely determined which of the two harlots was the real mother of the child. We read of the real mother that: "her BOWELS yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it."
Again, agreeing with the King James literal reading of "her bowels yearned upon her son" are the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version, Young's 'literal', Douay 1950, and Darby's translation.
The meaning that is most often ridiculed in the King James Bible, is that of "the seat or center of the emotions and feelings".
Let's look for a moment at Daniel Wallace's NET version, and his footnote comments on Song of Solomon 5:4. "My LOVER thrust his hand through the hole, and my FEELINGS (13) were stirred for him."
Then Mr. Wallace footnotes: Heb “my inward parts,” “my intestines,” or “my bowels.” Alternately, “my feelings” or “my emotions.” The term (me’eh) is used of the internal organs in general (“inward parts”) (e.g., 2 Sam 20:10; 2 Chr 21:15, 18; Ps 22:14; 40:9) or the digestive organs in particular (“intestines, bowels, stomach”) (e.g., Num 5:22; Job 20:14; Ezek 3:3; 7:19; Jonah 2:1-2). It is frequently used as a metonymy of adjunct for the emotions which Hebrew psychology associated with these internal organs . This is reflected in many translations which use equivalent English idioms: “the core of my being” (JB) and “my heart” (NIV, NJPS) over the woodenly literal “my bowels” (KJV, NEB).
Notice that Mr. Wallace points out that the literal Hebrew reading is indeed "my bowels". I find it ironic that people who object to the word "bowels" in the King James Bible apparently have no problem with constantly changing the words "My Beloved" to "my LOVER" as in the NIV, The Message, and Wallace's own NET version. What does "my lover" communicate to today's readers?
Agreeing with the King James Bible's literal reading in the Song of Solomon 5:4 "my bowels were moved for him" are Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay version 1950, Young's 'literal' translation, Darby, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the 1970 New English Bible, and J. P. Green's 2005 KJV 3 Literal Translation. If the use of the words "my bowels" to describe the seat of emotions is "archaic", then what is it still doing in the 1970 New English Bible and in Green's newest 2005 KJV3?
In the New Testament of the King James Bible the Greek word #4698 splagkna is found eleven times. Once it refers to the literal bowels or inwards of the human body in Acts 1:18, where we read concerning Judas: "and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
Once it is translated as "tender mercies" in Luke 1:78, and once as "inward affection" in 2 Corinthians 7:15. Eight other times the word is translated literally as bowels when it refers to the seat of emotions and feeling. These are 2 Corinthians 6:12; Philippians 1:8; 2:1; Colossians 3:12; Philemon 7, 12, and 20; and 1 John 3:17.
Here are a couple examples of how this word is used in the King James Bible and several other translations both old and modern. "For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the BOWELS of Jesus Christ." "If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any BOWELS and mercies..." Philippians 1:8 and 2:1.
Among the Bible translations that render this word as "bowels" when it refers to the seat of emotions and feeling are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay 1950, Darby, Young's, New English Bible 1970 (Old Testament), Green's MKJV 1998, and Green's 2005 KJV3 Literal Translation.
"Pisseth against the wall"
Another phrase that the Bible Correctors League likes to criticize is the one found several times in the King James Bible where we read of one cutting off and destroying "any that pisseth against the wall." This phrase is found six times in the King James Bible, and is always used as an insult - 1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21, and 2 Kings 9:8 "For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab HIM THAT PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL, and him that is shut up and left in Israel."
Let's look at the first verse where this phrase is used, and make some observations; it is found in 1 Samuel 25:22. The context is where David and his men ask for some provisions from a wicked man named Nabal, who not only refuses to give them anything to eat, but also insults David as well. Then David says: "So and more also do God unto THE ENEMIES OF David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light ANY THAT PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL."
The reason I capitalized the words "the enemies of" is because they are found in the Hebrew texts and in versions like the NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, and the new ESV, but versions like the NIV, RSV, and Holman Standard omit them based on SOME Greek Septuagint copies. The NIV and Holman read: "May God deal with David, be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive ONE MALE of all who belong to him!". Then the NIV tells us in a footnote that they have omitted the words "the enemies of" based on "some Septuagint manuscripts" but that the Hebrew reads as does the King James Bible.
Daniel Wallace's NET bible version does the same thing, but he doesn't tell you this. His version says: "God will severely punish David, if I leave alive until morning even one male (22) from all those who belong to him!” Then he footnotes: "(22) Heb “one who urinates against a wall” (also in v. 34); KJV “any that pisseth against the wall.”
Apparently a lot of today's "Bible scholars" think it is not only OK to change the meaning of the God inspired Hebrew texts, but also to omit them whenever they feel like it too.
Other Bible translations that agree with both the Hebrew and the King James Bible reading: "any that pisseth against the wall" are Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay 1950, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the Italian Diodati.
Coverdale 1535 reads: "any that maketh water against the wall".
The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's Modern KJV 1998, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 all read: "him that urinates against the wall"
Young's so called "literal" version actually says: "THOSE SITTING ON A WALL"
Those versions like the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and Holman that read "against A MALE" are the ones that are not following the literal Hebrew readings. The literal "any that pisseth against the wall" is what GOD wrote and inspired in His words. God knows perfectly well how to say "pisseth against the wall" and how to say "male", and He said "pisseth against the wall". Look it up for yourself.
Another instance of where the NKJV in particular and other modern versions tamper with the Hebrew texts is found in a repeated phrase in the Old Testament. In 2 Kings 18:27 and again repeated in Isaiah 36:12 the Scriptures record the words spoken by Rabshakeh, the representative for the king of Assyria, against the Jews in Jerusalem. He says: “Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that THEY MAY EAT THEIR OWN DUNG, AND DRINK THEIR OWN PISS with you?” (See also Isaiah 36:12)
Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible 1587 , the Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “they may eate their owne doung, and drinke their owne pisse with you?”, and Wycliffe 1395 also has the word “piss’ in it.
ASV 1901 - This version misses it by translating the Hebrew word meaning ‘piss’ or urine’ to ‘water’. - “to eat their own dung, and to drink their own WATER with you?
NIV 1984 - “eat their own FILTH and drink their own urine?" What exactly is their own “filth”? There is lots of filth around my house but I wouldn’t classify it as “dung”.
So the TNIV 2005 apparently had to ‘update and clarify’ the old NIV for us, and it now reads: “to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?"
NASB 1995 - “to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you?"
Holman CSB 2003 - “to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?"
The Message 2002 - “eating their own turds and drinking their own pee right along with you."
The NKJV 1982 - “will eat and drink THEIR OWN WASTE with you?” Here the NKJV just omits the Hebrew words and combines the two ideas into the single word “waste”. Does the NKJV mean that they will eat and drink garbage?
Bastard
I remember talking to the pastor of a Baptist church who told me he was greatly offended by the use of the word "bastard" in the King James Bible in Hebrews 12:8. He said he practically blushed every time he saw this word. Of course this particular Baptist pastor himself does not believe that any Bible in any text or language on earth today is the complete and inerrant word of God. He is of the opinion that "only the originals" were inspired and inerrant. In fact, he told me he "prefers" the NASB, but "used" the King James Bible because his congregation was familiar with it. In the last few years he has now switched over to the NKJV in his public preaching, but he still tells his church people that "ONLY the originals" were inspired. This church is on its way down the path of unbelief.
In Hebrews 12:8 we read in THE TRUE Holy Bible: "But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye BASTARDS, and not sons."
The word bastard is not archaic and is not limited in meaning to a common swear word. It simply means "a child born out of wedlock, and thus, not legitimate." The words "hell", "God", "Jesus Christ" and "damn" can also be swear words. To please overly sensitive and ignorant pastors like my Baptist friend, should we remove these words from the Bible too? (Versions like the NASB, NKJV, NIV have already gotten rid of "damn" and most of the "hell"s too)
Not only does the King James Bible say "bastards" in Hebrews 12:8 but so do the following Bible translations: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, Darby, Young’s, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, Weymouth's Translation in modern English 1913, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the Douay-Rheims, New American Bible 1970, New English Bible 1970, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, Today's English Version 1992, Good News Translation 1992, Third Millenium Bible 1998, and the 2004 Updated Bible Version.
In the Old Testament we have two examples of the correct word "bastard". In Deuteronomy 23:2 we read: "A BASTARD shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
This Hebrew word ‘mamzer’ is found only twice in the entire Old Testament. The other time is in Zechariah 9:6 where the KJB reads: "And a BASTARD shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines."
The word bastard as found in Deuteronomy 23:2 is not archaic, and means an illegitimate son, born out of wedlock. In fact here the NASB, Holman and NKJV have translated it as "one of illegitimate birth" but the NIV has messed it up by rendering this single word as "one born of a forbidden marriage." So also does the highly touted 2001 English Standard Version - "No one born of a forbidden union". None of these words occur in the Hebrew text, and if the child were born of any kind of a marriage, it would not be a bastard or of illegitimate birth.
The word is correctly translated as bastard by the Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible, the Revised Version of 1881, ASV of 1901, Darby, Young’s, the RSV of 1952, Hebrew Names Bible, Webster’s 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 translation, the Hebrew-English translation of 1936, the 2005 Judaica Press Complete Tanach, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the Third Millenium Bible, World English Bible, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Peshitta, the Italian New Diodati 1991, the Italian Riveduta 1927, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 as ‘bastardo’, the 1997 Biblia de las Américas (put out by the same people who did the NASB), the French Martin 1744 (le batard), the French Ostervald 1996, the Portuguese Almeida, the2000 Portuguese O Livro (put out by the same people who did the NIV) the Updated Bible Version 2004 and even The Message of 2002.
Eugene Peterson's The Message of 2002 - Deut. 23:2 No bastard is to enter the congregation of GOD, even to the tenth generation, nor any of his children.
When we get to Zechariah 9:6 the phrase found in the King James Bible and numerous other translations like those listed above, "a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod" has now been replaced in the NIV as, "a foreigner", which is totally wrong, and in the NKJV as "a MIXED RACE". The English Standard Version of 2001 says: "A mixed people" but then has this footnote: Hebrew - a bastard.
If there is a mixed race, is there then such a thing as a pure race? This is what Hitler thought. The New English Bible has "a half breed". But the NASB is the worst of all here. It actually says "a MONGREL RACE". Mongrel usually refers to dogs of mixed breeds and has a negative connotation, especially when applied to people.
Remember, this is supposed to be God’s word and His perspective on things. Is there such a thing as a mongrel race that He has created? I don’t think so. Relations among people of different skin color are difficult enough because of our pride and our fallen, sinful nature, without having the “word of God” actually referring to some people as of a ‘mongrel race’.
The King James Bible is always right, and "sensitive, politically correct preachers" who steal the words of God out from under the Lord's people should repent of their sin and get back to the real Holy Bible.