Isaiah 29: 16 In the King James Version and In the New King James Version

Posted : 14 Aug, 2013 05:56 AM

Isaiah 29: 16 In the King James Version and In the New King James Version



Isaiah 29: 16 in the King James Version says: "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?"



Isaiah 29: 16 in the New King James Version says:

"Surely you have things turned around!

Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;

For shall the thing made say of him who made it,

�He did not make me�?

Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it,

�He has no understanding?"



I used an online Strong's Exhaustive Concordance at:



http://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/strongs-exhaustive-concordance/



For Isaiah 29: 16 the English word "down" is from Strong's number 2017, Hophek, which is

said to mean "perverseness, perversity." But its root word is Strong's number 2015, Haphak, which is said to mean "to turn, overthrow, overturn, turn about, turn over, turn around, to change, transform."



Strong's number 2015 is given the same definition in the Blue Letter Bible, at http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2015&t=KJV



Lets look up the English word "esteemed" in Isaiah 29: 16 for the King James Version. The Bible Study Tools site above says "esteemed" is Strong's number 2803, Chashab, which is said to mean "to think, accoun, to plan, devise, mean, to charge, impute, reckon, to esteem, value, regard, to invent.' And the Blue Letter Bible has the same definitions for number 2803.



The translation of the Hebrew word Number 2017 (online Strong's) by the New King James Version has a meaning that is different from that in the King James Version for Isaiah 29: 16, and different from the meanings given in the Strong's word definitions. "Surely you have things

turned around" is different in meaning than "Surely your turning of things upside down." I just noticed that the New King James "Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;" has a different meaning also than the King James Version's "shall be esteemed as the potter's clay." The King James Version meaning that "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay" can be seen to refer to Jeremiah 18: 1-6. "The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

2. Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

3. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

4. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

5. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

6. O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel."



The New King James has; "Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay" does not make the connection to Jeremiah 18: 1-6 that the King James translation does by "shall be esteemed as the potter's clay." The potter's clay in Jeremiah 18 is esteemed because the parable of the potter there is about a very important change in physical Israel, from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, to Israel in the physical to that spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5, and to Jesus Christ then being in that spiritual house reborn in him and no longer in physical Israel ("Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" Matthew 23; 38).



The New King James says: "Surely you have things turned around" also fails to connect in meaning to II Kings 21: 13. "And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down." "Things tuned around" does not connect with II Kings 21: 13, "turning it upside down" as does the King James "Surely your turning of things upside down" in Isaiah 29: 16.



For the New King James Version on Isaiah 29: 16, and for other differences in translation of specific words between the King James Version and newer versions, Strong's can act as a resource to determine if an English translation of a Hebrew or Greek word has departed from the original meaning of that word. But the point in so using Strong's word definitions is not just to find out if some particular verse has been wrongly translated in a newer English translation, but to determine that the newer English versions are not the preserved word of God (Psalm 12: 6-7, Psalm 119: 89).



Whether or not the Strong's word definitions are heavily influenced by the translation of Hebrew and Greek words in the King James Version depends upon whether the Strong's word definitions are based on honest and accurate scholarship. The meanings of Greek words used in the New Testament has been under study by Biblical and language scholars for many centuries. And the issue of honest and accurate scholarship - and the dialectic mind - comes up in the quarrels about the attempt of Westcott and Hort to overthrow both the King James Version and the Textus Receptus. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is based upon the Textus Receptus and not upon the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Strong's is not based on the Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text, derived from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.



By 1881 there was a major revolt against the Textus Receptus and the King

James Version as being the authorized and received texts for Christians. The received text is the Greek Texus Receptus, and the authorized English text is the King James Version. Westcott

and Hort had the dialectic mind and argued against the long accepted Greek and English

New Testament texts, in favor of the Alexandrian texts, which had been rejected at the time of the

Reformation.



Westcott and Hort, who were the drivers of a wrecking machine and followed the heresiarchal paradigm, were on the translation committee for the 1881 British Revised Version of the New Testament. This committee, with Westcott and Hort influencing it, changed many verse wordings of the Tyndale, Geneva and King James. In the process of changing verse wordings the committee changed some doctrines in the older English New Testament for their 1881 Revised Version, changes which were followed by almost all English versions since that time. Sometimes changing a word in a verse will change the doctrine taught.



The change from debate to strife for the translation of the Greek word eris in Romans 1: 28-29 is one such change in doctrine from the three older English translations to the new Westcott-Hort British Revised Version of 1881. Debate has a more specific meaning than strife. And if an English word has changed its meaning in worldly use since the King James Version was created in 1611, the doctrine in the 1611 version should be preserved by selecting a new English word that better fits the meaning of the Greek word and the entire verse than does the English word whose meaning is claimed to have changed. But the 1881 British Revised Version Committee did not select a new English word for eris, which might have been quarrels, because the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance definition of eris says it means "...a quarrel, by implication, wranging, contention, debate, strife, variance." But the 1881 Committee changed the doctrine that debate as a quarrel is a trait of the reprobate mind by substituting a word with a more general meaning that a quarrel, strife. And almost every English translation since 1881 has followed that change.



So, after 1881 it is supposedly OK, as far as Romans 1: 28-29 is concerned, for Christians to get into dialogue as quarrels with other individuals. But like the differences between the verse wordings in the Greek Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort Greek text, from the two Greek manuscripts associated with Alexandria, Egypt, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, where the Westcott-Hort text is not consistent in the differences for the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ, so the 1881 British Revised Version is not consistent for the doctrine saying Christians should not engage in contentious dialogue. A careful look at the doctrine of the deity of Christ in the Westcott-Hort Greek shows that some verses, compared to the Textus Receptus, downplay Christ's being fully God, but not all verses in the Westcott-Hort dealing with the deity of Christ differ from the Textus Receptus, which has stronger and more consistent verse wordings on Christ being fully God..



To change all the verses dealing with the deity of Christ, or to change all verses concerned with contentious dialogue, would be too obvious, and many more Christians would see such a consistent change and reject the new translation. For example, the NIV for Romans 1: 29 translated eris as strife, not as debate. But for II Corinthians 12: 20 the NIV translated eris as quarreling. The King James Version has debates. Again, in I Corinthians 11: 16, the King James has contentious for the Greek word philoneikos, and the NIV also uses contentious..



"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12: 6-7



God promised to preserve his words. The dialectic mind of our age wants to argue against that which is absolute truth or absolute morality. God's word for those with faith is absolute truth and it is fact. So, Westcott and Hort in their writings in the late eighties

of the 19th century argued against that absolute

truth of Psalm 12: 6-7 that God has preserved his word. In starting from the assumption that the Bible should be treated in textual criticism as any other ancient text, they, in effect, argued against Psalm 12; 6-7. that God has preserved his word, in this case the Greek New Testament.



The differences between the King James Version and the New King James Version on Isaiah 29: 16 is interesting. "Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;" does not connect back to II Kings 21: 13 and forward to Jeremiah 18: 1-6 as well as the wording in the King James Version, "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay."



The question would have to be asked whether the New King James translators were dispensationalists, or the large translation committee was dominated by dispensationalists,and were opposed to the thread in the Old Testament running from II Kings 21: 13, through Isaiah 29: 16 and on to Jeremiah 18: 1-6. Or, being dispenationalists they did not see those connections, and did not understand what turning Jerusalem upside down in II Kings 21: 13 means, and did not understand the doctrine contained in the parable of the potter in Jeremiah 18: 1-6, that God was to transform physical Israel to a spiritual house in Christ. Dispensationalism starts on the assumptions that God now has two peoples, physical Israel and the church and that all physical Israel remain now the chosen people, based upon their genetics from Abraham. Saying that God transformed physical Israel into a spiritual house (I Peter 2: 5), offered to bring members of physical Israel into that house and cut off all those who rejected Christ (Romans 11: 17, 18, 20) contradicts the foundational doctrines of dispensationalism.



In II Kings 21: 13, Isaiah 29: 16 and Jeremiah 18: 1-6 there is no people of God mentioned, except Israel, which is called Jerusalem in II Kings 21: 13. And Jeremiah 18: 6 says �O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter?� To a dispensationalist, this thread of three verses in the Old Testament would have to apply only to physical Israel, and the dispensationalist church would not be part of what this thread is talking about. That is, the church for a dispensationalist is a separate people of God from physical Israel.. Romans 9: 25, �As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved� quoted from Hosea 2; 23, �and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.� would not be interpreted by dispensationalists following their theology to mean Gentiles would be included in the transformation of Israel. Actually, the doctrine that God transfomed physical Israel from a physical house to a spiritual house is inconsistent with dispensationalist doctrine, if it is understood that in that transformation God put all of physical Israel away from him who rejected Christ.



The departure of the New King Version for Isaiah 29: 16 from the wording of the King James Version is interesting because the question has to be asked if that departure was motivated by dispensationalist theology.



New American Standard Bible has "You turn things around!

Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,"



American Standard Version says "You turn things around!

Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay,"



New Revised Standard says "You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay?"



The NIV says "You turn things upside down,

as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!"



The New King James Version says "Surely you have things turned around!

Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;"



King James Version says "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay."



And the Geneva Bible for Isaiah 29: 16 says "Your turning of devices shall it not be

esteemed as the potter�s clay? for shall

the work say of him that

made it, He made me not? or

the thing formed, say of

him that fashioned it,

He had none understanding?"



The New King James for Isaiah 29: 16 is closer in wording and meaning to the American Standard, The New American Standard and the New Revised Standard than to the King James Version. While the New King James Version claimed to change the old King James Version so it would be more readable, for this important verse on the transformation of physical Israel, which connects to II Kings 21: 13 and Jeremiah 18: 1-6 in the King James. the New King James offers a translation which has a different meaning than does the old King James. The sentence "You have things turned around" seems to imply that God himself is turned around in his thinking. In II Kings 21: 13 God is said to have turned Jerusalem upside down. The New King James Version statement, "Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay" has a different meaning than "your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay."



In other words, the New King James translation of this significant verse in this Old Testament prophecy thread does not follow the Hebrew word meanings.



The Condensed Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon

says Strong's number H2015 means "1) to turn, overthrow, overturn



1) to overturn, overthrow

2) to turn, turn about, turn over, turn around

3) to change, transform."



In the context of Isaiah 29: 16 number H2015 would mean to change or transform, or turn upside down.



This same Lexicon says Strong's number H2803 means " to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count,

1) to think, account

2) to plan, devise, mean

3) to charge, impute, reckon

4) to esteem, value, regard

5) to invent."



In the context of Isaiah 29: 16 number H2803 would mean to esteem, value or regard. What is esteemed or valued is the change, transformation or turning of Israel upside down, which is seen to be predicted to occur in Jeremiah 18: 1-6. "Oh house of Israel, cannot i do with you as this potter?" The potter in the parable remade the flawed pot into another vessel, as seemed good to the potter. He did not put the flawed pot on a shelf, intending to bring it out at some later time. No, God as the potter remade Israel. Its still Israel but it is transformed.



The newer English translations, including the New King James, have a different word structure for Isaiah 29: 16 than does the King James.

This different word structure also changes the meaning of the verse and makes it difficult to see the verse's connection to II Kings 21: 13 and Jeremiah 18: 1-6. Why the change in word structure?



Since the New King James Version was first published in 1982, it is not surprising that many of the people who contributed to it were dispensationalists.



ARTHUR LEONARD FARSTAD was the main editor of the group who created the New King James Version, first published in 1982. "Arthur L. Farstad served as the Executive Editor of the New King James Version...He holds a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary."



Dallas Theological Seminary was founded by Lewis S. Chafer, one of the three main classical dispensationalists, along with John Darby and C.I. Schfield. The Seminary has remained an important institution for the promotion of dispensationalist theology.



Dr Ronald B. Allen was the Old Testament editor of the New King James Version, and has a Doctor of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary.



Dr Thomas Ice is a well known dispensationalist who was on the committee that created the New King James Version. Ice got his Masters of Theology degree in 1981 from guess where, Dallas Theological Seminary.



Dr David E. Garland was on the Old Testament committee group, and he is apparently a Southern Baptist, having received his Ph.D. from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Now, in earlier decades, for example, back in the forties and fifties, the Southern Baptists leaders were not all followers of dispensationalism. But - starting in the sixties, the Southern Baptist Convention was taken over by what was then called Fundamentalism, which was essentially dispensationalism.



Dr. Louis Goldberg contributed to the NKJV, Professor of Theology and Jewish Studies

Moody Bible Institute. Moody is a dispensationalist institution.



Dr. Eugene H. Merrill contributed to the Old Testament. He was Associate Professor of Semantics and Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary



Dr. Allen P. Ross also contributed to the Old testament, He was Professor of Old Testament,

Dallas Theological Seminary



Dr. Boyce Blackwelder contributed to the New Testament, He was a professor at

Anderson College, Anderson, Indiana, which is part of the Church of God denomination, and probably dispensationalist.



Dr. Virtus E. Gideon contributed to the New Testament. He was Professor of New Testament and Greek

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and probably dispensationalist..



There were a few on the NKJV committee who were probably not followers of dispensationalist theology, such as Dr. Robert L. Reymond. Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. Yet the Committee was dominated by dispensationalists.

Post Reply