Hebrews 10:9 "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O GOD." The words "O God" are in the majority of all Greek texts and Sinaiticus correction. It is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Geneva, the Syriac Peshitta, Spanish Reina Valera, NKJV and many others. However the other minority Alexandrian texts omit "O God" and so too the NASB, ESV, Holman, and the NIV.
10:30 "I will recompense, SAITH THE LORD" - in Majority, Sinaiticus correction and even A. It is also found in Tyndale, Geneva, the Syriac Peshitta, Spanish, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version, Green's MKJV, Young's and others but the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman omit "saith the Lord".
10:34 "For ye had compassion OF ME IN BY BONDS" (tois desmois mou) which again is in the majority, Sinaiticus and P46 which predates Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by 150 years. It is also the reading of the NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Hebrew Names Version and others. But manuscript Alexandrinus (which the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman just got done rejecting in verse 30) reads: "you sympathized with THOSE IN PRISON" (tois desmiois) and so do the NASB, NIV, Holman, and ESV!
10:34 "knowing in yourselves that ye have IN HEAVEN a better and an enduring substance." IN HEAVEN is in the majority and Sinaiticus correction and is highly significant in the context. That we have a better and enduring substance IN HEAVEN is the reading of the NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Syriac Peshitta, Spanish, Youngs and Green's MKJV. However, the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman omit these important words and say: "because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions."
10:38 presents us with not only a slight textual difference, but also with a serious theological difference resulting from the different ways in which some versions have rendered this verse.
Let's look at the context. "Now THE just shall live by faith: but if ANY MAN draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."
First of all, "the just" is the reading of the majority, D and even P13 which predates Sinaiticus by 100 years and Alexandrinus by 200 years. However Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus read; "MY just one will live by faith" and so do the NASB, ESV, Holman, and the NIV.
The most serious problem with the NASB, NIV, ESV and others is how they render the rest of this verse. In the King James Bible there is a contrast between the just person who lives by faith, and the others who may draw back unto perdition and condemnation. Notice what some commentators have said of these verses.
Hebrews 10:38 John Gill
but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. One who finally and totally apostatizes from the doctrine of faith, and the profession of it: and in such persons God has no pleasure, never had, nor never will have; such stand opposed to the just man, that lives by faith, walks humbly with God, in a dependence, not on his own righteousness, but on the righteousness of Christ, in which he is safe from condemnation, and secure of the divine favour; for drawing back is not supposed of the just man, but of any man, as we, with the Ethiopic version, rightly supply; and is to be understood of anyone of the external professors of religion, who forsake the assembling of the saints and is denied of the truly righteous in the following words.
People's New Testament
If any man draw back. He who draws back through fear, or because of trial, in him God hath no pleasure. 39. But we are not of them. The apostle has confidence that the Hebrew saints are of those who "shall live by faith" rather than those who draw back to perdition. He that draweth back is lost.
J.N. Darby also comments: "The apostle is contrasting two characters; the one who perishes, and the one who saves, preserves, his life (spiritually, of course)...the writer urges as a practical truth 'the just shall live by faith'...if he was living by faith in him, he was not drawing back. In a word, drawing back is one character, living by faith another."
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say the Greek admits of "if any man", and comment on the passage much like Gill and others. The fact is there is no subject here in the Greek and so the context and correct theology determine whether it should read "any man" or "he". The NASB and the others often add the words "any man" or "a man" to give the sense. See for example Romans 9:16 (twice); 10:10; 14:2,5; and 2 Cor. 3:16.
However contrast Wesley’s Arminian theology, as he states in his commentary: "Now the just - The justified person. Shall live - In God's favour, a spiritual and holy life. By faith - As long as he retains that gift of God. But if he draw back - If he make shipwreck of his faith My soul hath no pleasure in him - That is, I abhor him; I cast him off."
Wesley believed a person could be redeemed by the blood of Christ, have his sins forgiven and be bound for glory only to lose it all if he later chose to reject Christ. A true child of God could never do this, but let's see how the NASB, NIV, Holman and ESV have rendered this verse.
"But MY righteous one will live by faith. And if HE shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him. But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved." (NIV) This rendering implies that one who is just or righteous by the blood of Christ, can then be lost, destroyed and not saved.
Hebrews 10:38 "Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him" is referring to a quote in Habakkuk 2:4 where two different kinds of people are contrasted. There it says: "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith." Clearly there is a contrast between two different kinds of people, and the KJB has rightly carried over this distinction in the New Testament.
Not only does the King James Bible contrast the just who lives by faith with the "any man" who draws back unto perdition, but so also do the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, NRSV, New Life Version, Goodspeed, Phillips, Contemporary English Version, 20th Century Version, New Living Translation, Lamsa's Syriac translation, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.
Hebrews 11:11 A Classic Case of Scholarly Confusion
King James Bible - "Through faith also SARAH HERSELF received strength to conceive seed, AND WAS DELIVERED OF A CHILD, when SHE was past age, because SHE judged him faithful who had promised."
This verse is the same in the Majority of all Greek texts and reads the same in the texts used today by the Greek Orthodox church. It is also the reading of Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Young's, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa's and many others.
The Westcott-Hort text differs, not only from the Traditional Text of the KJB, but also from the more recent UBS (United Bible Society) texts. The UBS text adds BEING STERILE (steira), which obviously refers to Sarah. So this would read: "Through faith also Sarah herself BEING STERILE, received strength...". This reading of "being sterile" is not found in the majority, nor in Sinaiticus (Vaticanus omits Hebrews 9:15 to the end of the book) nor Alexandrinus, nor Westcott and Hort. It comes from a small handful of manuscripts that differ wildly among themselves. Not even the NASB, RSV, ESV include "being sterile", though it is now found in the UBS texts and the NIV.
The ESV, NASB, and Holman read: "By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised." The part they leave out here is "and was delivered of a child", but they do not add "being sterile". Please notice that Sarah is the subject of the sentence.
However the NIV actually says: "By faith ABRAHAM, even though HE was past age - AND SARAH herself WAS BARREN - was enabled to BECOME A FATHER because HE considered him faithful who had made the promise." Here the subject of the sentence is Abraham who became a father, not Sarah who became a mother.
So who is the person being spoken of here, Sarah or Abraham? There is no known Greek text that reads as does the NIV. They made it up out of thin air. It is amusing to see how the scholars continually change their "bibles". The RSV reads as does the KJB, except for leaving out "and was delivered of a child". Then the NRSV reads as does the NIV, changing Abraham for Sarah and adding that she was barren, but then when they again revise the new revision and come out with the ESV (the 2001 revision of the revision of the revision) they again go back to the KJB reading where it is Sarah who is the subject of the sentence and not Abraham, and they again leave out the “being sterile” part. But guess what! Now the new Today's NIV has come out and it again corrects the previous NIV reading and goes back to the meaning found in the King James Bible. If this sounds confusing, that's because it is.
Again in verse 37 a similar example of disagreement and confusion exists. "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, WERE TEMPTED, were slain with the sword..."
The part about "were tempted" is epeirasthesan and is found in the Majority of texts, A, D correction and in P13 which dates to around 250 A.D. It is also found in Sinaiticus, though it reverses the word order and says they were tempted, they were sawn asunder, and it is in the Westcott-Hort text and in the NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Douay, and Spanish. However, once again the UBS text has changed and now omits this word based primarily on one manuscript, P46, which has many divergent readings not followed in other parts of this book. The NIV, RSV, Holman and ESV now omit "were tempted" and the ESV footnote tells us: "Some manuscripts add 'were tempted'. SOME manuscripts?! Why not be truthful and tell us a very few actually omit it? The modern scholars are constantly changing the New Testament texts and they do not consistently follow each other in these changes. There is continual uncertainty and ongoing disagreement even among themselves.
Did you notice how the ESV (English Standard Version 2001) did not follow the UBS text in verse 11, but now it does in verse 37? But the NASB 1995 does not follow the ESV readings in either of the two? None of the modern versions match each other in both text and meaning. Who do you suppose might be behind such efforts?
One more textual change to be noted in this chapter is found in verse 13. There we read: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, AND WERE PERSUADED OF THEM, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." The part about "and were persuaded of them" is found in the Greek texts of Stephanus, Beza and Elzevir. The reading is in Tyndale, Great, Geneva and Bishop's Bibles. It is in the NKJV, Young's, Webster's, the Spanish Reina Valera and the Italian Diodati and others.
However the NASB, NIV, RSV and most other modern versions omit this phrase.
Hebrews 12:28 - 29 "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, LET US HAVE GRACE, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire."
The whole theme of the book of Hebrews is contrasting the law of Moses which was but an inferior shadow of the good things to come through the grace of God in Christ. It is by the grace of God that Christ tasted death for all men 2:9; we can come boldly unto the throne of grace 4:16; there are those who do despite unto the Spirit of grace 10:29; we are told to look diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God 12:15; and that it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace, and the author closes with the desire that the grace of God be with us all.
LET US HAVE GRACE is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay, Lamsa, Spanish, Darby, Young's, Hebrew Names Version, Tyndale, Geneva, Bible in Basic English, Hebrew Names Version, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, and the KJV 21. Even the Holman Christian Standard says: "let us hold on to grace".
However the NIV says: "let us be thankful", the NASB has "let us show gratitude" and the RSV, ESV say: "let us be grateful". "Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably" is not the same thing as "Let us show gratitude by which we may offer to God an acceptable service." Obviously both sentences make sense, but the meaning is not at all the same. The KJB reading exhorts us to cast ourselves upon the grace of God and what He has done for us as the only way of approach and fellowship. The NASB, NIV focus on what we should be doing and our attitude rather than on what God has done.
Notice how even the earlier revisions of the RV, ASV read as do the KJB, as well as other modern versions.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:
"let us have grace-- suits the English Version "grace" (that is Gospel grace, the work of the Spirit, producing faith exhibited in serving God), but does not suit "thankfulness.
John Gill
let us have grace; by which is meant, not thankfulness for so great a blessing, though this is highly requisite and necessary; nor the habit or principle of grace in the heart, unless particularly the grace of faith, and the exercise of it, should be designed; but rather the doctrine of grace, the Gospel, is intended;
Matthew Henry: " How necessary it is for us to obtain grace from God, to serve him acceptably: if we be not accepted of God under this dispensation, we shall never be accepted at all"
Hebrews 12 and 13 Textual differences
12:3 "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners AGAINST HIMSELF, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." AGAINST HIMSELF is the reading of the majority, A and Sinaiticus correction. Sinaiticus original said "against themselves" and P46, which the NIV sometimes follows against all others, says "against them". Here the NKJV, NASB, ESV and Holman follow the King James reading, but the NIV omits these words.
12:7 "IF (ei) ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons." The reading of IF is found in the NKJV, Young's, Tyndale, Geneva, Spanish Reina Valera, Diodati and others, but Sinaiticus and A say FOR (eis) chastening you endure. P46, which the NIV, and ESV sometimes followed in chapter 11, omits 21 words which make up half of verse 6 and most of verse 7. The NASB and ESV make it a statement and says: "IT IS FOR discipline that you endure" while the NIV and Holman make it a command with: "Endure hardship as discipline" and adds the word "hardship" which is not found in any text.
12:9 "we have had fathers OF OUR FLESH which corrected us." This is the literal reading of all texts - tes sarkos hemon- and is the reading of the RV, ASV, Young's and many others, and it is in contrast to the phrase in the same verse "shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father OF SPIRITS, and live?"
The contrast is between flesh and spirit, but this distinction is lost in the NKJV, NIV which say "we have had HUMAN fathers" and the NASB, ESV have "earthly fathers", while the Holman has "natural fathers".
12:20 "And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, OR THRUST THROUGH WITH A DART". This reading is found in Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop's, Great Bible, Spanish, Young's and Modern Greek used by the Greek Orthodox church. However the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and other modern Westcott-Hort versions omit the phrase.
13:6 "So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, AND (kai) I will not fear what man shall do unto me." Notice this is a statement in the KJB, and in Wycliffe, Young's, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Lamsa's Syriac Peshitta, Webster's, the Spanish and even in the Catholic Douay versions.
The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible and here are two examples found in this one verse where the NKJV departs from the KJB texts.
That little word AND (kai) is in the majority, A and even P46, and Sinaiticus correction, but the original Sinaiticus omitted the word AND, and the Westcott-Hort text also makes this sentence a question rather than a statement. So the NKJV follows the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman here and says: "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do unto me?"
13:21 "Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in YOU that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ." Working in YOU is in the majority and C, and in the NKJV, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Spanish and even in the Catholic Douay. But Sinaiticus and A say: working in US, instead of "you" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman.
Finally in the last verse of 13:25 we read: "Grace be with you all. AMEN." The word Amen is found in the majority of all texts, A, C and even in Sinaiticus correction. It is also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Douay, World English Bible, Weymouth, Luther, French Louis Segond, Spanish, Syriac Peshitta, and the RSV of 1952. However the NIV, NASB, Holman and ESV all omit the word Amen. This is not because any new manuscripts have been uncovered, but because what one set of scholars, using their "science of textual criticism" choose to accept, the others reject.
You can either trust the ever changing Bible of the Month club $cholar$, who constantly differ among themselves, or you can trust the tried and true Authorized King James Bible as the sure words of the living God.
“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:104
Will Kinney