ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Differences Of Isaiah 9:3

Can anyone please explain why Isaiah 9:3 is completely different in KJV and other translations? Is there a history to the difference? Has anyone here researched the original texts to see what they say?

Join Our Free Dating and Take The Apostasy Bible Quiz
 ---alan8869_of_UK on 7/5/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (8)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

[1] Alan, this is one instance of what's called the Kethiv ('it is written') vs. Qere ('to be read') situation common to all copies of Hebrew Scripture. The Jews considered the Text so sacred, that even though someone very early on made an error which was never caught but seemed obvious to the Masoretes, they would only correct it in the margins and keep writing what they considered to be an error in the main Text (the Kethiv)! On top of that, none of the Scripture scrolls used in synagogues... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 2/9/08

Alan the words 'and not' were added by KJV translators. That is the only reason that one version 'appears' to say the opposite of the other. NIV have printed it correctly. This is what the notes in my Hebrew interlinear tell me anyway but the KJVO people choose not to trust interlinears either so it is difficult to discuss this with them.
---M.P. on 5/4/07

beware the comments of Robert. He is Mormon and his views will have Mormon views in his answers. Before answering him be aware of his stance on issues in doctrine. He has a right to speak as anyone but just be aware.
---lee_1 on 7/19/06

Alan, oldest doesnt mean best. even if you find an older one, that doesnt mean it is closer to the original. That is why I asked for a copy of the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text which was used to translate the KJV old testament. These were not the same manuscripts used to translate the modern versions. So I would like to see how this verse was written in those texts to see how they compare to the ones used in the modern versions. I bet the KJV translators got it correct based on the manuscripts they used.
---tofurabby on 7/19/06

That is the amazing thing... "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." was taken out of the manuscripts used by these modern translators. The KVJ authors got it right. That verse has been quoted in history from as far back as 200AD. It existed in the original manuscripts. I can give you references if you want them.
---tofurabby on 7/19/06

"none of the originals exist."
---tofurabby on 7/18/06

You are CORRECT tofurabby. The original texts are not in the hands of the traslators, and errors exist

"the father the Son and the Holy Ghost are one" is the hand-written Eureka comment of a translator.

What follows in the original?

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

(New Testament | 1 John 5:8)
---Robert on 7/19/06

The translators of the KJV were NOT inspired, they were God minded, and well meaning, but they were NOT inspired.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy declares that only the autograph is inspired - the translations are proven to be human.

However, they are sufficiently accurate to point every man to Salvation and Christ. They absolutely state the Word and Work of Christ to be Divine.

I believe the Bible despite its errors.
---Robert on 7/19/06

Tofurabby ... I am so sorry ... I have just realised what you are saying: that the oldest surviving texts are wrong (in that they don't include the word "not") but the translators of the KJV, being divinely inspired, realised that these old texts were wrong, and so corrected them.
Sorry to have been so obtuse!
I wonder whether the divinely-inspired translators into other languages similarly restored the missing word?
---alan8869_of_UK on 7/18/06

If you happen to have a copy of the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text I would love to have a look at this scripture for myself...

Yeah, I dont have a copy of it either.
---tofurabby on 7/18/06

Funny, all this time I have been under the impression that none of the originals exist.
---tofurabby on 7/18/06

2. The NIV many times makes commentaries on a passage from an Arminian view and later on another passage from the Calvinistic view, depending on what they are commenting on. I have to go to regular commentaries from theologians to get a better interpretations. I believe we are adults and have to use our brains and since everything is very critical we should look for the correct answer. Your studies are great and I enjoy hearing from you.
---Lupe2618 on 7/18/06

Daniel, your explanation on the Bible was great and well put. I think it would really effect the destination of all the saints, for been dumb in not knowing which one is correctly acurate. I have five Bibles and also a program on the computer to interpret Hebrew and Greek and make comparisons. I only use it when I have a problem with one passage and cannot find the correct meanings. I think we all know we are going to run into many things different especially the commentaries on the Bibles.
---Lupe2618 on 7/18/06

Tofurabby ... With the word "not" included, the verse is somewhat puzzling. But the extraordinary thing is that you now appear to insist that those who tell us that the word "not" wasn't in the original Hebrew are lying.
Either the original was inspired, and the KJV translation incorrect, or an inspired KJV corrects the incorrect original. And that would mean that all translations onto other languages are faulty since they translate from an incorrect original.
---alan8869_of_UK on 7/18/06

One interesting side note: The KJV translators did italicize words that are added to help complete the English sentance structure (which we all know), but in this verse, the "and not" is not italicized. The word "and" is, but the word "not" isnt. Curious, how many of the other translators bothered to let us know what they added verses what was directly translated?
---tofurabby on 7/18/06

You are right danie9374, I did not mean to offend you and apologize. My statement that you are only here attacking translated texts was irrational. I am a KJV only, but dont have a problem with others reading modern translations. I believe the KJV to be inspired and the modern ones to have faults, but salvation can still be found in them. Jesus said in Mark 13:10 "And the gospel must first be published among all nations." I believe every tongue will have an inspired translation. God is amazing.
---tofurabby on 7/18/06

/1/ tofurabby: You could have asked what I've contributed at CN rather than presumed; or Googled my membername (it's far from showing everything, but has 160 entries). BTW, though I didn't post (yet) in the blog where you stated 'sons of God' in Job are angels, I defintiely agree with you! That moderator apparently doesn't understand what we truly can conclude even from poetical portions of God's Word. 'Morning stars' and 'sons of God' in Job 38:7 is a classic Hebrew parallel; both describe angels.
---danie9374 on 7/18/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

/2/ You stated, "I personally believe that if God did not inspire the KJV or any other translation in any tongue, then there is no God." That kind of statement is the very reason I've spent so much time explaining that God's authority and the truth of His words, the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture do not depend upon some translation being 100% perfect! And if I were an Arminian, I'd be even more upset with this KJVO belief, since the eternal destiny of many souls might be lost!
---danie9374 on 7/18/06

M.P.: I understand. I'm trying to be as accurate as possible by stating the occurance of 'not' here (Isaiah 9:3 KJV) was either due to a translator(s)' missing the Qere reading in the margin of the Hebrew Text or just following earlier English Bible version(s) translators (who made that mistake), so no one can claim I lied about however it happened. Oh, if anyone really wants to look this up in a Hebrew Bible, it's verse 2 of Isaiah chapter 9; not v.3.
---danie9374 on 7/18/06

It is strange that Gods inspired Word does not match with what man has told you is the truth.
---tofurabby on 7/16/06

Strange, Tofurabby, that God should inspire a translation that in this one verse is known to be wrong. No doubt about it, theKJV does not say what the original texts said.
That why it is best to use modern translations as well.
---alan8869_of_UK on 7/16/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

Thanks Daniel. I actually still have not had time to seriously study all you said earlier but regarding this latest response to me I simply wanted to point out before that people should not keep going on about NIV taking away words when they havn't really checked their facts, because in all instances I have looked up it is KJV having added. Whether it was deliberate or accidental isn't my argument, just the fact that they did. Thanks for all your hard work on this.
---M.P. on 7/16/06

Sorry danie9374, I have not seen you posting anything constructive in these blogs. Nothing that helps peoples real issues or struggles. The only posts I have seen from you attack translated texts. I personally believe that if God did not inspire the KJV or any other translation in any tongue, then there is no God. So, I do believe in God, so he had to inspire a translation in my tongue, no matter how bad it confuses you.
---tofurabby on 7/16/06

M.P.: The only reason I didn't want to agree with your statement "the words 'and not' were added by KJV translators" was because it makes them appear as if they 'purposely added' something to the Text rather than misunderstanding (or ignoring?) what they were looking at. As I said, the KJV translator(s) probably missed the Masoretic Text's marginal correction (Qere); though I suppose they may have decided to follow an earlier English version anyway.
---danie9374 on 7/16/06

I accept hat Daniel says about the KJV translators inserting the "not" where there was none in the true original.
Seems an argument against KJVonly
---alan8869_of_UK on 7/16/06

Send a Free Anonymous Ecard

[-3-] The instrument in DANIEL was similar to a lyre, dulcimer or trigon; not a metal or brass instrument at all, so this is definitely a translation error!" There's no escaping that. They didn't know what it was, they paraphrased it, and were wrong. God did not direct every word that's written in your KJV bible; but we should all rejoice at how few errors there really are, none of which alter the nature of God nor how He saves us!
---danie9374 on 7/15/06

[-2-] I have a very strong faith in God and the authority of His Word. Regarding my comment about the KJV word 'sackbut' in the book of DANIEL, I posted here: What Is Inerrant And Inspired on 6/30/06, that it's similar to paraphrases found in some Bibles, "since the sackbut wasn't even invented until the Middle Ages... and was like a simple trombone. But [the KJV translators] got it wrong! [Cont.]
---danie9374 on 7/15/06

[-1-] First, for tofurabby and anyone who hasn't read most of what I've written at CN, I have absolutely no intention whatsoever in weakening anyone's faith in God nor God-breathed Scripture! tofurabby, you have completely mischaracterized me when saying, "Your attempts to weaken my faith do not work" unless you change that to: 'my (misplaced) faith in a single English translation that's been shown to have errors in it'; not faith in the God of Scripture.
---danie9374 on 7/15/06

danie9374, I do believe that God inspired the translators to give a perfect english translation to me... a lowly gentile that does not know Greek or Hebrew and does not posess a single original manuscript. I do believe that God has the power to do such things. My God is mighty, he even created you and your skepticism. Your attempts to weaken my faith do not work. I only wish my attempts to strengthen yours would. (Ps. what is wrong with sackbut? I use it all the time.) :)
---tofurabby on 7/15/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

tofurabby: Please read question and my comments again. This is *not* a difference in English grammar or usage! The reason why KJV Isaiah 9:3 includes a 'not' here when all later translations (not to mention the much earlier Septuagint and Masoretic Hebrew Text) do not, was a mistake by the KJV translators in reading the Hebrew Text! You actually believe errors in the KJV were inspired by God and are superior to the original Hebrew or Greek, don't you? What about "sackbut" in KJV's DANIEL?
---danie9374 on 7/15/06

Here is my humble take on it:

"Thou hast multiplied the nation..." interpreted as: though the multitude of the people was greater

"...and not increased the joy" interpreted as: There never was greater joy.

"...they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil." interpreted as: we are few in number, yet you excite us so much that the joy of our former condition cant be compared with the present.
---tofurabby on 7/12/06

Daniel, I am still here also. I cannot say that I fully understand all you say nor do I know if you say that what I said was correct or not. I will study more deeply, later, all you said and see if I can understand it more than I did on first reading and, hopefully, come back on this. I don't want you to think you wasted your time. I agree with Alan about those who promote only one version being noticeably absent on this.
---M.P. on 7/12/06

Tes Daniel, I am here and have just seen what you say. Interesting, and instructive.
What is strange is that no-one else has commented, particularly those who swear that one version of the Bible is God's perfect word
---alan8869_of_UK on 7/11/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

Alan, are you there? I'd like to know if you understood what I presented here? And for anyone who might have a question about this, I'll certainly discuss this further. I'd like to get some feedback about what I write here at CN; whether it's helped anyone, or has just been a waste of my time.
---danie9374 on 7/7/06

[4] all that interested in Hebrew until some time shortly before the Reformation began. I was just reading today about how one scholar who started spending time to study with 'those who murdered Jesus' (never forget the overwhelming majority of Europeans at that time were very anti-Semitic), was called a heretic when he said they should put more effort into witnessing to the Jews! By the way, I think the problem with Ruth 3:15 also has to do with a Qere vs. Kethibh reading.
---danie9374 on 7/6/06

[3] could mean 'to, for, towards, according to, in' (not always translatable; as in this case). So what first appears to those without a Hebrew Text as beint either KJV adding a word, or others leaving one out, isn't true either way! It seems that even if the KJV translator knew better (not sure), he simply followed what he found in the Geneva (also has 'not' here) and/or some other preceding version (maybe as far back as Tyndale's OT). It should be noted that 'Christian scholars' weren't... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 7/6/06

[2] have any margins for those corrections; the synogogue reader is expected to have memorized the correct reading (the Qere) for every error in the Text! Oh, there's also a special set of Qere readings which occur so often, they're never mentioned in any margin or footnote!! But let's get to Isaiah 9:3 and it's Kethibh of (Lamedh Aleph) and Qere of (Lamedh Waw) which both sound like 'lo'; which prob. caused the mistake. They kept the incorrect word 'not' in the Text, but the Qere reading... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 7/6/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.