The purpose of this study is to show that not all “bibles” teach the same things. Those that promote the multiple modern versions like to say that all Bibles have the same “message”. This simply is not true. Even when the same texts are being used, the resultant English translations often differ radically one from another. Sometimes the exact opposite meaning is found in one when compared to the other.
I firmly believe God has been faithful to His promises to preserve His pure words, both as to text and meaning, and He has done this in the King James Bible. The versions like the New KJV, the NASB and the NIV often do not agree with the King James Bible, nor even among themselves. The result of having upwards of 200 different English “bibles”, with different texts and different meanings in hundreds of verses, is that many Christians find themselves asking the first question recorded in the Holy Scriptures – “Yeah, hath God said….?”
Another King James Bible believer recently wrote: “Using more than one version, thinking neither is perfect, does nothing but convince men that their minds are their final authority as to what God has said.”
Daniel 2:5,8 “The thing is gone from me”
Daniel 2:4-5 “Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation. The king answered and said to the Chadeans, THE THING IS GONE FROM ME: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.
2:7-8 “They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it. The king answered and said, I know of a certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see THE THING IS GONE FROM ME.”
“The thing is gone from me”, meaning that he had forgotten the dream, is the reading of the RV 1885, the ASV 1901, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Douay 1950, Young’s, Spanish Reina Valera, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Webster’s 1833, World English Bible, and the Hebrew Names Version.
However instead of the meaning of “I have forgotten the dream”, beginning with the liberal RSV, the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB have changed the meaning to: “the command from me is firm” (NASB), “this is what I have firmly decided” (NIV), “my decision is firm” (NKJV). According to these versions, Nebuchadnezzar had not forgotten the dream, but had only made a firm decision to punish them if they could not make the dream known. The meaning is not at all the same as that of the King James Bible and all the others, including the previous Revised Version and American Standard Versions.
John Gill remarks: “The subject of this chapter is a dream which Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed, but had forgot; upon which he calls his magicians and astrologers together, to tell him it, and the interpretation of it.”
Jamieson, Faussett & Brown: “The thing–that is, The dream, “is gone from me.” GESENIUS translates, “The decree is gone forth from me,” namely, that you shall be executed, if you do not tell both the dream and the interpretation. English Version is simpler, which supposes the king himself to have forgotten the dream.
Matthew Henry: ” The trial that he made of his magicians and astrologers whether they could tell him what his dream was, which he had forgotten. They were immediately sent for, to show the king his dreams, v. 2. There are many things which we retain the impressions of, and yet have lost the images of the things; though we cannot tell what the matter was, we know how we were affected with it; so it was with this king. His dream had slipped out of his mind, and he could not possibly recollect it, but he was confident he should know it if he heard it again.”
John Wesley: “In this chapter we have, The perplexity of Nebuchadnezzar through his dream which he had forgotten, and which the magicians could not tell him.”
Daniel 2:13 “And the decree went forth that the wise men SHOULD BE SLAIN; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.” None had been slain yet, since verse 24 tells us: “Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon; he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation.”
The reading found in the KJB that a decree had gone forth to slay the wise men, but they had not yet begun killing them is found in the Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and others. However the NKJV says: “So the decree went out, AND THEY BEGAN KILLING the wise men.”
Daniel 3:16 “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, WE ARE NOT CAREFUL to answer thee in this matter.”
To be careful is to be full of care or concern. This is the reading of the KJB, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva bible, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, and Webster’s 1833 translation. The Third Millenium Bible, and the KJV 21 say: “We have no fear to answer thee in this matter”.
John Gill – “O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter; about worshipping the image; we are not solicitous about a choice of words, or in what manner to draw up our answer, it is ready in our mouths; we have no need to take time and consider of this matter, and think what to say, we are at a point about it: as thou art peremptory in thy will to have thine image worshipped, we are as resolute, as determined, never to worship it; so that there is no need to spend time in a debate about it; thou art come to a conclusion, and so are we: or in this matter, about the power of our God to deliver, we are not solicitous about an answer to that; we leave him to defend himself, and his own power, against such insults upon him.”
Matthew Henry – “O Nebuchadnezzar! we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. They do not in sullenness deny him an answer, nor stand mute; but they tell him that they are in no care about it.”
C. H. Spurgeon – ” “O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.” Read it, “We are not full of care as to how to answer thee.” They did answer very carefully; but they were not anxious about the answer. It was not a thing that troubled them in the least. They knew what they were going to say. They did not deliberate. They did not hesitate. They said, “Nebuchadnezzar, we can answer you at once on that point.”
However again the NKJV joins the NASB, ESV and NIV in changing the meaning of the verse and has the three Hebrew children saying: “O Nebuchadnezzar, WE HAVE NO NEED TO ANSWER you in this matter.” NIV – “we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter.”
Daniel 3:25 “and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.“
“And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 – “the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.”, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 – “the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.”, the King James Bible 1611, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, Webster’s translation 1833, the Douay-Rheims of 1610 – “and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.“, the Douay of 1950, Green’s interlinear, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta – “the fourth is like that of the Son of God.”, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the NKJV of 1982. It is also the reading of the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible – “and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin (Ben Elohim, Hebrew).”
Foreign language translations that say the fourth is like the Son of God are the French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy – ” le quatrième est semblable au Fils de Dieu.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez – “y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al Hijo de Dios.”, and the Modern Greek translation -“ου τεταρτου ειναι ομοια με Υιον Θεου..
However the NKJV also has a footnote that reads: “Or a son of the gods”. A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. “A son of the gods” would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace. “A son of the gods” is the reading of the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard and many other modern versions. You cannot believe nor teach the same truth using these conflicting versions.
The Catholic Versions are, as always, in disagreement with each other. The older Catholic translations like the 1610 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read like the King James Bible – “and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” But the 1968 Jerusalem bible says “the fourth looks like a son of the gods”, the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible has “the fourth looks like a son of God” and the 1985 New Jerusalem has “a child of the gods!”.
Coverdale of 1535 and Matthew’s Bible of 1549 were really off. They say: “and the fourth is like an angel to loke vpon.”
John Gill – “And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God; many of the ancient Christian writers interpret it of Christ the Son of God, whom Nebuchadnezzar, though a Heathen prince, might have some knowledge of from Daniel and other Jews in his court, of whom he had heard them speak as a glorious Person; and this being such an one, he might conclude it was he, or one like to him; and it is highly probable it was he, since it was not unusual for him to appear in a human form, and to be present with his people, as he often is with them, and even in the furnace of affliction;to sympathize with them; to revive and comfort them; to bear them up and support them; to teach and instruct them, and at last to deliver them out of their afflictions.”
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown – “like the Son of God–Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas, and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. Really it was the “messenger of the covenant,” who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.
Matthew Henry – “Some think it was the eternal Son of God, the angel of the covenant, and not a created angel. He appeared often in our nature before he assumed it in his incarnation, and never more seasonable, nor to give a more proper indication and presage of his great errand into the world in the fulness of time, than now, when, to deliver his chosen out of the fire, he came and walked with them in the fire.”
John Wesley – ” The Son of God – Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, did sometimes appear before his incarnation.”
Matthew Poole – ” Like the Son of God; a Divine, most beautiful, and glorious countenance; either of a mere angel, or rather of Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, who did sometimes appear in the Old Testament before his incarnation, Gen. xii. 7; xviii. 10, 13, 17, 20, &c.; Exod. xxiii. 23; xxxiii. 2; Josh. v. 13—15 ; Prov. viii. 31; in all which places it is Jehovah; Gen. xix. 24; Exod. iii. 2 ; Acts vii. 30, 32, 33, 38.”
Was it an angel, or was it the second person of the Trinity, “the” Son of God? That this was the Son of God – the second person of the Trinity, who afterward became incarnate, has been quite a common opinion of expositors. So it was held by Tertullian, by Augustine, and by Hilary, among the fathers; and so it has been held by Gill, Clarius, and others, among the moderns. Of those who have maintained that it was Christ, some have supposed that Nebuchadnezzar had been made acquainted with the belief of the Hebrews in regard to the Messiah; others, that he spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit, without being fully aware of what his words imported, as Caiaphas, Saul, Pilate, and others have done. – Poole’s “Synopsis.”
Brother in Christ and fellow Bible believer, Teno Groppi, writes this on his blog. You can see his King James Bible blog at this site here –
THE FIRE TEST
There is one verse that makes the Bible issue and the motives of the translators as clear as if they were purified by fire.
The Hebrew and Aramaic word Elohim can mean either God or the gods. However, as with most words, the context usually makes it clear.
Read through Daniel chapter 3 and check all the times where either God or gods is used, and you’ll see any 10 year old would pick the right one every time.
Daniel 3 is where the three Hebrew children, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and their “God” vied against Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian “gods”. That makes it extremely easy to see that in statements like:
3:12 … Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy ELOHIM, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
3:14 Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my ELOHIM …?
3:18 … O king, that we will not serve thy ELOHIM …Are clearly speaking of Nebby’s pagan gods. Likewise these below are clearly speaking of the true Creator God of Israel:
3:17 If it be so, our ELOHIM whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace …And after the contest:
3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the ELOHIM of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,
3:29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the ELOHIM of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other ELOHIM that can deliver after this sort.
Then we come to verse 25:
3:24-25 Then Nebuchadnezzar … said … Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? … Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of ELOHIM.
Judging by the context throughout the entire chapter, which is this obviously speaking of? Did Nebby’s Babylonian gods win this battle, or did the God of Israel. The answer is so obvious anyone who denies it is simply being dishonest and worthy of ignoring.
So why do virtually ALL modern versions render the verse:
NASB: “… the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods !”
NLT: “And the fourth looks like a god[a]!” Footnotes: Daniel 3:25 Aramaic like a son of the gods.
ESV: “… the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
CEV: “… fourth one looks like a god.” [a] Footnotes: Daniel 3:25 a god: Aramaic, ” a son of the gods.”
NIV: “… the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
TNIV: “… the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
HCSB: “… the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
NCV: “… The fourth man looks like a son of the gods.”
MSG: “… the fourth man looks like a son of the gods!”
AMP: … the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods!
DAR: … the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God.
Only the Nkjv even comes close, but contradicts their choice in their footnote:
Nkjv: “… the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”[a] Footnotes: Daniel 3:25 Or a son of the gods
Why would the modern version translators choose virtually unanimously to make the God who preserved the three Hebrew children through the fiery furnace to be the pagan, Babylonian gods of Nebuchadnezzar? What possibly could be their motive and inspiration to choose so?
This one example exposes the infidelity and satanic inspiration of the modern versions.(End of blog notes by Teno Groppi)
Notes from the Internet on Daniel 3:25
Who is the Fourth Man of Daniel 3:25?
A Paper Presented at the Toronto Baptist Church
Third Annual King James Bible Conference
By Pastor Hugo W.K. Schönhaar
Daniel 3:25, He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
There is no question in the minds of Bible believers who this Person is. The debate rages over whom Nebuchadnezzar believed he saw. The reasoning goes like this; since Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan king he would have had no way of identifying this Person as the Son of God. Is this supposition true?
The King James Bible should be enough evidence for the Bible believer. Unfortunately, few people read a KJB today and are left holding a modern perversion (Excuse me, I meant to say satanic counterfeit).
Daniel 3:25 (NIV), He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
With this kind of blatant attack on the words of the living God it is important to back up what was really said in Daniel 3:25. I will bring a four-fold refutation on the readings found in the NIV and all other new bible versions (Excuse me, I meant to say New Age bible versions.[Just in case the “brethren” get upset; the NIV backs up David Spangler’s statement of faith: “Christ is the same force as Lucifer” cf. Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16b in an NIV]).
This quadripartite argument will deal with: philology, prophets, pedagogues and philosophy.
The Aramaic used does not lend itself to the readings in the modern versions. Dr. Thomas Strouse has explained the situation well in the space of one paragraph:
Grammatically, the Aramaic words for son (var or bar) and God
(elahin) form a word pair. When the second word of a word pair is definite (“God”), then the first word is definite (“the Son”).
Dr. Strouse states in a footnote that, “Modern translations fail to state this common Hebrew/Aramaic grammatical idiom. Translations such as the NIV’s “a son of the gods” “are wrongheaded, grammatically and theologically”.
So much for retaining the “poetic language” of the “time honoured” KJV. So much for “vigorously adhering to the original languages”. So much for the “scholarship” that is tainted with modernism.
The words of the NIV in Daniel 3:25 are defined -not by the rules of grammar, but by the warped theology of the translators. To be fair, the NIV translation committee did not have the intellectual rigor of the KJB translators. They have been weighed in the balances for well over a quarter of a century and have been found woefully wanting; both intellectually and spiritually.” (end of comments by Pastor Hugo W.K. Schönhaar
Daniel 4:8, 9 and 18 “the spirit of the holy gods” or “the Spirit of the Holy God”?
In chapter 4 of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar gives his testimony of how, as a proud, multiple gods worshipping heathen, was greatly humbled and converted into a worshiper of the one, true, living God of heaven and earth.
He has a dream and calls for the wise men of Babylon, the magicians, and the astrologers, who cannot reveal the meaning to him. Then he calls for Daniel. “But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and before him I told the dream.”
Notice that Nebuchadnezzar is speaking as a heathen king at this point and he mentions the name of HIS god Bel. The reading of “in whom is the spirit of the holy gods”, plural and all in small letters, refers to a multiplicity of gods, some of whom are holy in his opinion, and some of whom are not. This reading is shared by the Hebrew translations of 1917, 1936, the Geneva Bible, Revised Version, ASV, NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Young’s, Darby, and Douay.
However ONLY the NKJV has changed the meaning of which gods are being referred to in all three of these passages – verses 8, 9 and 18. The NKJV says: “according to the name of my god; in him is the Spirit of the Holy God”. This of course, would refer to the one true God instead of the multiple false gods, as all the other versions teach. The point is, not all bibles say the same thing, so which one is right? Or doesn’t it matter?
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown – “spirit of the holy gods–Nebuchadnezzar speaks as a heathen. Hence he speaks of “gods” in the plural.”
Notice particularly what Matthew Henry says: ” “His name was Belteshazzar, from Bel, the name of my god.” He applauds his rare endowments: He has the spirit of the holy gods, so he tells him to his face with which we may suppose that Daniel was so far from being puffed up that he was rather very much grieved to hear that which he had by gift from the God of Israel, the true and living God, ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar’s god, a dunghill deity. He retains the language and dialect of his idolatry, and therefore, it is to be feared, is no convert to the faith and worship of the living God. He is an idolater, and his speech betrayeth him. For he speaks of many gods, and some think, when he speaks of the spirit of the holy gods, that he supposes there are some evil malignant deities, whom men are concerned to worship, only to prevent their doing them a mischief, and some who are good beneficent deities, and that by the spirit of the latter Daniel was animated. He also owns that Bel was his god still. He also applauds Daniel, not as a servant of God, but as master of the magicians (v. 9), supposing his knowledge to differ from theirs, not in kind, but only in degree; and he consulted him not as a prophet, but as a celebrated magician, so endeavouring to save the credit of the art when those blundered and were nonplussed who were masters of the art. See how close his idolatry sat to him. He has got a notion of many gods, and has chosen Bel for his god, and he cannot persuade himself to quit either his notion or his choice, though the absurdity of both had been evidenced to him, more than once, beyond contradiction. He, like other heathens, would not change his gods, though they were no gods, Jer. 2:11.”
This distinction, however, can no longer be found in the NKJV, because of its contradictory rendering.
Daniel 7:9 “I beheld till the thrones were CAST DOWN, and the Ancient of days did sit…”
This is the reading of the KJB, the 1936 Jewish translation of Hebrew Publishing Comany, Young’s, Websters 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium bible.
However the NKJV, NIV, NASB,and RSV say: “I beheld till the thrones were SET UP (NASB) or PUT IN PLACE (NKJV, NIV)”, the very opposite. Both readings cannot be correct at the same time. Not all “bibles” teach the same thing.
John Gill remarks in his commentary: “Verse 9. I beheld till the thrones were cast down,…. On which the governors of the above monarchies sat; and those of the ten kings, signified by the ten horns; and also that of the little horn. The prophet kept looking on the objects before him, till he in his dream, and the visions of the night, saw all those empires and kingdoms demolished, and all rule, power, and authority, put down, and way made for the glorious kingdom of the Messiah, and his saints with him; to this sense Aben Ezra, Saadiah, and Jacchiades, interpret the word used; but the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, render it, “until the thrones were set up”; for the judges to sit upon to try, judge, and condemn the four beasts or monarchies; in order to make way for the kingdom of the Son of man to take place in the spirituality and glory of it.”
John Wesley notes: “Verse 9. The thrones – The kingdoms of this world were destroyed by God the king, and judge of all, called the Ancient of days, because of his eternal deity.
The word for cast down is # 7412 and is used in Daniel 3:6, 11, 15, and 24 in the phrase “were cast into the fiery oven”, and in Daniel 6:7, 12, 16, and 24 where people were cast into the lion’s den.
There are many prophetic views of both the Messiah and the Antichrist presented in the book of Daniel. However many of these prophecies have been totally confused by the renderings found in the modern versions. We will consider a few of these and I hope you see the differences and their importance.
In chapter 7, Daniel sees a vision of four great world powers arise in the form of beasts, and out of the final beast he sees a little horn arise, which most commentators consider to be a type of the future Antichrist.
Certain characteristics of this man are described. There appears to be something peculiar about his eyes and his look or glance toward others. 7:9 tells us “in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking GREAT THINGS.” 8:23 “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transressors are come to the full, a king of FIERCE COUNTENANCE, and understanding DARK SENTENCES, shall stand up.”
7:20 “even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very GREAT THINGS, WHOSE LOOK WAS MORE STOUT than his fellows.”
All of the words in capital letters have been changed in the NKJV, NIV and NASB.
The “great things” that he speaks could be telling mankind of its great potential to establish a world of peace and unity, all without the cross and redemption of the Son of God. He could also be telling man how great he is and that his destiny is to become godlike. This was the first lie and God will send strong delusion that they shall believe the lie -“ye shall be as gods” Genesis 3:5. The “great things” also directly ties into the vision of the Antichrist given in Revelation 13:5 where we read of the beast unto whom was given “a mouth speaking GREAT THINGS and blasphemies.”
The “great things” in verses 7:8 and 20 is the same in the Wycliffe 1395, KJB, RV 1885, ASV 1901, Geneva 1587, Young’s, Noyes Translation 1869, the Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917, Darby, Douay, Webster’s, and the Third Millenium Bible, but the NKJV says he will speak “pompous words”, while the NIV, NASB say he will speak “boastfully”. This reading would imply that he is only speaking of himself and not flattering mankind in general. Isn’t it better to just translate what it says, rather than to force an interpretation on the verse? Daniel Wallace and company’s NET version translates it as: “speaking ARROGANT things.” BUT then he gives us this footnote – “Aramaic – GREAT things.” This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic and not Hebrew. Also, the cross reference to Revelation 13:5 is lost in the new versions. The KJB is right and versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV are wrong.
7:20 “whose LOOK was more stout than his fellows”. This is the reading of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Webster’s, Darby, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and others. This expresses Antichrists piercing eyes and his stare or glance at others. But the NKJV changes this from his look to his appearance and says: “whose APPEARANCE was greater than his fellows”, the NASB has “which was larger in appearance than its associates”, while the NIV says: “he looked more imposing than the others.” ESV – “that seemed greater than his companions.” All of these redirect our attention from his peculiar look to his general appearance.
7:21 – 22 “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN TO THE SAINTS.”
We are told in Scripture that “the saints shall judge the world” 1 Cor. 6:2, and Psalms 149:5-9 tells us the saints will “execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written; this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.”
See also Jude 14, 15 and Rev. 2:26,27.
“Judgment was GIVEN TO THE SAINTS” is the reading of the Great Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible, the KJB, RV, ASV, Young’s, Darby and others, but the NKJV says: “a judgment IS MADE IN FAVOR OF the saints” (not that the saints themselves would be taking part in this judgment), the NASB has: “judgment WAS PASSED IN FAVOR OF the saints”, while the NIV reads: “the Ancient of days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints.” Do you see the difference?
Daniel 8:25 continues with the description of Antichrist with: “and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and BY PEACE shall destroy many; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”
This verse again ties into chapter 11:21 and 24 where we read: “but HE SHALL COME IN PEACEABLY, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries…HE SHALL ENTER PEACEABLY even upon the fattest places of the province.”
Many commentators have traditionally said that Antichrist will come upon the world scene as a “man of peace”, supposedly bringing solutions to a world torn apart with international strife, conflict and war. This is why so many will be eager to accept him as their leader.
“By peace” he shall destroy many, and “he shall come in peaceably” is the reading of the KJB, Webster’s 1833, Third Millenium Bible 1998, Spanish 1909 Reina Valera “con paz destruirá a muchos”, and the KJV 21.
The NKJV splits itself by changing the meaning here in 8:25 but following the KJB in 11:21, 24. Here the NKJV says: “he shall destroy many IN THEIR PROSPERITY”, the NASB has: “WHILE THEY ARE AT EASE he will destroy” and the NIV reads: “WHEN THEY FEEL SECURE, he will destroy”. This is the opposite meaning from the one found in the KJB. According to the new versions, when the world is in peace, at ease and secure, then Antichrist comes on the scene.
In 11:21, 24 instead of “he shall come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom”, which is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Darby, Spanish, TMB and Webster’s, the NASB says: “he will come in a time of tranquility” and the NIV likewise has: “he will come when its people feel secure.” So, will men be waiting for a time of tranquility and ease before Antichrist arises, or will there be conflict and wars and then he comes as a man of peace?
Daniel 9:21 Do angels fly?
Daniel 9:21 “Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, BEING CAUSED TO FLY SWIFTLY, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.”
We know from other Scriptures that angels DO fly and have wings. “And I saw another angel FLY in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth…” Revelation 14:6. See also Isaiah 6:2 and Ezekiel 1:6.
“Being caused to fly swiftly” or “flying swiftly” is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, tghe Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, Darby, Youngs literal 1898 “being caused to fly swiftly”, the ASV 1901 (the predecessor to the NASB), the Jewish Publication Society Bible (JPS) 1917 – “being caused to fly swiftly”, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Hebrew Names Version, the Judaica Press Tanach – “approached me IN SWIFT FLIGHT”, the NKJV 1982, NIV 1984-2011, RSV, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001 -2011 – “came to me in swift flight”, the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible 1985, the Brenton’s copy of the Greek Septuagint, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, and the Modern Greek Bible – “πετων ταχεως με ηγγισε” = “FLYING SWIFTLY he drew near to me”.
Numerous foreign language Bible also read “flying swiftly” including the Italian Diodati 1649 – “volò ratto”, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Nuova Riveduta of 2006 – “mandato con rapido volo“, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1909-1995, the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez 2010 – “volando con presteza”, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 2007 and the French Ostervald 1996 – “volant promptement” and the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada – “veio voando rapidamente”
However the NASB, Holman Standard and Dan Wallace and company’s NET version say: Gabriel “CAME TO ME IN MY EXTREME WEARINESS” – nothing about being caused to fly. Not quite the same, is it?
Dan Wallace and companions NET reads: “the man Gabriel, whom I had seen previously in a vision, was approaching me IN MY STATE OF EXTREME WEARINESS…” He then footnotes: “The Hebrew expression בִּיעָף מֻעָף (mu’af bi’af) is very difficult. The issue is whether the verb derives from עוּף (’uf, “to fly”) or from יָעַף (ya’af, “to be weary”). Many ancient versions and modern commentators take the first of these possibilities and understand the reference to be to the swift flight of the angel Gabriel in his coming to Daniel. The words more likely refer to the extreme weariness, not of the angel, but of Daniel.”
The new International Standard Version just omits the phrase and says: “Gabriel the man of God whom I had seen in the previous vision, APPEARED to me about the time of the evening offering.”
The 2011 Common English Bible also omits the Hebrew phrase, saying: “the man Gabriel APPROACHED me at the time of the evening offering.” Then it footnotes: “Or approached me IN SWIFT FLIGHT at the time of the evening offering; Heb uncertain”
And one independent translation, called The Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, has the angel Gabriel being “weary” and tired in flight and not Daniel. It reads: “Gavriel, whom I had seen in the chazon in the beginning, BEING CAUSED TO FLY IN WEARINESS, reached me about the time of the minchat erev.”
Once again we see the two Bible agnostic mantras exposed as being false – #1. “We need to go to the Hebrew to get the real meaning.” and #2. “By comparing several versions we get a better idea of what the passage means.”
My advice – Stick with the King James Holy Bible and you will never go wrong.
Daniel 9:26 “Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF”
An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.
“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF.”
Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.
There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads “but not for himself”. This is also the reading of the Bishop’s Bible 1568 -“After these threescore & two weekes shall Messiah be slaine, & not for him selfe” , the NKJV 1982, the French Martin of 1744 – “le CHRIST sera retranché, mais non pas pour soi”, the Romanian Fidela of 2010 “dar nu pentru el însuşi”, the Reina Valera 1865 Angel de Mora, the 1909 Reina Valera and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible – “Daniel 9:26 Y después de las sesenta y dos semanas el Mesías será muerto, y no por sí.” but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of “but not for Himself” are Webster’s 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation -“Και μετα τας εξηκοντα δυο εβδομαδας θελει εκκοπη ο Χριστος, πλην ουχι δι’ εαυτον·”, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Green’s 1998 Modern KJV 2000, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible – “And after threescore and two heptads, yikaret (will be cut off) Moshiach [Yeshayah 53:8], but not for himself.”, and the KJV 21st Century Version 1994. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible “or, cut off, but not for Himself”, but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.
Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: “Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING.” Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not “have nothing”.
The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The Spanish NIV, La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 says: “después de las sesenta y dos semanas, se le quitará la vida al príncipe elegido. Éste se quedará sin ciudad y sin santuario, porque un futuro gobernante los destruirá.” which means “After 62 weeks the life of the elect prince will be taken away. THIS ONE WILL REMAIN WITHOUT A CITY AND WITHOUT A SANCTUARY…”! But the Portuguese NIV reads differently than both the English and Spanish versions. The NIV Portuguese edition, Nova Versão Internacional 2000 has: “Depois das sessenta e duas semanas, o Ungido será morto, e já não haverá lugar para ele.” which comes out to mean – “After the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one is dead, AND THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR HIM.”
Dr. Daniel Wallace and company, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: “Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING.” Then he footnotes: “The expression “HAVE NOTHING” is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED.”
This “renowned scholar” admits his own rendering “is difficult”, and “a presumption”, but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible “cannot be defended”. He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren’t Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible commentators, teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace’s opinions.
Matthew Henry comments: “In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off.”
John Wesley tersely remarks: ” Not for himself – BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation.”
John Gill offers two different interpretations but he gives this one first: “when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation.”
David Guzik’s Commentary says simply: “The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF.”
C.H. Spurgeon comments: “The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself.” – Daniel 9:26 “Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!
Matthew Poole was well aware of all the different theories and ideas about how to translate this passage and he comments on it in his Commentary on the whole Bible saying: – Daniel 9:26 “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself” – But not for himself – which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people, and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures: There was none to succour him ; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be. But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.”
Bible Babel in Action
Here are some other “bible versions” and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that “There are no conflicting bibles”, or “By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says”.
Wycliffe 1395 – “Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM.”
Coverdale 1535 “Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM.”
The New English bible 1970 says: “one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART.”
The Lesser Old Testament 1853 – “And after the sixty and two weeks will an anointed one be cut off WITHOUT A SUCCESSOR TO FOLLOW HIM.”
Young’s ‘literal’ translation has: “cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT.”
Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac – “Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER.”
The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: “the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM.”
The Message of 2002 – “After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed–THE END OF HIM.” (Not quite true, is it?)
1917 Jewish Publication Society translation – “shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE.” (Again not true)
The Good News Translation – Second edition says: “And at the end of that time God’s chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY.” Then it footnotes: “One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear.”
The Easy To Read Version 2001 – “After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE.”
The Common English Bible 2011 – “after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be eliminated. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT HIM.” (Then it footnotes that “Hebrew is uncertain”)
The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.
The Douay Version of 1950 says: – “And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS.”
Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: “an anointed one will be cut off – AND….WILL NOT BE FOR HIM.” (This is actually how it reads)
The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: “an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY”
And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: “an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS…city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come.” (Again, this is actually how it reads)
May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.
Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. This is total nonsense. God has preserved His words, and for those who have eyes to see, it is obvious that they are found in the Authorized 1611 King James Bible.
Much of the remainder of this study will simply point out the differences of meaning in the conflicting bible versions, without much in the way of commentary.
Daniel 9:27 KJB “and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and FOR THE OVERSPREADING OF abominations, HE shall make IT desolate, even until the consummatiion, AND THAT determined shall be poured upon THE DESOLATE.”
NKJV “but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And ON THE WING of abominations SHALL BE ONE who makes desolate, even until the consummation, WHICH IS determined, is poured out on the desolate.”
NIV “In the middle of THE SEVEN he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on A WING OF THE TEMPLE, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out ON HIM.”
NASB “but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering, and on the WING of abominations will COME ONE who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on THE ONE WHO MAKES DESOLATE.”
Daniel 10:1 “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, BUT THE TIME APPOINTED WAS LONG.”
This is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Geneva, Spanish, Websters, and TMB. It also agrees with verse 14 where the angel tells Daniel he came to make him “understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days; for yet the vision is for many days.”
Instead of “but the time appointed was long” the NASB says: “the message was true AND ONE OF GREAT CONFLICT”; the NIV says: “its message was true AND IT CONCERNED A GREAT CONFLICT.”
11:8 KJB “And shall carry captives into Egypt their gods, with THEIR PRINCES, and with their precious vessels…”
“Their princes” is the reading of 1936 Jewish translation, Young’s, Websters, Darby, Spanish 1909, NKJV, Diodati, and the Third Millenium bible.
However instead of ‘the princes’ the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, ASV say “into Egypt their gods, THEIR METAL IMAGES, and their valuable articles…”
11:9 KJB “So the king of the SOUTH shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.” So also Geneva, Young’s, Douay, 1936, Green’s interlinear, KJV 21, TMB, and Websters.
The NKJV says: “Then the king of the NORTH (not south) shall come to the kingdom of the king OF THE SOUTH, but shall return to his own land.”
11:17 “He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, AND UPRIGHT ONES WITH HIM; THUS SHALL HE DO.” So the NKJV, 1936, Young’s, Green, TMB, and Webster’s.
The NASB says: “He will set his face to come with the power of his whole kingdom, BRINGING WITH HIM A PROPOSAL OF PEACE WHICH HE WILL PUT INTO EFFECT.”
While the NIV has: “…AND WILL MAKE AN ALLIANCE WITH THE KING OF THE SOUTH.”, while the ESV says: “and he shall bring terms of an agreement and perform them.”
11:26 “Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and HIS ARMY SHALL OVERFLOW: and many shall fall down slain.”
John Gill and other commentators say this speaks of the army of Antiochus as a type of Antichrist, whose army overflows and conquers others. “His army shall overflow” is the reading of the Bishops’ Bible, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, Young’s, Hebrew Names Version and others. However the NKJV, ESV and NIV give the opposite meaning with: “HIS ARMY SHALL BE SWEPT AWAY”.
Finally two more verses which speak of Antichrist have been mixed up and changed as to the meaning.
Daniel 11:37 “Neither shall he regard the God (with a capital G, indicating the true God) of his fathers, nor THE DESIRE OF WOMEN, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.”
With a capital G in “God of his fathers” we can safely assume this speaks of a Jew as the Antichrist, or at least, it admits of the possibility of his being a Jew. Jesus said: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another come in his own name, him ye will receive.” John 5:43.
“the God of his fathers” is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB 1611, Young’s 1898, Darby 1890, Douay 1950, Lamsa 1936, Webster 1833, TMB 1998 and the Spanish versions. The NKJV also says God of his fathers, but then has a footnote that says: “or gods of his fathers”, and so too read the NASB, NIV, ESV and RSV. The reading of “gods of his fathers” eliminates the idea of his being a Jew.
Daniel 11:37 KJB – “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, NOR THE DESIRE OF WOMEN, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.”
NIV 2011 edition – “He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for THE ONE DESIRED BY WOMEN, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.”
A King James Bible believing brother sent me a site called Rapture Ready where they use the NIV and claim the KJB has an error in it here.
The article there says: “There are some problems with the KJV, slight translation errors. For example, the word “God” in Daniel 11:37 reads, “Neither shall he regard the God of fathers,” thus referring it to Israel’s one God but as some of the new translations have, corrected that version to the: “gods” of his fathers referring to the Roman pantheon of many gods. The American Standard Bible is preferred by many Bible teachers, and the Standard American 1901 Revised Version of the Bible (translated from the original tongues) and is a very reliable version, although harder to find all the time as the Christian publishing industry has become more commercialized.”
First of all it should be pointed out that these Bible critics themselves do NOT believe that any Bible in any language is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. They are bible agnostics who are using what is one of the worst, ever changing Vatican Versions out there in print – the NIV. Other versions that make this a small “g” and plural and say the antichrist will have no regard for “the gods of his fathers” are the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NASB, Holman and NET versions.
The Catholic Connection
Both the earlier Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the KJB with “And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers”, but then the 1968 Jerusalem, the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 all changed this to “Heedless of his father’s gods”. In fact, the New Jerusalem continues to change the second part as well, saying: “heedless of the god whom women love.” (We will see the importance of this in a moment)
Let’s take a closer look at this verse and see if in fact it is an error in the KJB as they claim.
Not only does the King James Bible capitalize the word GOD here and teach that the coming Antichrist will deny the one true God of Israel and of Christians everywhere, rather than the idea given by this Bible corrector and his NIV that it refers to disregarding pagan gods, are: Wycliffe 1395 – “ And he schal not arette the God of hise fadris”, Coverdale 1535 – “He shal not regarde the God of his fathers”, the Great Bible 1540 – “ He shall not regarde the God of his fathers”, Matthew’s Bible 1549 – “He shal not regarde the God of his fathers”, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 – “He shall not regarde the God of his fathers, nor the desires of women”, the Geneva Bible 1587 – “ Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desires of women”, the Douay-Rheims 1610 -“And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers”, Webster’s translation 1833, Darby 1890 – “And he will not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women”, Young’s ‘literal’ 1898 – “ And unto the God of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women”, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta – “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers nor the desire of women”, J.P. Green’s ‘literal’ Translation 2000 – “He shall not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women”, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010, and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 – “He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. “
Many Foreign Language Bibles have translated the verse in the same way as it stands in the King James Bible, including the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909 – 1995, and Reina Valera Gómez 2010 – “Y del Dios de sus padres no se cuidará, ni del amor de las mujeres”, the Italian La Nuova Diodati 1991 – “Egli non avr riguardo al DIO dei suoi padri n al desiderio delle donne”, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués – “E no ter respeito ao Deus de seus pais, nem ter respeito ao amor das mulheres”, the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 – “Er wird sich auch nicht um den Gott seiner Väter kümmern, noch um die Sehnsucht der Frauen” = “He will not take care of the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women”, and the Modern Hebrew Bible – “ועל אלהי אבתיו” = “And the God of his fathers”
The Pulpit Commentary – “His opposition to the theocracy and to the worship of Jehovah was but a portion of a wide policy, the object of which was the abolition of all local cults.”
John Gill comments on antichrist – “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,…. Of the apostles of Christ, from whom he pretends to descend, and whose successor he would be thought to be: now their God was the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they worshipped and adored, believed in, embraced, professed, and preached; but whom antichrist disregards, though he would be thought to be his vicar on earth; yet slights him, yea, opposes and acts contrary to him, in his offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, and therefore is rightly called antichrist.”
Adam Clarke comments: “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers – That God who sent the evangelists and apostles to preach the pure doctrine. These true fathers of the Christian Church, and their God, this Church has not regarded, but put councils, and traditions, and apocryphal writings in their place. Nor the desire of women – Both the Greek and Latin Church, in their antichristian enactments, have discouraged, and in several cases proscribed, marriage, under the pretense of greater chastity, to the discredit of God‘s ordinance, and Christianity itself.”
David Guzik held a similar view in his Commentary on the Bible saying: “Daniel was told that this revelation pertained to the latter days (Daniel 10:14), and Daniel 11:36 begins to look more towards this final world dictator, who is sort of a “last days Antiochus Epiphanes.” We know that everything about this prophecy was not fulfilled during the career of Antiochus Epiphanes. Jesus specifically said the real abomination of desolation was still in the future (Matthew 24:15). The Apostle Paul paraphrasedDaniel 11:36 in reference to the coming Antichrist: Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4)
Antiochus Epiphanes is important, but mostly as a historical preview of the Antichrist. This is why so much space is given to describing the career of one evil man – because he prefigures the ultimate evil man. Antiochus Epiphanes is the “trailer” released well before the Antichrist, who is like the “feature.”
The King James Bible is right, as always. Don’t be deceived by any of these fake modern Vatican Versions.
11:37 “Neither shall he regard THE DESIRE OF WOMEN”. This is the reading of the KJB, Bishops’ Geneva, RV, ASV, Youngs, Lamsa’s, NKJV, JPS 1917, the NASB and many foreign language Bibles as well. Some have suggested this may be a reference to his being a homosexual, and his unnatural lust (Matthew Henry), or it could be a reference to the Pope who takes a vow of celibacy. Could it be that the coming Antichrist will be a homosexual and that is why the radical homosexual agenda is being pushed so hard these days all over the world? The modern versions translate the passage in such a way as to do away with this possibility.
The NIV, RSV, NRSV and ESV alter the reading to say: “He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for THE ONE DESIRED by women”, (or “the one beloved by women” ESV) as though there is some special god desired by women!
In fact, the Holman Standard comes right out and says it – “He will not show regard for the gods of his fathers, THE GOD LONGED FOR BY WOMEN, or for any other god, because he will magnify himself above all.” and so does the Catholic Jerusalem bible 1985.
11:38 “But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour.” Again the God of forces, with a capital G indicates this is the true God.
The word for “forces” is # 4581 mah-gohz and is found 36 times, variously translated as “rock, strength, strong hold, fortress, fort and forces”. It is frequently used of the true God as in “the LORD is the STRENGH of my life”, “the joy of the Lord is your STRENGTH” and “The LORD is good, A STRONG HOLD in the day of trouble”.
“The God of forces” is the reading of Webster’s translation; the 1936 Jewish translation says: “the God of strongholds” and Lamsa’s says: “the mighty God”, all of which indicate the true God.
However all this is mixed up in a multitude of conflicting versions. The NKJV, NIV and NASB unite in “a god of fortresses”, BBE “the god of armed places”, Geneva and Douay “the god Mauzzim”, while the Good News Translation has “the god who protects fortresses”.
Antichrist will combine all religions into an amalgamation of false unity. He will give lip service to JEHOVAH as well as another god – the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). This is the direction the world is now headed pell-mell, and the multitude of conflicting bible versions are being used to undermine and confuse the truth of God and to destroy and weaken the faith of God’s people. If Satan can get God’s people to say all bibles have the same message, even when they clearly do not, then the next step is to say all religions have the same message. This very thing is happening right now before our eyes.
God has preserved His pure and inerrant words for us. They are found in the King James Bible in all their perfection. God, by His sovereign grace, has a remnant today who will hear His voice. “But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth.” Daniel 10:21
Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm