When Two Bible Translations Disagree, Which One Is Right?

Have you ever been listening to a preacher who is using a Bible translation different from the one in your lap? Generally, the wording is similar enough to avoid confusion; in fact those differences often provide little insights. But occasionally the differences are so striking that you get distracted.

When Bible translations differ greatly, what’s going on?

A reader emailed me with just such a question: “I thought maybe you’d have some insight into the English translations of 2 Samuel 23:5,” he said. And he listed them:

For does not my house stand so with God? For he has made with me an everlasting covenant. . . . (ESV)

If my house were not right with God, surely he would not have made with me an everlasting covenant. (NIV)

Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant. (KJV)

He asked: “Is the KJV anomaly simply an interpretive translation choice on their part or is the underlying text different?” In other words, among the minor copyist errors that make every Hebrew (or Greek) manuscript of any size differ at least a tiny bit, are there differences at 2 Samuel 23:5?

Great question. And we’ll answer it later. But first, we’ll ask the more general question: if you can’t read Hebrew or Greek, how can you know which differences between English translations are due to textual variants and which aren’t?

This question is important, because if our goal as Bible readers is to know what the Bible means, we have to start by knowing what it says.

Let me give a simple and then a more complicated answer to the question.

The simple answer

The simple answer is this: any difference between Bible translations that is significant enough for you to notice is almost certainly not due to a textual variant.

Most differences between Greek and Hebrew texts are excessively minor. For example, can you guess which difference between the KJV and ESV at Matthew 1:18 is due to a difference between the Greek texts underlying these two versions?

   Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)     Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. (ESV)  

Did you guess it was “espoused” vs. “betrothed,” or “Spirit” vs. “Ghost”? Nope. It’s that little word “as”: “When as his mother Mary was espoused.” The textual base of the KJV has one word here (γάρ, gar) that the textual base of the ESV does not have. But this variant, like so many others that were based on ancient scribal mistakes, makes no difference in meaning.

Another reason differences you notice between English Bible translations are rarely due to textual variants is that almost all contemporary Bible translations are based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts: the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Basically, the KJV, NKJV and a few comparatively minor players such as the MEV are the only English Bibles widely available which use different textual bases (and, again, they’re not very different at all).

If you spot a perplexing difference between two English renderings of the same phrase, assume the translators are looking at the same Greek or Hebrew words and have good reasons for translating them differently.

The complex answer

The science of “textual criticism” is the complicated work of determining—based on scribal habits and other factors—which variants are most likely to be original. So the more complex answer is that, yes, some differences between translations are due to differing “textual critical” choices—even among contemporary translations which are using the same base texts.

Psalm 22:16b is one example, and you might be able to guess that textual issues are present simply because the translations are not just all over the map; many are on apparently different maps:

  • ESV: they have pierced my hands and feet
  • AV: they pierced my hands and my feet
  • MEV: like a lion they pin my hands and my feet
  • NASB95: They pierced my hands and my feet
  • HCSB: they pierced my hands and my feet
  • NIV: they pierce my hands and my feet
  • NET: like a lion they pin my hands and feet
  • NLT: They have pierced my hands and feet
  • CEB: oh, my poor hands and feet
  • REB they have bound me hand and foot
  • NEB: they have hacked off my hands and my feet
  • NABRE: They have pierced my hands and my feet
  • LES: They dug a trench for my hands and feet

“Pierced” is the most popular option. But “pinned,” “hacked,” “bound,” and even “dug a trench” are considered viable options by highly trained people, all of whom—readers should presume—had good reasons for what they did. Not all these differences are so great that they suggest textual variants, but when “a lion” comes bounding into two of the translations, you know something is going on in the Hebrew textual tradition.

In a passage like this one, it seems pretty important to sort out the textual critical problems—because this is an apparent Old Testament prediction of the death of the Messiah. If David was not indeed prophesying about his great-great (etc.) grandson, Christians shouldn’t claim that he was. You can confirm your suspicion that a given passage is the site of a textual variant in two ways.

First, you can always check the footnotes in your English Bible. The ESV at Psalm 22:16, sure enough, has a note saying that its reading is supported by “some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac.” It adds, however, that “most Hebrew manuscripts [read] like a lion [they are at] my hands and feet.”

Second, you can check the Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible. It has a somewhat longer note at Psalm 22:16, one that mentions the role played by the Dead Sea Scrolls in determining the original reading of this passage. (Many Logos base package owners also have Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, and it is worth checking, but it requires some knowledge of Greek and of textual criticism.)

Back to 2 Samuel 23:5

And that brings us back to 2 Samuel 23:5, the subject of my reader’s question. Neither the Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible nor any footnote in an English translation mentions any textual variant in this passage that might explain why the ESV, NIV, and KJV differ. You may safely presume, therefore, that the differences are due to legitimate but contrasting ways to take the underlying Hebrew. A commentary can help you here, but more than likely the commentary will only do for you what you ought to try to do for yourself first: look at the context and make some observations about which reading makes the most sense.

2 Samuel 23:1–7 contains the last words of King David. They are full of gratitude for what the Lord had done for him. The KJV rendering, therefore, feels awkward to me. He just got done saying “When one rules justly over men, ruling in the fear of God, he dawns on them like the morning light”—and now he’s going to say, “Although my own house was not just, even so the Lord has blessed me”? I think the literal ESV rendering and the slightly smoother and more interpretive rendering of the NIV both get across the point that the context demands: David’s house is right with God, and this is one signal reason for God’s blessings on that house.

However, David did commit terrible injustices: he took a man’s wife and then killed him so he could keep her after she got pregnant. God’s blessings on him were indeed given despite his sin—though his sin also brought serious consequences, including supermarket-tabloid-level dysfunction in his family. So maybe the KJV translators were right.

The KJV translators were not dummies. Neither were the ESV and NIV translators. If such gifted people disagreed over the proper rendering of a phrase, most likely they have discovered legitimate ways to translate it. Commentaries will rarely, in my experience, give a decisive reason to take one over the others—or the translators would have already taken it.

Differences between translations are instructive; they help raise interpretive questions you might not have thought of. But if you start thinking that a given difference between translations is due to textual variants, you’ll confuse the issues, waste your time, and perhaps miss out on what’s really going on in the text.


Mark L. Ward, Jr. received his PhD from Bob Jones University in 2012; he now serves the church as a Logos Pro. He is the author of multiple high school Bible textbooks, including Biblical Worldview: Creation, Fall, Redemption.

 

 

 

 

Get free Bible software from Logos!

See for yourself how Logos will help you discover, understand, and share more of the biblical insights you crave. Compare translations, take notes and highlight, consult devotionals and commentaries, look up Greek and Hebrew words, and much more—all with the help of intuitive, interactive tools.

Get started now—there’s no credit card required.

Comments

  1. Excellent, brother. Thanks again for taking the time to answer my question. And thanks for this additional post.

  2. Check out the was in and the earth was without form and void. The word in Hebrew is translated become or became because there isn’t a verb like was in the Hebrew.

  3. gregg powers says:

    Yeah there is a little more going on than this. Look at Romans 8:1 where nearly all versions (exception KJV) render the text incorrectly based on incorrect beliefs. There is a difference between word for word (or formal) and dynamic translation. Dynamic tends towards the interpretive. Formal is exactly what it says. Scripture interprets scripture. Correctly rendered Romans 8:1 says There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    • Gregg, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you—but Romans 8:1 is a textual issue. Here’s what the The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible says:

      Many early manuscripts end the verse with “Christ Jesus,” but some early manuscripts and later related witnesses continue, “who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” This is a clarification of what it means to be “in Christ Jesus” in order be more precise about to whom the lack of condemnation applies. Many (Metzger, Omanson, Comfort) point to Rom 8:4 as influence for later scribal inclusion of these phrases.

      Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), Ro 8:1.

      Am I indeed misunderstanding you?

  4. gregg powers says:

    The original Greek i have seen includes the phrase (i believe it comes from the Texticus Recepticus on which the KJV is based). Versions that utilize formal translation seem to include the rest of the phrase where as dynamic translations do not.

    Consider Galatians 5:25 where Paul differentiates being in the spirit and walking in the spirit (they are not the same). Those using dynamic interpretation seem to have interpreted scripture based on doctrinal beliefs. Condemnation still applies to Christians who are sinning. Only through submitting to the spirit and walking in the spirit are we free from condemnation for only then are we truly in God’s will…….

    We know this clearly because of other teachings in the Bible….

    • Friend, I joyfully agree that it is those who walk in the Spirit who show that they are not under condemnation, and I wish to continue to be such a person.

      However, I’m wondering if you may have missed the point of the post. There are differences between Greek New Testament manuscripts; in Romans 8:1, the difference you’re noting between the KJV (and MEV and KJV 2000 and other Textus Receptus-based translations) is not at all due to formal vs. functional translation philosophies. It’s due to a difference in the underlying Greek text. In fact, the ESV is word-for-word identical to the KJV, except for “to them which” vs. “for those who.”

  5. Mark H says:

    Very interesting article. I have a few verses in the KJV I’ve been wondering about. Anyone, feel free to comment and help me figure these out: Why does Colossians 3:17 and Ephesians 5:20 say “God AND the father..”? That almost puts a new twist on who God is, in my mind. All of the other versions say “God THE father,” which makes more sense to me.

    Why does Matthew 24:37 talk about the “days of Noe”? Seriously – Noe? Why not just use Noah, like it’s supposed to be?

    Why does Numbers 11:12 talk about a “nursing father”? Seriously – a nursing father?

    Why is the KJV have just blatant grammatical errors that other versions don’t have? ex: Genesis 42:32 “We be twelve brethren…” And Joshua 9:6 “We be come from a far country…” Are you kidding? How did this even get into print?

    Why does Genesis 1:1 only say “heaven” in the singular form when most other versions have “heavens”?

    If the word “couch” was not even a word until 1895 because of Jay Wellington Couch, how in the world did “couch” get into the KJV so much? For example, in Luke 5:24 where it says to “Arise and take up thy couch…” If the KJV came out in 1611 or so, how could that word be in there if it was not even a word until 1895? That one just blows my mind.

    When I was in college, my English professor said that “stuff” is an informal word that should be avoided, if possible, in more formal writing. Why is it used to much in the KJV? EX: Genesis 45:20 “regard not your stuff….” Really?

    What’s with Hebrews 11:34 and the word “aliens”? I understand that this word means foreigner, so it does fit, but why not just say “foreign armies” like most versions do?

    Is the KJV taking a swipe at preachers and putting authors ahead of them? Why does Mark 13:10 say the gospel must be “published,” while most or all other versions say the gospel must be “preached”?

    In Bible days I think of sandals, not shoes. Why does the KJV in Mark 1:7 use “shoes” instead of “sandals”? I mean, I get it, but sandals just seems like a better fit, considering the times.

    What’s with more just blatant grammatical errors such as calling Sodom “Sodoma” in Romans 9:29? Seriously? Again, how did the printing companies even let this get printed?

    Why does Acts 12:4 mention Easter? Easter, seriously? Why not just say “Passover” like all the other versions?

    Lusting is generally considered negative trait. So why does the KJV use phrases such as “whatsoever they soul lusteth after…” in a positive sense? Deuteronomy 14:26, among several occasions. Why not use a word like “want” or “desire” like most other versions? So now it seems to be confusing on when lusting is good and when it’s bad.

    Here’s another that just blows my mind: Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Why do most other versions say “High Priest of our CONFESSION” but the KJV has “profession”?? What?

    • Mark, observant Bible reading. I know just what you need: my next book. =) I’m turning it into the publisher Monday, and it helps readers understand how English has changed in 400-plus years. Many of the issues you’re raising have to do with changes in English.

  6. Wow, lot of excellent questions and points! I didn’t even believe what that guy wrote, but he is correct in everything he said. I am literally scratching my head. Every single one of his points is a mind puzzle to me, but the I am stunned at the grammatical errors, especially Joshua 9:6. That one makes no sense at all to me. I’m no English major, but I don’t think the English language has changed that much since 1611 when the KJV was first published. That should have been just as much a grammatical error then as it is now, so I don’t know how that one in particular can be attributed to changes in the English language.

    But what this guy brought up in Luke 5:24 completely freaked me out. I always thought it was “take up thy bed” and not “couch”. To be honest, I at first thought that poster was trolling the board and making a joke. But he is not. It does say couch! The etymology of the word “couch” does seem to be from 1895 from a man named Jay Wellington Couch. Am I in la-la land? How in the world does the KJV, which as far as I know was published in 1611, have a word that was not invented until 1895?

    Anyone mind if I add a new question to the list? When I was looking up what this guy said, trying to prove him wrong, I cam across another unusual variation on the KJV. Acts 4:27 in the KJV mention the holy “child”. Every other major version mentions the holy “servant”. Now, I understand that a child and a servant both should have respect for authority, and maybe that’s what the KJV is driving at. But why not just use the word “servant” like all the other versions do? That almost reminds me of a Roman Catholic type of teaching, which at times seems to place a greater emphasis on the childhood of Jesus and Mary than other times of His life.

    But the “couch” thing is the biggest mystery to me. I don’t get that one at all.

    • “We be come” was acceptable English at the time it was written. Language changes.

      And as for “couch,” the word has been in Enligh since at least 1340, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. “Jay Wellington Couch” must be what’s called a folk etymology.

      As for “child” vs. “servant,” παῖδα (paida) can be translated either way.

      • Thanks, Mark. I appreciate the assistance. It is good to talk over and discuss and get different peoples’ points of view.

        Concerning “child” vs. “servant”, I do not know Greek at all, so I can offer nothing of substance to your point, but it does seem to make logical sense.

        I am trying to do research on “couch” and I am finding different points of view. That Jay Wellington guy seems to have been a real figure in history, but I haven’t found enough sources yet to verify whether this is “folk etymology” or legitimate.

        However, “we be come” still makes zero sense to me. I haven’t been in college for years, and even then I was not heavily into 17th Century poetry as much as I perhaps should have been. I know language changes, but to me this is stretching it. There were more archaic words in use at that time, but even so, that phraseology still does not seem correct, even for that time.

        • Jim, FYI, the Geneva Bible also translates it the same way as KJV (we be come). Apparently, this was common form in the day. Considering the extensive knowledge of the translators of both versions, I think it is safe to say that it is not a grammatical anomaly but a common way of speech in those days. According to Merriam Webster dictionary, the term couch was a Middle English term (couche) originating between from 1300 to 1350 and was used to denote a bed. Hope this helps.

  7. This is Jim again. I don’t mean to monopolize the board, but I am just flummoxed and have been looking up things, trying to figure this out. As a child, growing up in church, we memorized the first verse of the Bible as “God created the heavens and the earth.” I was just a child, and this was years ago, but I thought they used the KJV! Apparently I am wrong. Once again, I looked up what Mark H says and he is correct – the KJV does say heaven, as opposed to the plural heavens. I looked up other versions and they all say the plural “heavens” except for the KJV. What in the world is that all about? Does the KJV have a different view of creation or cosmology than all the other versions do? I’ve heard pastors preach from Genesis who I thought were using the KJV, and I could swear they always said “heavens”, not “heaven.” This one completely freaks me out that I and so many pastors I have heard over the years have been wrong this entire time!

  8. I called a friend on the phone and told him about these findings and he said he was just as clueless about Genesis 1:1 as I was, but I wanted to share something he said along this theme that he recently discovered. Ever been to a wedding? Of course, we all have. You know that famous “love chapter” in the Bible that is used on many weddings, 1 Corinthians 13? I bet you thought it was the love chapter, but you are so wrong. Get this – you are wrong! That whole chapter never even mentions love. It is the “charity” chapter! Once again I have to ask myself, am I in la-la land? I could swear I have been to weddings at churches where they typically use the KJV as their main or only version and I have heard this chapter quoted and they said “love”!! But I was wrong, the correct term is “charity”! I don’t ever recall hearing this famous chapter being called the “charity” chapter, but I have heard it called “the love chapter” countless times. Why does the KJV have to be the only version that has to be unique and different and use “charity” instead of “love” in this entire chapter! And why could I swear I have heard this chapter at weddings where I am certain they use the KJV and I remember “love” and not “charity”?

    This one freaks me out more than the couch thing. How could we be so wrong for so long?

  9. Hi Mark. This is Jim. You had a good article here and it’s too bad it didn’t get more traction. I asked my adult Bible study group at church if the word “Easter” is in the Bible and every single one of them said no. I’m an older guy myself and most of the people in this group are senior citizens who have a history of Bible study or exposure in their history. They were all shocked when I told them they were all wrong and that “Easter” is mentioned in Acts 12:4. A couple of people even said that Easter started as a pagan holiday and that of course it would not be in the Bible. About the entire class thought that “Passover” was used in this passage instead of Easter.

    Wow, are we a nation of Biblically illiterate people or what!

    I didn’t even bring up all the other mysteries that Mark mentioned and just focused on Easter. Since the point of this article is to highlight differences in versions, I would like to get anyone’s input on why the KJV mentions Easter and all the other versions use Passover. It seems like I too have heard that the origins of Easter are from a pagan holiday, so I don’t think the people in my class who brought this up were too far off base when they mentioned this. When we think of the Bible, we all thought of Passover instead of Easter bunnies and Easter eggs. Anyone have any input?

  10. Hello. I’ve never heard of this blog before and it is very interesting. I told my Bible study class that we should all try to find out why the KJV is the only version that uses the word “Easter” and all other versions use the more traditional “Passover.” We find it odd that all of the versions agree with each other on several things, and in several instances it’s the KJV that is the lone standout with an interesting variation, such as “Easter” in this case.

    I respectfully disagree with the assessment that language has changed and that “we be” has ever been proper grammar. I was hoping to talk and discuss and flesh that one out little bit more and hear other points of view on why the KJV is grammatically incorrect when other versions are not. Maybe I am wrong and language has changed that much, but I am not ready to accept that quite yet until I do some more study on that issue.

    I’m sorry to hear that comments appear to be closed for this post, as you don’t seem to be accepting any new comments. Well, that’s ok. In the blogosphere, a posting from last week may as well have been from 100 years ago. Anything as old as last week is like ancient history, so I can understand if this blog post is “so old” that it would be ignored. That’s too bad. I just discovered this site and was just starting to get into it. :)

    Well, thank you for the interaction while this posting was still fresh.

    • Sorry, Jim! I’m off on weekends! =)

      I wrote a post on Easter in the Bible here. Hope that helps!

      As for “we be,” I can’t do the research myself at the moment, either, so I’m interested to see what you come up with. But I’ll give you a general truism from my favorite linguist, John McWhorter:

      The very idea that grammatical “mistakes” eternally tempt the unwary is the spawn of three illusions that seduced these bewigged martinets.… The second was that when a grammar changes, it must be decaying rather than just, say, changing. So we were taught to lasso and hold on to whom, though at the time it was fading from English just like all the other words and constructions that differentiated Modern English from Old English—a foreign tongue to us that none of us feel deprived not speaking. (15–16)

      Important: my argument is not that people need not be taught standard English in school; they do and likely always will. My point is more specific: the casual speech constructions that we use alongside standard English, that we are taught, are illogical; wrong, and mistakes, are in reality just alternates that happen not to have been granted social cachet. (17)

  11. Thank you for the link to Easter.

    I am not familiar with McWhorter’s work. He does have some legitimate arguments, but I disagree with some of his points, and I venture to say others would as well, at least concerning the texts in question. He mentions how “whom” has faded from the modern language. This has been a gradual change and evolving over time. It has been used less and less over time to the point that is has by and large been taken out of modern American language. That is an excellent example of changing language.

    However, I cannot think of any instances where Numbers 13:31, Joshua 9:6 and Genesis 42:32 were grammatically correct. I just don’t see this as a change in language and that it was grammatically correct at the time. To me, this is just plain incorrect, not a casual construct.

    Sorry, I’m not trying to be acerbic or argumentative. I just have a hard time seeing this as grammatically correct.

    Some things I do understand where the KJV is different than other versions. For example, the word “Hallelujah” is never mentioned in the KJV and once again, this version is the only one that is different. All the others say “hallelujah” while the KJV says “alleluia”. For example, Revelation 19:1. I don’t know why the KJV is different, but I understand the meaning.

    I have not found any instances where the city of Sodom has been called Sodoma, so that is another one where I don’t get why it’s in the KJV. I can’t find any examples of language differentiations concerning the name of that city. For example, as in LA or Los Angeles.

    Thank You

  12. Brent Meyers says:

    As someone who translates everyday and in doing so, reflects on multiple translations daily, I think that there is another important consideration. Translations are done for readability so that they can be purchased by the masses (nothing wrong with that), but in doing so, they have to sacrifice some accuracy. The line drawn in the sand by each translation is how much accuracy should we sacrifice for readability, and this goes to the heart of methodology in translation. My own translation (I’m on my 21st NT book) is done for understandability. It wouldn’t always make sense to another reader, but that is not its purpose. When I preach or teach, I want to help my memory in having a translation that is an accurate reflection of the nuances of the text. A translation that you buy cannot do this and make sales. So a translation that you buy is their best attempt at representing the text while maintaining their stated goal of readability. Just some food for thought.

  13. Brent, thank you for your input. I tend to agree with you overall. Maybe translating Greek into Swedish would require a different word than would translating Greek into English. Those kinds of things are fine and I totally understand that.

    My questions are more along the line of just obvious differences that I have a hard time seeing as a translation issue. For example, why does the KJV say God created the “heaven” and the earth, while all other version say “heavens”? It’s not as if their is a language barrier between the NIV and the KJV. Is the KJV trying to tell us something by only saying the singular? Do they have a different view of creation and cosmology?

    I can understand different word choices when translating from one language to another, that’s not a big deal to me. But I really don’t understand outright grammatical mistakes. Some of the grammar and spelling errors in the KJV are just very odd. For example, let’s take a look at I Kings 8:37-40. (Speaking of word choices, “blasting” is an interesting word here, used only in the KJV.) But why is caterpillar spelled incorrectly as “caterpiller”? That’s just odd that the KJV has spelling mistakes that other versions do not. It’s not only used in this verse, but others as well, in the OT. If “caterpillar” is a French-derived word, how did King James use it in 1611 and get it spelled incorrectly? Some of these things I just do not understand.

  14. Mark H. says:

    Why do most Baptists who use the KJV talk about “John The Baptist”? The KJV mentions John Baptist when other versions mention “the” Baptist. Luke 7:20 Is “Baptist” his last name?

    • Not his last name.

      Check out Matt 3:1; 11:11, 12; 14:2; 16:14; 17:13; Mark 6:14, 24, 25; 8:28; Luke 7:28, 33; 9:19 in the KJV—the KJV does call him “John the Baptist.”

  15. Thank you for the references, Mark. This seems to be another case of the KJV just being odd and different. But why is that? Why do ALL of the other versions for Luke 7:20 mention John The Baptist and the KJV has to once again stand out as the lone naysayer? Maybe I just don’t get it, but his seems like another case of poor proofreading or something. I’m getting to the point where I think that the KJV is just a sloppy translation that is confusing and has outright spelling and grammar errors where the other’s don’t. Even though I grew up with this version, I am really confused.

    In researching this, someone in my Sunday School class who is also wondering what is going on with the KJV is wondering why in Luke 5:37 the KJV uses “bottles”, while all other versions use “wineskins.” Wineskin is correct. “Bottles” is just odd and makes no logical sense. Bottles don’t decay over time and then burst or break, but wineskins do. It is just very, very odd that the KJV has changed from the logical wording to the new use of “bottles.” I have heard plenty of messages and debates about this in regards to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. I just don’t understand how the KJV has to all of a sudden change and use these odd and illogical words that don’t even make sense.

    • Jim, I think the reason the KJV and the other prior Textus Receptus based translations wrote it this way (John Baptist) is due the article translated as “the” not being found in the TR manuscript.

      As for the use of the word bottles in the cited passage, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (online version), bottle is defined as: a usually bottle-shaped container made of skin for storing a liquid. From what I can tell in looking at the etymology of the word, it originally referred to leather storage containers for liquids. FYI, The Great Bible and Webster’s Bible both use bottles as the translation while most of the other English Bibles at that time use the word vessels. Hope this helps.

  16. My small group of adults at church came across this a few weeks ago and it is stunning, startling, and stupendous. We have people from all backgrounds in our group (doctors, lawyers, blue-collar laborers, etc.). It would be one thing if the KJV had always said these things since 1611 – but it has not. The KJV (and some other versions, but mainly the KJV) has changed, or are perceptions of it have changed to be more precise. What I’m about to say would have qualified anyone for the nuthouse, I would have said, only 3-4 months ago. The KJV has changed. Come on, the love chapter that was referred to earlier in I Corinthians 13 really is the love chapter. It only recently changed to “charity.” Genesis 1:1 always did say “heavens” and earth, as opposed to the singular heaven. Luke 5:37 always was “wineskins” and only recently changed over to “bottles”. And don’t even get me started on the weird grammatical and spelling errors and anomalies in the KJV that are all of a sudden there. i.e. – Noe in the New Testamant instead of Noah. I have discussed with with others in my class who are well educated and work in physics and computer science, etc. Something very, very, very odd and demonic is happening. Because of large particle colliders such as CERN and quantum computing, our perceptions are literally changing and we are seeing changes in the Bible, as well as other areas of life. Think of diapers: Do you get back into life with Depends or Depend? For years it was Depends (with an S), but it suddenly changed to Depend. Quantum computing is a way to expand the powers of computing more so than before. It is demonically-inspired technology that has caused these changes. I believe it is part of last days deception. Do I understand it? No. But that doesn’t mean it’s not happening. So does mankind have the power to go back in time and change the way things were written? No – only God has that power. But whatever is happening through quantum computer and things like CERN is causing our perceptions to change. Did the Bible really and literally change? No. But does it appear like it has changed? Yes!! To deny this is to bury our heads in the sand and appear ignorant. This really needs to be address by the church. I only discovered it in the last 2-3 months. Some in my small group discovered a few months before this, but it’s real and it is not an internet hoax of “fake news.”