Article: Alleged Archeological errors in KJB by Will Kinney
From Textus Receptus
There are many anti King James Bible sites on the internet which make lists of supposed errors in the Holy Bible. We will examine one such list and make our response.
Al Maxey, Minister Honolulu Church of Christ http://www.heislife.com/
Mr. Maxley's website uses the NIV and he posts this list of "errors" in the King James Bible.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INACCURACIES IN THE KJV
The translators of the KJV lived and worked about 400 years ago. This is a considerable length of time, especially considering the many important discoveries made since then. These discoveries have shed light on areas of the text that they simply did not understand at the time. Through their lack of knowledge they made many unintentional errors in the text. The following are a few examples:
ONE---In Joshua 11:13 the translators of the KJV rendered the text as follows: "...the cities that stood still in their strength." Actually, the Hebrew speaks of cities "standing on their mounds." These "mounds" are known as "tells" in archaeology (the accumulated rubble of past cities on that site; cities built upon cities.). Not understanding this, the translators sought some meaning from a city on a mound, and arrived at the figure of strength. This is an interpretation of the original text, NOT a translation of it.
TWO---In I Kings 10:28 the word "Kue" is translated "linen yarn" in the KJV. This is incorrect. Actually, "Kue" was a location in Cilicia where Solomon purchased his horses.This is a fact which has been verified by archaeologists, but which the KJV translators were unaware of. A big difference between "linen yarn" and a place in Cilicia which sold horses!! Had this mistake been made in the NIV, the KJV adovates would still be screaming "bloody murder"!!
THREE---These translators also did not know what the "Asherah" was (a wooden idol representing a Canaanite goddess), so they translated the word repeatedly as meaning a "grove" of trees. In I Kings 16:33 they state, "And Ahab made *a grove,*" which provoked the Lord God to anger. In point of fact, Ahab made an IDOL here (the Asherah); his sin was idolatry, not planting a grove of trees!! God was not condemning "a grove," but rather an idol. I actually heard someone refer to this passage as "proof" that planting a "grove" will cause one to be eternally lost!!! How sad!
FOUR---In I Chron. 5:26 the KJV translators present Pul and Tilgath-pilneser as being two separate kings of Assyria. Actually, these were two names for the SAME MAN, as archaeological discoveries have proven.
FIVE---In II Kings 23:29 the KJV reads, "In his days Pharaoh Nechoh king of Egypt went up AGAINST the king of Assyria." This is not true!! Pharaoh Nechoh went to the AID OF the Assyrian king; they were ALLIES, not enemies, as ancient records from that time have clearly demonstrated. The KJV translators did not have that information available to them, and thus assumed their meeting to have been one of enmity. It was an historically false assumption!! How many other false assumptions did these translators make, one is led to wonder?!!!
SIX---In England in the 17th century it was normal practice to light a "candle" and place it on a "candlestick." This was NOT the case in ancient Palestine. They used oil lamps, which were then placed on lampstands. Throughout the NT the KJV translators changed "lamps" and "lampstands" to "candles" and "candlesticks" (Matt. 5:15; Luke 15:8; Rev. 1:12f).
- 1 Strength vs mounds
Joshua 11:13
"But as for the cities that stood still IN THEIR STRENGTH, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only: that did Joshua burn."
A certain Bible corrector objects to various renderings in the King James Bible and has posted a list of these "errors". He lists as his number one example: #1 --- In Joshua 11:13 the translators of the KJV rendered the text as follows: "....the cities that stood still in their strength." Actually, the Hebrew speaks of cities "standing on their mounds." These "mounds" are known as "tells" in archaeology (the accumulated rubble of past cities on that site; cities built upon rubble from cities). Not understanding this, the translators sought some meaning from this idea of a city on a mound. They arrived at the figure of strength. This is an interpretation of the original text, NOT a translation of it. It is more commentary than translation, and not even a correct commentary at that."
Among the versions that do translate this word as MOUNDS are the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and the RSV. The NASB, NKJV and NIV also translate this word as "ruins", "heap" and "heap of ruins". So, would it have been consistent for these versions to translate the phrase as "the cities that stood on their ruins"? Even by choosing to translate as "cities that stood on their mounds" means nothing more to the average reader than they they had been built on elevated ground and they remained intact after the battles. Thus they still stood in their strengh, as the King James has it.
This man is straining at gnats.
There are several other ways in which other Bible versions have translated this same word. The Spanish Reina Valera, Young's, Douay and Darby say "cities that stood ON THEIR HILLS".
The Italian Diodati says "that remained standing".The French Martin 1744 translates the passage as “which had remained in their state” (qui étaient demeurées en leur état,).
The 1936 Jewish translation of the Hebrew Pub. Co. says "the cities that stood in their fastnesses" - which would equal the KJB in meaning. The fairly recent Jewish translation called the Judaica Press Tanach, translates the passage exactly as the King James Bible translators did. It reads: "But all the cities THAT STOOD IN THEIR STRENGTH, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only, did Joshua burn."
Not only does the KJB translate this as the cities that stood in their strength, but so also do the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible, besides the previously mentioned Judaica Press Tanach.
The King James translators did understand the meaning of the word as is noted in their marginal note. It says: Hebrew, on their heap. But there is good reason for translating this word as "strength" instead of heap. The word heap is # 8510 and is usually used to speak of the destruction of a city rather than it's survival.
Deuteronomy 13:16 "And thou shalt...burn the city with fire, and all the spoil thereof every whit,...for it shall be AN HEAP for ever; it shall not be built again."
Joshua 8:28 "And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it AN HEAP for ever, even a desolation unto this day."
Jeremiah 49:2 "the days come, saith the LORD, that I will cause an alarm of war to be heard in Rabbath of the Amonnites: and it shall be a desolate HEAP."
Other commentators offer a variety of opinions
John Gill
"But as for the cities that stood still in their strength,.... Whose walls were not demolished when taken, as Kimchi and Jarchi interpret it, or that "stood upon their heaps" ; upon an eminence, being built on hills and mountains."
Geneva Bible marginal notes - But as for the cities that stood still in their (g) strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.
(g) Which were strong by situation and not hurt by war.
John Wesley
"In their strength - Hebrew. with their fence, walls or bulwarks, that is, which were not ruined with their walls in taking them."
The King James Bible is not in error here. It is a matter of interpretation and obviously not all "scholars" agree as to the meaning. It is hardly fair to object to the KJB reading when other versions likewise translate a single word in a variety of ways.
For instance, the word usually translated as "strength" #3581 koach, is also rendered as "fruit" and "wealth" by the NKJV, NASB and NIV. Another word frequently translated as "strength" or power # 2428 chayil, is also rendered by these other versions as "army, excellency, full, goods, nobly, valient, wealth, worthy, caravan, skills and profit".
The context determines the meaning of a word, and the King James Bible is not in error.
1 Kings 10:28 "And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and LINEN YARN: the king's merchants received the LINEN YARN at a price."
This is number two on his hit list. #2 --- "In I Kings 10:28 the word "Kue" is translated "linen yarn" in the KJV. This is incorrect. Actually, "Kue" was a location in Cilicia where Solomon purchased his horses. This is a fact which has been verified by archaeologists, but of which the KJV translators were painfully unaware."
Here is a man who trusts the "archaeologists". Now they have been really consistent in their findings and opinions, haven't they? He accuses the KJB translators of being "painfully unaware", but he has the real explanation. Well, we shall see if other "scholars" agree with him. Again, there are a variety of opinions and translations.
John Gill
"And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt,.... To mount his horsemen with, and draw his chariots and linen yarn; the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price; or rather linen itself; or linen garments, as Ben Gersom; linen being the staple commodity of Egypt. The word rendered "linen yarn" signifies a confluence or collection of waters and other things; and the words may be rendered, "as for the collection, the king's merchants received the collection at a price"; that is, the collection of horses, a large number of them got together for sale."
Matthew Henry
"Linen Yarn in 2 Chronicles 1:16- It is the wisdom of princes to promote industry and encourage trade in their dominions. Perhaps Solomon took the hint of setting up the linen-manufacture, bringing linen-yarn out of Egypt, working it into cloth, and then sending that to other nations."
This site shows how noted scholars totally disagree with each other. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/2Ch/1/16.html
2Ch 1:16 And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price... linen yarn. The word miqvˆ or miqvˆh is regarded by the ancient translators as a proper name: the LXX. have “from Tekoa,” the Vulgate, de Coa, ”from Koa,” which is adopted by Dr. Geddes; Bochart thinks it signifies A TRIBUTE; others suppose that it signifies a string or DROVE of horses, or as Jarchi says, what the Germans call Gtutte, A STUD; but Houbigant supposes it to be a corruption for mercavah, “CHARIOTS”. Our English translation, however, which regards it as synonymous with tikwah, seems by far the best. According to Norden, linen yarn is still one of the principal articles of commerce in Egypt, and is exported in very large quantities, together with unmanufactured flax and spun cotton; and Sanutus, 400 years ago, remarked that though Christian countries abounded in flax, yet the goodness of the Egyptian was such, that it was dispersed even to the west.
This Bible corrector, Al Maxey, insists we shoud translate this word as "Kue", according to his own understanding. But apparently not all other "scholars" are in agreement with him about this.
The NKJV says KEVAH, the NASB has KOE, while the NIV does have KUE.
Others have translated this word in an entirely different manner. The Judaica Press Tanach - “And the source of Solomon's horses was from Egypt and AN ASSEMBLAGE. The agents of the king, would buy the ASSEMBLAGE PRIVILEGES for a price.”
The 1936 Jewish translation says TROOPS.
The Revised Version 1881, and the ASV 1901 say: “And the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt; and the king's merchants received THEM IN DROVES. EACH DROVE at a price.” The Amplified Bible also reads “droves”, not ‘linen yarn’ and not “Kue” nor "Koe", nor "Keveh".
Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 read: “And the horses that Solomon had were, AN EXPORT, out of Egypt, - and, a company of the merchants of the king, used to fetch, A DROVE, at a price.”
Darby’s reads: “And the exportation of horses that Solomon had was from Egypt: A CARAVAN the king's merchants fetched A DROVE [of horses], at a price.”
Luther’s German bible 1545 comes out to: “And one brought the Salomon horse from Egypt and ALL KINDS OF GOODS, and the sales people of the king bought THE SAME GOODS.”
There are others who agree with the King James Bible reading of "linen yarn" including the Italian Diodati, the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible (het linnen garen), the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and 1960 (lienzos), Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.
Archeology is equally on the side of the KJV translators, for ancient Egypt is known for its massive linen exports. Proverbs 7:16 and Ezekiel 27:7 indicate that Egyptian linen was favoured in the ancient world. In a passage that catalogues King Solomon’s collection of the best materials for the temple, it may be unusual if the passage does not mention the import of Egyptian linen. 2 Chronicles 2:14 mentions that linen was one of the materials used for the temple.
So Mr. Bible Corrector, we can either believe that the English speaking people of the world have suffered with a Bible full of errors for the last 400 years and that now you have come to save the day and restore God's truth, or we can believe that you labor under an inflated view of your own personal opinion. I believe the latter and reject the former.
- 3 GROVES vs Asherah
Deuteronomy 16:21 "Thou shalt not plant thee a GROVE of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee."
- 3 --- The translators also did not know what the "Asherah" was (a wooden idol representing a Canaanite goddess), so they translated the word repeatedly as a "grove" of trees. In I Kings 16:33 they state, "And Ahab made a grove," which provoked the Lord God to anger. In point of fact, Ahab made an idol here (the Asherah); his sin was idolatry, not planting a grove of trees!! People got enraged when the NIV put "cypress wood" (Genesis 6:14) instead of the traditional "gopher wood." Where are the similar "cries of outrage" over this blunder in the KJV?!!"
Not only does the King James Bible render this word as groves but so also do Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Jewish translation of 1936 by the Hebrew Pub. Co. of New York, the Douay Version, Lamsa's translation, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Italian Diodati, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.
The Oxford English Dictionary tells us groves were commonly planted by heathen peoples in honor of deities to serve as places of worship or for the reception of images.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown
"Thou shalt not plant thee a grove--A grove has in Scripture a variety of significations--a group of overshadowing trees, or a grove adorned with altars dedicated to a particular deity, or a wooden image in a grove (Judges 6:25, 2 Kings 23:4-6) They might be placed near the earthen and temporary altars erected in the wilderness, but they could not exist either at the tabernacle or temples. They were places, which, with their usual accompaniments, presented strong allurements to idolatry; and therefore the Israelites were prohibited from planting them."
Matthew Henry
"They must not only not join with the idolaters in their worships, not visit their groves, nor bow before the images which they had set up, but, 1. They must not plant a grove, nor so much as a tree, near God’s altar lest they should make it look like the altars of the false gods. They made groves the places of their worship."
John Gill
"Thou shall not plant thee a grove of any trees,.... Of any sort of trees, as oaks or any other; not but that it was lawful to plant trees and groves of them, but not for a religious or idolatrous use: particularly near unto the altar of the Lord thy God, which thou shalt make thee; as the Heathens did near their altars, lest it should be thought to be done for a like superstitious and idolatrous use; which evil the Jews sometimes fell into in the times of wicked reigns, and which their good and pious kings removed and destroyed; and Hecataeus , an Heathen historian, relates of the city of Jerusalem, that there were there no image, nor plantation, nor grove, nor any such thing."
The NKJV renders " not plant thee a grove of any trees" as " not plant for yourself any tree, as a wooden image, near the altar"; The NKJV is confusing. A wooden image is not a tree that can be planted. The NASB has " You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind of tree." This is more likely than the NKJV in that at least it is a tree which represents an idol. The NIV says: "Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar." This reading changes "plant" to "set up", omits the word and the concept of trees and leaves us, in effect, with a non living stick.
The verb is to plant # 5193, as in to plant a tree or to plant a vineyard , not "to set up". You do not "plant" an idol. Groves of trees were specially dedicated altars to pagan gods. Sometimes the images of these gods were carved into the base of the living tree itself, as can be seen on many of the New Age Goddess sites. 1 Kings 15:13 tells us king Asa removed his mother from being queen because she made an idol in a grove. This carved image in the living tree could also have been cut out of the tree and placed in a persons home. A further step was then taken in carving a graven image of the grove and placing it in the house of the LORD. 2 Kings 21:7
This information comes from a New Age site called Blessed Bee. This site tells us of the so called ancient goddesses. (The capital letters are mine for emphasis.) Regarding Asherah: "In the Middle East the Goddess of the GROVE was Asherah, whose GROVES were found "on every high hill and under every green tree" 1 Kings 14:23. Asherah was known as the Mother or Creator of all the gods. Sacrificial feasts were held in the sacred GROVES of Asherah in Jerusalem according to Apion."
And from MotherGoddess.Com we get this concerning Asherah. (Capital letters are mine for emphasis) "Asherah - Semitic name of the Great Goddess. SACRED GROVE, Divine Harlot, Lady of Heaven, Queen of the Gods, Symbol - stylized MULTI-BRANCHED TREE. She Who gives birth to the gods, Goddess of the TREE of Life, Goddess of the GROVE. She Who gives birth, Wet-nurse of the gods. Ugaritic Mother Goddess. She was the Force of Life, experienced as benevolent and enduring, found in flocks of cattle and GROVES OF TREES, evoked in childbirth and planting time."
Karl Lohman of Antioch Baptist Church, has written an article about the groves in the King James Bible. Here is part of that article.
"Like the harlot of Proverbs 7, the promoters of the new bibles prey on “the simple ones” who yield their sword, the old King James Bible, after a “fair speech” has persuaded them. One such “fair speech” is that the King James Bible is not written in modern English. The rallying cry is: “We need a modern version for modern times!” Have you ever heard that one? Although this argument has been proven to be a lie on many occasions, I was reminded recently of how up-to-date my old King James Bible really is."
"While researching , I was struck by how often the word “grove” was used on occult and New Age web sites. One site used the word “grove” or “groves” 18 times on its home page. Apparently the pagan creator of this site did not realize how “archaic” these words are."
"Interestingly, the new versions eliminate the word “grove” and its plural form from their bibles when the passages deal with idolatry. They replace this easily understood word with “Asherah pole” (NIV), “sacred pole” (NRSV), and “wooden image” (NKJV). Why? The New Age “spiral goddess” worshippers talk about their “Grove of Rememberance ,” “Rainbow Heart Grove,” and “Green Man Grove” not their “Asherah poles.” The followers of Wicca don’t use terminology like “sacred pole.” They use “The Gods’ Grove,” “The Mystickal Grove,” and “The Grove of the Green Cobra.” The Druids don’t call their places of worship or their idols “wooden images”; they give them titles like “Hearthfire Grove,” “Peachtree Grove,” and “Virtual Grove.”
"The omission of “grove” and “groves” is only one of many shocking things that the new versions do that convince me that one of the fruits (Matt.7:16) of all of these new versions is an increase in New Age and occult practices here in America and around the world. After all, who would know about how God felt about the “groves” that are being pushed today if they could not find any in their bibles? Apparently the publishers of the NEW versions don’t care if the scripture “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2Tim.3:16) as long as it is profitable financially (1Tim.6:10)!"
"Let me ask you a few questions. If you were a pagan who worshipped your gods at one or more of these groves, would you appreciate someone reading a King James Bible or would you rather they read a new version? Which one sheds more light on your pagan practices? Are the pagan practices of the people in the Old Testament and the people in the 21st century being exposed in the King James Bible or in the new versions? If you are an honest person, you know what the answers are."
"The “rulers of the darkness of this world” don’t appreciate a Bible that connects their “spiritual wickedness in high places” to the groves."
"The next time some charlatan tries to persuade you with his “fair speech” to trade your sword in for one of these new versions, tell him that the creators, designers, and promoters of the New Age religious web sites know that the terminology in the King James Bible is right and all of the new versions are not. Why is that? The answer is simple. Someone does not want you to know that the idolatrous practices of the pagan people as revealed in the Old Testament match the New Age occult practices in the 21st century. Stated simply, someone does not want you to know the truth and Jesus Christ said, “…thy word is truth” Jn.17:17!"
- 4 Pul AND Tiglathpileser
1 Chronicles 5:26 "And God stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria AND the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away..." #4 --- "In I Chronicles 5:26 the KJV translators present Pul and Tilgath-pilneser as being two separate kings of Assyria. Actually, these were two names for the same man, as archaeological discoveries have proven."
The NKJV, New English Bible and the NIV have bought into this false assumption and render the verse as: "stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, THAT IS, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria." The NASB has done the same thing with "the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, EVEN Tiglath-Pileser."
However if these Bible correctors would just read and believe the true Holy Bible they would clearly see that Pul and Tiglathpileser are two different kings who reigned at two different times.
In 2 Kings 15:19 through 29 this is very clear. "And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem (the king of Israel who reigned for 10 years) gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand." Then verse 22 tells us that Menaham slept with his fathers and Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead for two years.
Then verse 25 through 29 tell us that Pekah, one of Pekahiah's captains killed him and reigned in his stead for an additional 20 years. Then in 2 Kings 15:29 we read: "In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tilgathpileser king of Assyria... and carried them captive to Assyria."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown
"The God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul--the Phalluka of the Ninevite monuments and the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser--the son of the former. By them the trans-jordanic tribes, including the other half of Manasseh, settled in Galilee, were removed to Upper Media. This was the first captivity."
Matthew Henry
"God stirred up the spirit of the kings of Assyria, first one and then another, against them, served his own purposes by the designs of those ambitious monarchs, employed them to chastise these revolters first, and, when that humbled them not, then wholly to root them out."
John Gill
"And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria: in the times of Menahem king of Israel and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser; in the times of Pekah king of Israel, to invade the land, and make war in it: and he carried them away."
The following information comes from McClintock and Strong. Rawlinson appears to be the one who concocts the theory that Pul is identical with Tiglath-pileser. Others disagree with his ASSUMPTIONS.
"[Rawlinson] suggested that one and the same individual is denoted by the names Pul and Tiglath-pileser in the sacred narrative. His chief argument for this is that in 1 Chronicles 5:26 the same event — namely, the deportation of the tribes beyond the Jordan — is attributed to the two kings associated together as if they were one and the same individual (Athenaeum, No. 1869). But, as already remarked by Winer (Realw ii, 259), the passage in 1 Chronicles does not necessarily ascribe to the two kings the accomplishment of the same measure. Pul is mentioned in it as the first Assyrian king who came into collision with the Israelites, and thus prepared the way for the subsequent deportation of the transjordanic tribes. But that this measure is attributed solely to Tiglath-pileser, as in 2 Kings 20:29, … Julius Oppert, who accepts the account of Ctesias, and takes it to refer to the subversion of the first Assyrian empire, supposes Pul to be the Babylonian Belesys. The eminent Assyriologist Dr. Hincks maintains that 'Pul became king of Babylon, holding Assyria in subjection, in 787 B.C. Tiglath-pileser revolted from him and established an independent kingdom of Assyria in 768 B.C.'” (Athenaeum, No. 1810)." (McClintock and Strong Cylopedia, "Pul," Vol. 8, pp. 195-195)
Not only does the King James Bible correctly read 1 Chronicles 5:26 as two different kings, Pul the king of Assyrian AND the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, but so also do both Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Webster's, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Douay 1950, Bible in Basic English, Hebrew Names Version, Green's interlinear, Darby, Young's, Revised Standard Version and the Third Millenium Bible. It is the NKJV, NIV and NASB and this self inflated, bombastic Bible corrector that are in error.
- 5 Necho against Assyria
2 Kings 23:29 "IN HIS DAYS Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up AGAINST the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him."
Mr. Maxey uses the NIV and it says: "WHILE JOSIAH WAS KING, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River TO HELP the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but NECO (not in text) faced him and killed him at Megiddo."
No text says with the NIV "while Josiah was king". This is a paraphrase. Even the NASB says "in his days". However the NASB says Pharoah Neco went up TO the king, but the NKJV joins the NIV and says: "In his days Pharoah Neco went TO THE AID of the king of Assyria." There is no Hebrew text that says "to the aid of" or "to help".
Those versions that read along with the KJB that "in his days Pharoah Necho went up AGAINST the king of Assyria" are both Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Hebrew Names Version, Young's, Darby, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, 1961 Bible in Basic English, and Green's 1984 interlinear.
As we shall shortly see, Mr. Maxey confuses the king of Assyria with the king of Babylon, who was referred to as the king of Assyria after he conquered it.
John Wesley notes:
The king- The king of Babylon, who having formerly rebelled against the Assyrian had now conquered him; as appears by the course of the sacred, and the concurrence of the prophane history; and therefore is here and elsewhere called the Assyrian, and the king of Assyria, because now he was the head of that empire.
The 1982 edition of The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge also confirms this view that the king of Babylon, having conquered Assyria, was then called the king of Assyria.
John Gill
In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates; to Carchemish, a city situated upon it; see2 Chronicles 35:20, the king he went against was the king of Babylon, who had conquered the Assyrian monarchy, and therefore called king of it.
Matthew Henry
"The king of Egypt waged war, it seems, with the king of Assyria: so the king of Babylon is now called. Josiah's kingdom lay between them. He therefore thought himself concerned to oppose the king of Egypt, and check the growing, threatening, greatness of his power; for though, at this time, he protested that he had no design against Josiah, yet, if he should prevail to unite the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates, the land of Judah would soon be overflowed between them. Therefore Josiah went against him, and was killed in the first engagement."
In any event, Mr. Maxey and his NIV, and the NKJV are certainly wrong and the King James Bible is correct, as always.
---SIX---In England in the 17th century it was normal practice to light a "candle" and place it on a "candlestick." This was NOT the case in ancient Palestine. They used oil lamps, which were then placed on lampstands. Throughout the NT the KJV translators changed "lamps" and "lampstands" to "candles" and "candlesticks" (Matt. 5:15; Luke 15:8; Rev. 1:12f).
- 6 candle - candlestick
This is perhaps the height of ignorance from a man who apparently doesn't even know English, or the meaning of words.
As any good dictionary tells us, one of the meanings of a candle is an artificial light of any kind as opposed to the natural light of the sun or moon. And what, pray tell, comes to mind when you read the word "lampstand"?
Cambridge International Dictionary - "Lampstand, a heavy, often decorative, base for an electric light which stands on a table or the floor." Is this what Moses used in the tabernacle? I think not.
Encyclopedia.Com. The evidence of ancient writings is not conslusive as to the history of the candle; words translated as "candle" may have meant "torch" or "lamp" and the "candlestick" was a stand for one of these lights.
Easton Bible Dictionary
Candle - Heb. ner, Job 18:6; 29:3; Ps. 18:28; Prov. 24:20 The Hebrew word denotes properly any kind of candle or lamp or torch. It is used as a figure of conscience (Prov. 20:27), of a Christian example (Matt. 5:14, 15), and of prosperity (Job 21:17; Prov. 13:9).
Webster's Dictionary
CANDLE, n.
1. A long, but small cylindrical body of tallow, wax or spermaceti, formed on a wick composed of linen or cotton threads, twisted loosely; used for a portable light of domestic use.
2. A light.
3. A light; a luminary. In scripture, the candle of the Lord is the divine favor and blessing, Job 14:3; or the conscience or understanding. Prov. 20:27.
Not only does the King James Bible use the words candle and candlestick but so also do the Coverdale translation, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, Tyndale, both Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Young's, the Amplified, Darby, Douay-Rheims, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, the Message! and the New Living Translation! (See Isaiah 43:17).
So Mr. Maxey's "lampstand" is better than "candlestick", huh? He is really straining at gnats with this "error" and yet he uses the NIV which has a multitide of serious problems, both textual and theological. This is a case of the blind leading the blind.
Will Kinney
