$$Darby Corrections
                      The Darby Bible   
       A literal translation of the Old Testament (1890)  
                 and the New Testament  (1884)            
                                                         
                By John Nelson Darby  (1800-82)           
                                                         
       Printed copy available from, Bible Truth Publishers,
            P.O. Box, 649, Addison, Illinois, 60101.      
                 Public Domain - Copy Freely 


                    Last modified 6-25-92.


The latest, most correct, text can be found on, 'The Bible
Foundation web site, www.bf.org.  Or by contacting: Mark Fuller,
1129 E. Loyola Dr., Tempe, Az, 85282.

This text was scanned using an HP Scanjet with OmniPage Professional
OCR software.  The OT was proofread using a Soundblaster card.  The
NT was compared to a second copy provided by Present Truth Publishers.
Special thanks to Jerry Kingery of the Bible Foundation, Portland Or.
for scanning the Darby Bible, and Earl Melton of Levelland Texas for
cleaning and proofreading some of the text.

A printed copy can be obtained from Bible Faith Publishers at
708-543-1441.  The least expensive version is the Minion-Kivar,
4"x6-1/2", #5263-50-#31, $6.95.  For scanning, the Extra-large
type 6"x9-3/4" #2492-13-#33, $39.00.

------------------------ correction list -------------------------------
This following changes were made, or not made as indicated, to the text.

GE 11:14 Eber > Eber.
NU 14:30 nowise > no wise
NU 11:5 nothing; (could be a colon.  Not changed.)
2SA 15:17 footnote marker 'c' shows as 'd' at bottom of page.
          changed note to 'c'.
2KI 10:35 Samaria: (could be a semi-colon.  Not changed.)
JOB 33:23 duty; (could be a colon.  Not changed.)
PS 18:30 Note marker "b" is not present in text.  Based on reference
         of note to previous passage, marker placed at 18:30 'tried'.
JER 43:10 unable to tell if the word is 'upon' or 'up on'.  AV has
          'upon' and this was used.
EZE 27:24 Note marker 'e' appears as 'c' in text.  Changed to 'e'.
EZE 27:27 Notes for markers "f" and "g" were combined at the bottom of
          the page.  Created seperate notes for each.
2CO 12:13 injury > injury. (proportional spacing indicates a missing period)
          added a period.
COL 3:11 long-suffering > longsuffering (as other occurences)
HEB 12:27 'Yet' is capitalized unusually.  Not changed.

< the following had a note marker at the book title.  The note marker
  was placed just following 1:1 in the electronic copy.>
JOS 1:1, EZR 1:1, ISA 1:1, JER 1:1, EZE 1:1, DA 1:1, HO 1:1, JOE 1:1
AM 1:1, OB 1:1, JON 1:1, MIC 1:1, NA 1:1, HAB 1:1, ZEP 1:1, HAG 1:1
ZEC 1:1, MAL 1:1

< the following had the verse numbers on the wrong line.>
GE 36:30, EX 36:28, LE 26:20, DE 31:3, 1SA 18:27, 2CH 31:16,
EZR 10:35-37, ES 8:1, JER 29:32, JER 33:25, MR 3:20, MR 5:27
MR 13:20, AC 27:29,
RE 13:1 { part of this verse was contained in RE 12:18, which is not a verse.}
RE 21:11

< word standardization >
armour-bearer - not hyphenated in 5 locations, 1SA 31:4-5, 1CH 10:4.
bedchamber    - hyphenated in 2 locations, 2KI 11:2, 2CH 22:11.
byword        - hyphentated in 1 location, JOE 2:17.
door-post     - not hyphenated in 1 location, 1SA 1:9.
highway(s)    - hyphentated in 1 location, DE. 2:27.
landmark(s)   - hyphenated in 1 location, HO 5:10.
manslayer     - hyphenated in 1 location, DE 4:42.
midday        - hyphenated in 2 locations, ISA 58:10, 59:10.
noonday       - hyphenated in 1 location, ZEP. 2:4.
oliveyard(s)  - hyphenated in 1 location, 1SA. 8:14.
sea-gull(s)   - not hyphenated in 1 location, DE. 14:15.
stiff-necked  - not hyphenated in 2 locations, DE. 9:6, 9:13.
vinedresser(s) - hyphenated in 1 location, ISA. 61:5.
watchtower    - hyphenated in 1 location, ISA. 32:14.
water-brook(s) - not hyphenated in 1 location, DE. 8:7
winepress(es) - hyphenated in 2 locations, EX. 22:29, NE. 13.15.
$$Darby Notes 1
                                  THE
                           'HOLY SCRIPTURES'

                           A NEW TRANSLATION
                                FROM THE
                           ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
                                   BY
                              J. N. DARBY




                          KINGSTON BIBLE TRUST
                        Rear of WEMBLEY AVENUE,
                       LANCING, SUSSEX, BN15 9LX,
                                ENGLAND.


                         BIBLE TRUTH PUBLISHERS
                               PO Box 649
                           Addison, IL. 60101
                                  USA.



PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY OFFSET LITHOGRAPHY BY
BILLING AND SONS LTD., GUILDFORD AND LONDON


                         INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO
                            THE 1961 EDITION

The text of this edition of the Holy Scriptures is a reprint
of the first edition of the complete 'New Translation'
Bible published by Morrish in 1890, and subsequently (with
condensed footnotes) by Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot in
1939, save for the fact that a very few needed adjustments,
particularly in the use of capital letters, have been made.
No change has been made in the wording of the text.

The footnotes to this edition have been critically examined
to make sure that the sense of the fuller notes in the 1890
edition has been accurately and adequately conveyed despite
the rewording of many of them in the 1939 edition following
the decision then to omit the references to original Hebrew
and Greek manuscripts.

The opportunity has been taken to bring into this edition
certain further notes from Mr. Darby's French Bible and
from the editions of his German Bible published during his
lifetime. A few notes have also been added derived from Mr.
Darby's collected writings. Many of the notes added in the
1939 edition were in the form of cross-references, and, in
the main, these have been retained as of value. Other notes
added at that time have been scrutinized and confirmation
from Mr. Darby's writings sought. Any notes which were
judged to be of sufficient value to retain, but which could not
be positively identified as being Mr. Darby's (apart from
those which are capable of easy verification by reference to
a concordance) have been marked by an asterisk.

The transliteration of Hebrew and Greek letters in the
notes has been retained as being more convenient to the
English reader. Such words are printed in italics. The use of
italics _in the text_ indicates emphasis.

LXX in the footnotes refers to the Septuagint, the Greek
version of the Old Testament.

_Keri_ signifies the marginal note of the Massorites, indicat-
ing their idea of how the text should be _read_. _Chetiv_ is the
Hebrew text as it is _written_. Cf. stands for 'compare'; Lit. for
'Literally'.

Square brackets in the text indicate (a) words added to


iv                      INTRODUCTORY NOTICE 1961

complete the sense in English similar to those shown in
italics in the Authorised Version; or (b), words as to which
there are variations in the original manuscripts.

In order to give the reader of this edition as reliable an
account as possible of the origin of the texts of both the Old
and New Testaments, part of the Introductory Notice to the
1890 edition of the Old Testament, and Mr. Darby's own
Revised Preface to the Second Edition (1871) of the New
Testament are reprinted on the following pages.


                       EXTRACT FROM INTRODUCTORY
                     NOTICE TO THE 1890 EDITION OF
                           THE OLD TESTAMENT

This translation of the Old Testament has been derived
from a study of the common Hebrew text, and represents
at the same time a collation of the late J. N. Darby's German
and French Versions, he having himself revised the first few
books within a short time of his decease.

The completion by Mr. Darby of the French translation,
which gives his matured views of the meaning of the Hebrew,
was felt by many to be a legacy to the Church of Christ
through the labours of His servant that could not be allowed
to remain only in the language in which it was written. Those
who use this English translation may accordingly expect to
find incorporated with it whatever is of special value in the
above-mentioned Versions, particularly the French, where
the common English Bible is defective.

Much of Mr. Darby's Preface to his German version applies
equally to the present Work, as where it is said: 'In the issue
of this translation, the purpose is not to offer to the man of
letters a learned work, but rather to provide the simple and
unlearned reader with as exact a translation as possible. To
this end however all available helps have been used, different
versions and commentaries having been laid under contribu-
tion. All who have laboured in this field know that in many
passages even the most learned men are embarrassed; since
a language so ancient, quite different in construction and in
form of thought from any modern one, must of course present
difficulties in translation. But in these cases, as indeed
altogether, we can conscientiously say we have worked care-
fully and prayerfully. In such passages, especially where able
Hebraists have erred, and respecting which differences of
opinion always continue to assert themselves, we do not
pretend to have rendered the original text without fault; but
we hope we can present the whole to the simple reader in a
form both exact and intelligible. That is our object. Our
work is not a revision of the Bible in common use' -- although
the reader of the English translation will constantly meet with


vi                   FROM 1890 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE

familiar words and phrases -- 'because, as we think, the object
sought would not so be attained.' The reader may also be
referred to Mr. Darby's remarks upon this subject in the
Preface to the second edition of his English New Testament.
(This is printed hereafter in this edition -- Ed.).
The style of our own excellent so-called Authorised Version,
happily familiar, is here preserved, as far as seems consistent
with the exactness sought to be attained; the purpose being
ever kept in view of putting the English reader in possession
of labours of Mr. Darby which were undertaken in the
interest of Christians abroad. The older forms of words are
kept for the higher style, suited to the immediate utterances
of God and strictly poetical parts.

Our English idiom has been studied, but the difficulty of
presenting all in suitable English dress has often been felt,
though our resource has been the vocabulary of the Authorised
Version, which, from its remarkable richness, almost exhausts
the phraseology of the language applicable to sacred subjects.
When the common Bible afforded no help in this respect,
aid has occasionally been sought from other English Bibles
of repute, both ancient and modern. But a certain roughness,
derived from close adherence to either the German or the
French, will doubtless sometimes be apparent.

Poetical parts are distinguished from the rest by a metrical
arrangement to which those are accustomed who use Para-
graph Bibles. In some of the books however which have
almost wholly this character, especially the Prophets, where the
poetical form is often complicated, it has been thought wise to
abandon the metrical arrangement, in order to render the para-
graphs more easily discoverable and in this way facilitate the
study of the text. So too in Proverbs, for the introductory
chapters; whilst the rest of the book, like Job and the Psalms,
is arranged in verses, as in ordinary Bibles. In these cases,
the paragraphs are indicated by a star  at the beginning.

Another star * marks the grouping of the chapters which
form a whole, more or less complete in itself. Attention is
called to these especially in the Book of Psalms.

In the Song of Songs, the paragraphs are arranged, as far
as possible, to indicate the successive speakers. In this Book,
the stars *, rather than the chapters, mark the main divisions
of the subject.

The notes are taken partly from the German, often from


vii                  FROM 1890 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE

the French, while several are added from unpublished
comments of Mr. Darby, which he supplied for the purpose,
and others are occasionally introduced with the view of
securing either greater uniformity or greater clearness.
The names of God have been preserved as far as possible
according to the original, either in the text or by help of the
notes, and are distinguished as follows: --

_Elohim_ is 'God.'
_Eloah_  is '+God.'
_El_     is 'God.'

In the Authorised Version of the English Bible 'GOD' is used
as well as 'LORD' for _Jehovah_, and the form 'LORD' represents
both _Jehovah_ and _Jah_. This inconvenience is obviated by
the use of the Hebrew words anglicised, that is 'Jehovah,' and
'Jah,' where they respectively occur, and by rendering _Adonai_
regularly 'Lord.' In the later Psalms the form _Hallelujah_,
'Praise ye Jah,' has been maintained wherever the sense allowed
it. It is a sort of heading to many Psalms. An exception may
be noted in Psalm 147.1. For '_Jehovah Elohim,_' see the note
at Genesis 1.1. It will be noticed how characteristic is _Adonai
Jehovah_, 'the Lord Jehovah,' of the Books of Ezekiel and
Amos. [The English reader may compare the forms, 'the Lord
GOD' and 'the LORD thy God,' in Isaiah 7.7,11.]

In the Prophets, brackets have been preserved at 'am' in the
expression 'I [am] Jehovah,' &c., so often occurring, especially
in Ezekiel, as they will help the reader the more readily to
distinguish the character and use of the various names of God,
as compared with 'I AM,' Exod. 3.14. In 'I,' Heb. _ani_ (the
pronoun without the verb), may be expressed the conscious will
of existence which in a divine Being is associated with the
existence in itself. Compare also 'I [am] HE,' Isa. 41.4, &c.

Considerable difficulty has been experienced as to brackets,
in which even the Authorised Version with its corresponding
italics is often inconsistent. Such words as 'it' have not been
bracketed when merely abstract, or when felt to be logically
necessary; and so when a pronoun replaces a noun governed
in Hebrew by two verbs: this cannot be considered a word
added to the text. An exception has been made in the case
of there being a legitimate doubt as to the propriety of the
word supplied, in order to allow the reader the opportunity
of replacing it by one he might consider more appropriate.


                       EXTRACTS FROM INTRODUCTORY
                     NOTICE TO THE 1884 EDITION OF
                           THE NEW TESTAMENT

The edition of the New Testament now put into the reader's
hand is printed from a corrected copy of the second edition
(1871), entirely completed by the translator before his death,
and revised while going through the press, as carefully as
circumstances would permit, from his own notes.

The text varies but little from that of the last edition; a few
needed corrections have been made, and certain modifications
and various readings, indicated formerly in the notes, have
been occasionally introduced into the text, and a few fresh
notes added.

The chief feature of novelty in the present edition is the
indication in the notes of many of the sources from which the
text and the various readings, as found in modern critical
editions, are drawn -- as has been already explained in the
preface to the second edition, to which the reader is referred
for the translator's opinion of the comparative value of the
Uncial MSS.

A few additional explanatory remarks are here offered in
order to warn the reader against being unduly influenced by
what is called _diplomatic_ evidence, whether the concurrent
testimony of the mass of the authorities, or the preponderat-
ing importance of a few very ancient witnesses. The modern
editors of the text often furnish proof that conscientious
adherence to their systems of comparative criticism may lead
to singular mistakes. The latest editions are by no means the
most trustworthy; and the reader should be at least cautious
against too readily accepting their decisions. Cf. _Revised Ver-
sion of the first three Gospels considered_, by Cook, and in
particular Burgon's _Revision Revised_.

Though of course in many respects an older MS is entitled
to greater weight, yet too many sources of corruption and
error had already crept in to render admissible the principles
laid down by Lachmann and Tregelles, and practically
acquiesced in by Tischendorf, without at least a very serious
and patient examination being accorded to the many later
witnesses, which have often of recent years been too lightly


ix                   FROM 1884 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE

set aside. A few examples, taken from many given by Burgon
and others, will serve for illustration. Scrivener says in his
_Introduction_ (3rd ed. p.511): 'It is no less true to fact than
paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the
New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a
hundred years after it was composed; that Ireneus and the
African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the
Syrian Church, had far inferior manuscripts to those employed
by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later,
when moulding the Textus Receptus.'

Admitting the general soundness of this conclusion, we are
no longer surprised to find that {aleph} and B, as well as C L U {gamma},
all interpolate in Matthew xxvii. 49 some words which are in
part borrowed, though changed, from John xix. 34, but which
have been shewn by Burgon in his _Last Twelve Verses_ to be
really derived from the heretical Tatian's Diatessaron or Har-
mony of the Gospels, composed in the second century. What
is surprising is to find that Westcott & Hort have introduced
it in brackets into their text and the Revisers into their
margin. Tischendorf and Tregelles have rejected it. Never-
theless it was in the copies used by Chrysostom and Cyril of
Alexandria.

In Luke ii. 14, however, all these editors follow the corrupt
testimony of {aleph} B D, besides quoting A for it, though in
another part of A, in the hymn at the end of the Psalms, the
correct reading is given; and {aleph} and B have both been corrected
by later hands. This reading, which originated probably in a
mere clerical error, is found in some old versions also: 'in the
men of good pleasure.' The Fathers all reject this, as Burgon
has proved; and every spiritual mind instructed in Scripture
must resent such an expression, which, as being very anoma-
lous Greek, has given rise to explanations that condemn them-
selves. Yet the Revisers have introduced it into their text,
forcing the translation in an unjustifiable way, and have placed
the better text in the margin.

Tischendorf in his 8th edition, influenced no doubt by his
favourite {aleph}, supported also by B, 124, and some versions, has
in Matthew xi. 19 substituted 'works' for 'children', against
all other authority and the evident teaching of scripture. The
same corrupted reading has been adopted by Tregelles and
the Revisers.

All these follow {aleph} B C D and others in admitting 'holy' into


x                    FROM 1884 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE

the text before 'spirit' in Luke x. 21, an interpolation which
may be ascribed to over-zealous piety, or, as it has been sug-
gested, to the misplaced desire to distinguish the word from
'spirits' used in another sense in the previous verse.

The extraordinary text given in Matthew xxi. 31 by Lach.,
Treg. and W. & H. on the authority, and that only partially,
of B, with which they make the priests and elders answer 'The
last', instead of 'The first', has been commented on by
Scrivener and Burgon. Tregelles attempts an explanation in
his _Account of the Printed Text_, p.107.

In Luke vi. 1 the Revisers leave out the important word
'second-first', misled perhaps by Treg. and W. & H. on the
precarious authority of {aleph} B L 1 33 69 and some versions. The
word was evidently omitted by scribes who did not under-
stand it. Tischendorf rightly inserts it. For another instance
of this kind of modification of the text, see 1 John ii. 13 and
the note, and Rev. xxii. 14.

The omission in 1 Cor. ix. 20 of 'not being myself under
law' in K and a few cursive MSS and versions, probably
arose from the same cause. But here the Editors and the
Revisers insert the words, following the great mass of MS
authority.

In John i. 18, {aleph} B C L, almost unsupported except by a few
versions, and, as to be expected, by many ecclesiastical
writers, have the astonishing reading of 'God' for 'Son' after
'only begotten'. It is scarcely conceivable that Treg. and
W. & H. should have followed so manifest a corruption, and
the Revisers have given it a place in their margin. Tisch.
rejects it. But he has not been equally firm in John ix. 35;
for he has introduced into his 8th edition 'Son of man,'
instead of 'Son of God,' on the testimony of {aleph} B D. So have
W. & H. and the Revisers in their margin.

The addition of 'yet' in John vii. 8, found in B and many
others, is evidently an intentional change of _ouk_ into _oupw_,
from the desire to explain a text not understood.

Treg. and W. & H. agree with Tisch. in putting the impera-
tive in I Cor. xv. 49; though the latter had it right in his 7th
edition, he now reads 'let us bear'. See the note at this passage.
The Revisers have it right in text, but have given the false
reading a place in their margin.

But the list might be almost indefinitely prolonged; so
numerous and often extraordinary are the corruptions found


xi                   FROM 1884 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE

in these venerable documents: witness the substitution of
'found' or 'discovered' (cf. 1 Sam. xx. 15 (16) in the LXX,
_Cod. Vatic_.), for 'burned up' in 2 Pet. iii. 10, by {aleph} B K P,
acquiesced in by Treg. and by W. & H.

The omissions in these old MSS are constant, often doubt-
less mere errors of the scribe, whose eye unconsciously passed
from one line to the second or third below it, especially if he
was betrayed by similarity of ending or beginning in two or
more consecutive lines, a constant source of error called
_homoeoteleuton_. It was no easy matter to avoid it in copying
MSS that have no division of words: it requires considerable
practice even to read them, and the eye gets no rest in its
fatiguing task.

The two oldest MSS, {aleph} and B, omit the end of Mark xvi.,
against all other authority whatsoever, as Burgon has shewn
with great pains; but in B, the fact that the scribe has here
left a column blank -- the only one in the whole New Testa-
ment -- is strong presumptive evidence that if he did not find
the passage in the MS he was copying from, he was aware of
an omission. Such defects as these tend to throw discredit on
these ancient MSS, as witnesses to the primitive integrity of
the text. On the other hand, they are free from the bold inter-
polations of D (Codex Beza), and are constantly additional
and valuable evidence against these. But none of the oldest
MSS, not even several together, can be of themselves con-
clusive testimony as to the absolute correctness of a reading,
although many facts tend to shew that, as a general rule, the
so-called Alexandrian readings come nearest to the primitive
text. They need to be controlled however by other evidence,
as that of the Cursive MSS, versions, and, in many cases, by
patristic citations. Every passage has to be examined apart on
its own merits, in presence of the whole array of witnesses,
and in dependence upon God's gracious guidance, special
regard being paid to the context and the general teaching of
scripture, which ecclesiastical corruption impaired.


                       REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND
                      EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
                               (1871) /1

The original edition, in which each of the several books
was published by itself (or two epistles together if there
were two to the same assembly), and the reprints of several,
which seem to have attracted more attention than others,
being exhausted, I publish a new edition of this translation
of the New Testament, as a whole, in a more convenient form.

It has been in no way my object to produce a learned work;
but, as I had access to books, and various sources of informa-
tion, to which of course the great mass of readers, to whom
the word of God was equally precious, had not, I desired to
furnish them as far as I was able with the fruit of my own
study, and of all I could gather from those sources, that they
might have the word of God in English, in as perfect a
representation of it in that language as possible.

In the first edition I had made use of a German work
professing to give the Textus Receptus, with a collection of
the various readings adopted by all or any of the editors of
most repute, Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf,
and some others. But the Textus Receptus was itself often
changed in the text of the work, and I found that several of
these changes had escaped my notice. My plan was, where
the chief editors agreed, to adopt their reading, not to attempt
to make a text of my own. My object was a more correct
_translation_: only there was no use in translating what all
intelligent critics held to be a mistake in the copy. For, as is
known, the Textus Receptus had no real authority, nor was
indeed the English Version taken from it, -- it was an earlier
work by some years. With some variations, which critics have
more or less carefully counted, the Textus Receptus was a
reprint of earlier editions. Of these Stephanus 1550 is the
one of most note: there were besides this Erasmus and Beza.
Erasmus was the first published; the Complutensian Polyglott
the first printed: then Stephanus; and then Beza. The
Elzevirs were not till the next century; and the expression in

/1 The letters and signs used in this Preface are the recognised symbols by which
the various manuscripts are identified.


xiii               REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

their preface of _textus ab omnibus receptus_ led to the expression
of 'textus receptus', or received text. The Authorised Version
was mainly taken from Stephanus, or Beza. The reader who
is curious as to these things may see a full account in Scrivener's
_Introduction_ or other similar Introductions. After this came,
beginning with Fell at Oxford, various critical editions:
Mill, Bengel, Wetstein (who greatly enlarged the field of
criticism), then Griesbach, Matthei (the last giving the
Russian Codices, which are Constantinopolitan so called),
Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, and quite recently Tregelles.
I name only those of critical celebrity. We possess besides,
in connection with commentaries, Meyer, De Wette, and
Alford.

In my first edition my translation was formed on the con-
current voice of Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischen-
dorf: the first of soberer judgment and critical acumen and
discernment; the next with a narrower system of taking only
the very earliest MSS., so that sometimes he might have only
one or two; the third excessively carelessly printed, but
taking the mass of Constantinopolitan MSS. as a rule; the
last of first-rate competency and diligence of research, at
first somewhat rash in changing, but in subsequent editions
returning more soberly to what he had despised. Still, if they
agreed, one might be pretty sure that what they all rejected
was a mere mistake in copying. Scholz, in a lecture in Eng-
land, gave up his system, and stated that in another edition
he should adopt the Alexandrian readings he had rejected.
That is the general tendency since: Tregelles laying it down
strictly as a fixed rule.

Meanwhile, since my first edition, founded on the con-
current judgment of the four great modern editors, following
the received text unchanged where the true reading was a
disputed point among them, the Sinaitic MS. has been
discovered; the Vatican published; Porphyry's of Acts and
Paul's Epistles and most of the Catholic Epistles and the
Apocalypse, and others, in the _Monumenta Sacra Inedita_ of
Tischendorf, as well as his seventh edition. These, with
Alford and Meyer's (not yet consulted for the text), and
De Wette, furnished a mass of new materials. Tregelles' too
was published as a whole since my present edition was
finished, though not printed.

All this called for further labour. I had to leave Scholz


xiv                REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

pretty much aside; (his work cannot be called a careful one,
and he had left himself aside;) and take in Tischendorf's
7th ed., Alford, Meyer, De Wette. I have further, in every
questioned reading, compared the Sinaitic, Vatican, Dublin,
Alexandrian, Codex Beza, Codex Ephraemi, St. Gall,
Claromontanus, Hearne's Laud in the Acts, Porphyry in
great part, the Vulgate, the old Latin in Sabatier and
Bianchini. The Syriac I had from others; it was only as to
words and passages left out or inserted I used the book
itself; not being a Syriac scholar, I could not use it for myself.
The Zacynthius of Luke I have consulted; with occasional
reference to the fathers; Stephanus, Beza, Erasmus. The
labour involved in such a work those only know who have
gone through it by personal reference to the copies them-
selves.

In the translation itself there is little changed. A few
passages made clearer; small inaccuracies corrected, which
had crept in by human infirmity; occasional uniformity in
words and phrases produced where the Greek was just the
same. In the translation I could feel delight -- it gave me the
word and mind of God more accurately: in the critical details
there is much labour and little food. I can only trust that the
Christian may find the fruit of it in increased accuracy.

As the editors I have named had not the Sinaitic nor
Porphyrian MSS., I have occasionally had to judge for
myself where these authorities affected the question much,
or have occasionally put the matter as questionable in a note,
where I could not decide for myself.

I will now say a few words as to these authorities. As to
the general certainty of the text, all these researches have
only proved it. The meddling of ecclesiastics has been one
chief source of questionable readings; partly wilful, partly
innocently: the attempt to assimilate the Gospels, which
was wilful; and then, more innocently, arising from the
passages read in ecclesiastical services, such changes as 'Jesus'
put for 'He' where it was needed, as in these services 'He' at
the beginning referred to nothing; and 'Jesus' was then
introduced by copyists into the text. The attempt to make the
Lord's prayer in Luke like that in Matthew is another
instance; so, if we are to believe Alford and most other
editors, the leaving out 'first-born' in the Sinaitic and Vatican
and some others, (which I note because it affects the oldest


xv                 REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

MSS.,) because it looked as if the mother of our Lord had
other children; and such like instances. But these do not
make any very great difficulty. Other MSS. and versions
(which are earlier than all MSS.), with a little care, make the
real state of the case plain; but no MSS. are early enough to
escape these handlings. So that the system which takes
merely the oldest MSS. as authorities in themselves, without
adequate comparison and weighing internal evidence, neces-
sarily fails in result. Conjectures are not to be trusted, but
weighing the evidence as to facts is not conjecture.

The three greatest questions are 1 Timothy iii. 16, the
beginning of John viii, and the last verses of Mark xvi.
In the first I pronounce no judgment, as full dissertations
have been written on it by many critics. As to John viii, I do
not doubt its genuineness. Augustine tells us it was left out
in some untrustworthy MSS. because it was thought injurious
to morality: and not only so, but in my examination of the
text I found that in one of the best MSS. of the old Latin,
two pages had been torn out because it was there, carrying
away part of the text preceding and following. As to the end
of Mark and its apparently independent form, I would
remark that we have two distinct closes to the Lord's life in
the Gospels: his appearance to his disciples in Galilee,
related in Matthew without any account of his ascension,
which indeed answers to the whole character of that Gospel;
and at Bethany, where his ascension took place, which is the
part related in Luke, answering to the character of his Gospel:
one, with the remnant of the Jews owned, and sending the
message out on earth to Gentiles, the other from heaven to
all the world, beginning with Jerusalem itself; one Messianic,
so to speak, the other heavenly. Now Mark, up to the end of
verse eight, gives the Matthew close; from verse nine a
summary of the Bethany and ascension scene, and facts
related in Luke and John. It is a distinct part, a kind of
appendix, so to speak.

I have always stated the Textus Receptus in the margin
where it is departed from, except in the Revelation, Erasmus
having translated that from one poor and imperfect MS.,
which being accompanied by a commentary had to be
separated by a transcriber; and even so Erasmus corrected
what he had from the Vulgate, or guessed what he had not.
There was not much use in quoting this.


xvi                REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

But it does not seem to me that any critics have really
accounted for the phenomena of MSS. We have now a vast
mass of them, some few very old, and a great many more
comparatively modern. But it seems to me the oldest, as
Sinaitic and Vatican, bear the marks of having been in
ecclesiastical hands. I do not mean that the result is seriously
affected by it, for their work is pretty easily detected and
corrected, and thus is not of any great consequence; but, as
it is easily detected, proved to be there. After all research, it
cannot be denied, I think, that there are two great schools of
readings. The same MS. may vary as to the school it follows
in different parts. Thus Griesbach says A was Constantino-
politan in the Gospels and Alexandrian in the Epistles, to use
conventional names. So Porphyrius (marked P), which I
found in six or eight chapters of Acts so uniformly to go with
the Textus Receptus, that I consulted it scarcely at all after-
wards, does not do so in Paul's Epistles. Still there are the
two schools. Of the one, Sinaitic, Vatican, and Dublin
({aleph} B Z) are the most perfect examples. For that in the main
they are of this school, though with individual peculiarities,
cannot, it seems to me, be questioned a moment. Of these,
Dublin, marked Z, is by far the most correct copy: I remarked
but one blunder in copying. The Vatican, as a copy, is far
superior to Sinaiticus, which is by no means a correct one,
in the Revelation quite the contrary, however valuable as
giving us the whole New Testament and being the oldest
copy perhaps we have. But we must remember that we have
none until after the empire was Christian, and that Diocletian
had destroyed all the copies he could get at. This Alexandrian
text, so called, is the oldest we have in existing Greek MSS.
The Alexandrian MS. (marked A) is not uniformly Alexan-
drian in text. But, if Scrivener is to be trusted, the Peschito
Syriac agrees much more with A than with B; yet it is the
oldest version that exists, nearly two hundred years older
than any MS. we have, made at the end of the first or the
beginning of the second century. This is not the case with
the old Latin. It cannot be said to be Alexandrian, but
approaches nearer to it. But then even here is a singular
phenomenon: one ancient MS. of it, Brixianus, is uniformly
the Textus Receptus. I think I only found one exception.
Where did this come from? The Vulgate is a good deal
corrected from the Alexandrian text, though not always


xvii               REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

following it. Thus we may class them: {aleph}, B, Z, L, which
last follows B very constantly; then we have A and a long
list of uncials going with it, not so ancient or much thought
of; so that in Alford you will find 'A, &c.' There is another
class of about the sixth century, to which date Z also is
attributed, C which is independent, and P which in the
epistles chiefly follows the Alexandrian but not unfrequently
tends to T. R. and A. In the Acts it is, as far as I have
examined it, T. R. {delta}, or St. Gall, is often T. R., though in
many respects an independent witness. If in the Gospels
A and B go together, we may be tolerably confident of the
reading, of course weighing other testimony. D, it is known,
is peculiar, though characteristically Alexandrian. The result
to me is that, while about the text as a whole there is nothing
uncertain at all, though in very few instances questions may
be raised, the history of it is not really ascertained. I avow
my arriving at no conclusion, and I think I can say no one
can give that history: the phenomena are unsolved.

I have said thus much on the criticism of the text, and the
MSS., that persons not versed in the matter may not hazard
themselves in forming conclusions without any real knowledge
of the questions. Such a book as Tischendorf's English
Testament I think mischievous. You have the English Version
questioned continually, and {aleph}, B, A, given at the bottom
of the page, for persons who know nothing about them to
doubt about the text, and that is all. Thus, to say no more,
the readings of A in the Epistles have a totally different
degree of importance from that of its readings in the Gospels.
And all becomes uncertain. In most of these cases the true
reading is not doubted a moment by Tischendorf himself,
yet it only makes people doubt about all. I have followed a
collation of the best authorities, but where, though for
trifling differences, you have {aleph}, B, L, or B, L, on one side,
and A, &c., on the other, I confess I have no entire certainty
that B, L, are right.

In the next place the reader has not a revision of the
Authorised Version, but a translation from the best Greek
text I could attain to any certain knowledge of. I do not
doubt a moment that numbers of phrases of the Authorised
Version will be found in the translation. Filled as the mind is
with it from constant use, it suggested itself naturally to the
mind. I had no wish to reject it. But a revision of the


xviii              REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

Authorised Version, if desirable for ecclesiastical use, is not
(I think) in itself a wise attempt. I rather doubt the justness
of the taste which attempts to revise the Authorised Version.
The new bit does not suit the old, and is the more distasteful
from its juxtaposition. Imitation is seldom good taste, seldom
undetected; it wants nature, and in these things nature is
good taste, and attracts.

I have freely used every help I could. I do not mention
Grammars and Dictionaries, as they are applicable to all
books, and known; but I have used Meyer, whose continu-
ators are very inferior, and from whom a large part of Alford
is taken; but I have consulted Alford too, and De Wette.
Ellicott is excellent in what he has done; Kypke most useful
in what he affords. I have used them for the exegesis of the
text as Greek, not for any doctrine in any case. Fritzsche,
who is grammatically very full; Bleek, who very much
exhausts learning in his book on the Hebrews. Delitzsch
and others I have occasionally referred to; there is Kuinoel
on the historical books; but I did not find many of them
of very great value, Calvin of less than I should have sup-
posed. There are Bengel, Hammond, Elsley; Wolff and
other German writers; and Stanley, Jowett, Eadie, &c.
But I confess reference to the latter did not lead me to
repeat it much. What I sought was the thorough study of
the text; opinions were of little moment. Poole's Synopsis
and Bloomfield have been at hand for older commenta-
tors.

Of translations, Diodati's Italian is the best of the old
ones, then the Dutch, then the English. Bengel's German is
a very good one, and there is, though tainted by their doctrine
occasionally, a very literal one called Berleburger. Other
translations are Kistemaker, Gossner, Van Ess, which are
Roman Catholic; a corrected one of Luther by Meyer; the
Swiss one by Piscator, far better than Luther's. These,
though I referred to them in a translation made into German,
I used comparatively little now or not at all. Of the French,
Diodati's is literal, but hardly French; Martin and Ostervald,
little to be trusted; and Arnaud's, I may say, not at all.
Luther's is the most inaccurate I know. Besides this, there
are in Latin the Vulgate and Beza. De Wette's German is
elegant, but from excessive leaving out the auxiliary verbs,
which is allowed in German, affected; and in the Old


xix                REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

Testament, though a good Hebraist, not to be trusted, from
rationalistic principles. His Isaiah is Gesenius's.

I have used all helps I could, but the translation is borrowed
in no way from any; it is my own translation, but I have
used every check I could to secure exactness. I believe the
scriptures to be the inspired word of God, received by the
Holy Ghost and communicated by His power, though, thank
God, through mortal men: what is divine made withal
thoroughly human, as the blessed Lord Himself whom it
reveals, though never ceasing to be divine. And this is its
unspeakable value: thoroughly and entirely divine, 'words
which the Holy Ghost teacheth', yet perfectly and divinely
adapted to man as being by man. My endeavour has been
to present to the merely English reader the original as closely
as possible. Those who make a version for public use must
of course adapt their course to the public. Such has not
been my object or thought, but to give the student of
scripture, who cannot read the original, as close a translation
as possible.

There are some remarks I would desire to make on the
English Authorised Version, which would debar me from
attempting to correct it, which indeed would be a more
ambitious task. Its value and beauty are known, and I need
not dilate upon. I have lived upon it, though of course
studying the Greek myself; I have no wish to underrate it.
But now that everything is inquired and searched into, there
are some points to be remarked which make it desirable that
the English reader should have something more exact. --
There is one principle which the translators avow themselves,
which is a very great and serious mistake. Where a word
occurs in Greek several times in the same passage or even
sentence, they render it, as far as they possibly can, by
different words in English. In some cases the effect is very
serious; in all the connection is lost. Thus in John v we have
'judgment' committed to the Son; shall not come into
'condemnation;' the resurrection of 'damnation.' The word
is the same in Greek, and every one can see that 'not coming
into judgment' is a very different thing from 'not coming
into condemnation.' The whole force of the passage depends
on this word, and its contrast with life. Here the sense is
wholly changed. In another the connexion is lost -- Romans
XV. I2, I3: 'In him shall the Gentiles trust;' 'now the God
$$Darby Notes 2


xx                 REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

of hope.' 'Trust' is the same word as 'hope,' only a verb.
'The Gentiles hope;' 'the God of hope.' I only mention these
as examples.

In some cases, as 'elders,' 'the Lord's coming,' 'the law,'
theological views have biassed the translators. Thus in Acts i
we have 'ordained' put in where there is no word at all.
All there is in Greek is 'must one be a witness.' So in Acts
xiv. 23, 'They ordained them elders :' it is simply 'they chose
elders for them,' _cheirotoneo_. I am well aware that in ecclesias-
tical Greek, borrowed from this passage doubtless, and their
new ideas attached to it, the word came to mean this ecclesias-
tically. But it is not its own meaning. It is 'to choose,' as 2
Corinthians viii. 19; Acts x. 41. -- As to the Lord's coming,
Acts iii. 19, there is no excuse for translating _hopos an_ 'when.'
It is an attempt to give it a sense. Again, in 2 Thessalonians
ii. 2, 'as that the day of Christ is at hand:' the word translated
'is at hand' is 'present' or 'come.' It is twice used (once in
Romans viii. 38 and once in 1 Corinthians iii. 22) for 'present'
in contrast with 'to come.' It alters evidently the whole sense,
and the true meaning gives the key to the whole passage.
Their imagination being wrought on by these false teachers,
they thought that the day was come in the tribulation in
which they were suffering; whereas the Lord's coming would
be rest to them and trouble to their persecutors.

But a more serious mistake is in the words in 1 John iii. 4,
'Sin is the transgression of the law.' A definition of sin is a
serious thing, but this is not what is said. The word used is
that which adverbially is employed in Romans ii for 'sinning
without law,' and is so translated in contrast with 'sinning
under law.' If sin were the transgression of the law, it could
not be said 'until the law sin was in the world;' it could not
be said 'sin by the commandment became exceeding sinful,'
for there would have been no sin till the commandment came.
But it is not so. It is 'sin is lawlessness.' It is the wicked will
of man; if law comes, then it transgresses it; but it is sin
without it, because I ought to have no will of my own, but
be in obedience. Hence the reasoning of the apostle: 'Death
reigned from Adam to Moses over those who had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression.' This is a
quotation from Hosea vi. 7: 'They, like Adam, have trans-
gressed the covenant.' Adam had a law, Israel had one; they
transgressed alike: but death reigned over those from Adam


xxi                REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

to Moses, over those who had not: sin was there, for death
was there. I have enlarged a little more on this because the
definition of sin is a serious thing, and theology will not
hear of such an alteration. Let God be true and every man a
liar. It is so translated where doctrine was not in question,
not only in Romans ii but in 1 Timothy i. 9 -- 'lawless and
disobedient.' It is never translated 'transgression of the law'
but here, generally 'iniquity:' _anomos_ is twice translated
'transgressor;' but it is never said, in any form of the word,
to be 'transgression of the law' but here.

As regards details of translation I have a few remarks to
make. I have sought in some instances to render the particles
more distinctly; but, rich as English is, no care will make the
shades and colourings of thought in one language answer to
another. It is oftener more a question of metaphysics, or
metaphysical philology, than of grammar, and grammarians
do not always command my assent in these matters, though
I am glad to learn from them. In our own tongue few remark
these shades of meaning, though they exist, as 'indeed,'
'truly,' 'surely,' 'forsooth.' Custom and individual habit form
the mind in such cases. See the use of _eutheos_ in Mark. In
St. John's writings I have to remark that the personal
pronoun, generally emphatic where inserted, is used so
constantly that it can hardly be considered such. I had
marked each instance in the first edition, but it arrested the
eye inconveniently for the general sense. The same character
of style is seen in his constant use of _ekeinos_. Another
peculiarity is to be noticed in John, the constant use of
_hina_ for _hoti_. In Luke we have _kai_ for _hoti_.

I have further to remark on the aorist, as to which a great
fuss has been made lately, that English is not Greek. The
large use of auxiliary verbs in English, and very sparing use
of them in Greek, modifies the whole bearing of tenses in the
two languages. The past participle with a present auxiliary
is not a simple Greek perfect, not actual continuance in
effect of a past action; a past action morally estimated as
present, or in force at present, is just as often its force. The
real practical question in English is: is it an historical state-
ment or a fact viewed as such morally, i.e. without reference
to time? 'Christ died for us:' That is historical. 'Christ has
died for us:' that is a moral fact always true. The question
which to use is often a very nice one, and we have to notice


xxii               REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

the difference of our point of view and that of the time of the
passage. The only simple tenses in English are both aorist;
one signifying accomplishing an act, the other an accomplished
act. /1 And as the latter becomes historic, the use of it in many
cases for the Greek aorist falsifies the sense. Thus -- a case in
which no one, I believe, denies it -- _egrapsa_. If I say 'I wrote',
it is in another letter (unless specified otherwise); 'I have
written to you' is a past act made present by 'have,' and it is
(unless specified to be in a letter gone but not received) the
letter he is occupied with. And the mere doctrine of the aorist
in Greek in no way meets the case. 'I wrote to you not to do
it' is a past letter supposed to be received. 'I have written to
you:' he has done it, but it is supposed to be not yet received.
'I have written to you in the letter' is the present one. Now
what is true of _egrapsa_ is true of many others. When I want to
give the present, not an accomplishing aorist, I say, not 'I
write,' but 'am writing;' because 'writing' is the act, 'am,'
absolutely present; but on the other hand I say, 'I write five
letters every day in the year.' 'I wrote a long letter to him'
is an historical fact; 'I have written a long letter to him' is a
moral assertion to which I attach present value. 'Have,' with
the past participle, is used however for the perfect. But to
aorize in English all the Greek aorists is, I judge, simply a
blunder. When the aorist is historic, the simple preterite
tense may well answer to it in English. I cannot say I have
always succeeded in rightly distinguishing the cases: there
are cases as to which I have myself doubted.

I have occasionally left old forms where they are more
reverential, as 'saith' for 'says,' 'unto' for 'to,' &c. I have
left 'ye' for the nominative of 'you.' It is the Dutch _gij_ and _u_,
which last in familiar spoken Dutch is used for _gij_, and is
now become usual in English. Both languages have the Platt-
Deutsch for their origin. To these things I attach no great
importance; to reverence I do.

And this leads me to the use of the words 'do homage'
instead of 'worship,' which I do only for the sake of other
people's minds not used to such questions. I have not a
doubt of the justness of the change, and just because in
_modern_ English 'worship' is used for what is rendered to
God only: when the English translation was made it was not,

/1 For this reason there are only two tenses in English at all; the future, so
called, is the present intention; for an accomplishing or accomplished act is not
future.


xxiii              REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

and the use of it now falsifies the sense in three-quarters of
the passages it is used in. It is quite certain that in the vast
majority of instances of persons coming to the Lord they
had not the least idea of owning Him as God. And it falsifies
the sense in a material point to use the word now. That we
worship Christ who do know He is God is another matter.
In the English Bible it is, or at least was, all right, because
worship did not mean what it does now. The man when he
is married says, 'With my body I thee worship.' It is said in
1 Chronicles xxix. 20, They 'worshipped Jehovah and the
king,' which is simple blasphemy, if it be used in the modern
sense. If the reader is curious, he may look at Wetstein,
Matthew ii. 2; Minucius Felix, end of chapter ii; and compare
Job xxxi. 27; and Herodotus i. 134 for the customs of Persia.
It would not have been worth mentioning but for simple
souls.

The use of a large or small 's' is of extreme difficulty in
the case of the word Spirit; not in giving it when the Holy
Spirit is simply spoken of personally. There it is simple
enough. But as dwelling in us, our state by it, and the Holy
Spirit itself, are so blended as to make it then very difficult;
because it is spoken of as our state, and then as the Holy
Ghost. If it be put large, we lose the first; if small, the Spirit
personally. I can only leave it with this warning, calling the
attention of the reader to it. It is a blessed thought that it is
so blended in power that our state is so spoken of; but if
we lose the divine Person, that blessing itself is lost. The
reader may see, not the difficulty, for it does not exist there,
but the blending of the effect and the person in Romans viii.
27.

All the instances in which the article is wanting before
_Kurios_ are not marked by brackets; but I give here all the
passages in which _Kurios_, which the LXX employ for
Jehovah, thence transferred to the New Testament, is used
as a proper name; that is, has the sense of 'Jehovah.' It is
also used in the New Testament for a title of Christ, who
as man has the place of Lordship over all things. 'God,' says
Peter, 'hath made him, whom ye have crucified, both Lord
and Christ.' I have put a mark of interrogation after those
that are doubtful.

Matt. i. 20, 22, 24; ii. 13, 15, 19; iii. 3; iv. 7, 10; v. 33;
xxi. 3 (?), 9, 42; xxii. 37, 44; xxiii. 39; xxvii. 1O; xxviii. 2.


xxiv               REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

Mark i. 3; xi. 3 (?), 9; xii. 11, 29 _bis_, 30, 36; xiii. 20; xvi.
20 (?).
Luke i. 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 25, 28, 32, 38, 45, 46, 58, 66,
68, 76; ii. 9 _bis_, 15, 22, 23 _bis_, 24, 26, 38, 39; iii. 4; iv. 8, 12,
18, 19; v. 17; x. 27; xiii. 35; xix. 31 (?), 38; xx. 37, 42.
John i. 23; xii. 13, 38 _bis_.
Acts i. 24 (?); ii. 20, 21, 25, 34, 39, 47 (?); iii. 19, 22; iv.
26, 29 (?); v. 9, 19; vii. 31, 33, 37, 49; viii. 25 (?), 26, 39 (?);
ix. 3I (?); x. 4 (?), 14 (?); xi. 8 (?); xii. 7, 11 (?), 17 (?), 23;
xv. 17 _bis_.
Rom. iv. 8; ix. 28, 29; x. 9, 12, 13, 16; xi. 3, 34; xii. 19;
xiv. 11; xv. 11.
1 Cor. i. 31; ii. 16; iii. 20; x. 26; xiv. 21.
2 Cor. iii. 17, 18 (peculiar character); vi. 17, 18; x. 17.
Heb. i. 10; vii. 21; viii. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11; x. 16, 30 _bis_; xii.
5, 6; xiii. 6.
James iv. 10; v. 4, 10, 11 _bis_.
1 Peter i. 25; iii. 12 _bis_, 15.
2 Peter ii. 9 (?), 11; iii. 8, 9, 10.
Jude 5, 9.
Rev. iv. 8; xi. 15, 17; xv. 3, 4; xvi. 7; xviii. 8; xix. 6;
xxi. 22; xxii. 5, 6.

In the Acts the word is used in an absolute and general
way, and applied to Christ. It is usually the same in the
Epistles; see 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.

It may perhaps be useful to some of my readers to give the
chronological order of the Epistles: and first those that are
certain: 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Romans,
Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon; the last
four Paul wrote when a prisoner. Galatians was written from
fourteen to twenty years after the apostle was first called,
and after he had laboured for some time in Asia Minor,
perhaps while he was at Ephesus, as it was not a very long
time after their conversion: 1 Timothy, on occasion of the
apostle's leaving Ephesus, -- when exactly is not clear.
2 Timothy was written at the close of his life when about to
be martyred. It is questioned if Paul ever got out of prison:
if he did, 2 Timothy was written when he was seized the
second time. Titus refers to a journey of Paul's to Crete; it
is not said when; perhaps, it has been thought, when he
resided so long at Ephesus. It is morally synchronous with
1 Timothy. It has not been the purpose of God to give us


xxv                REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

chronological dates for them, and in divine wisdom. The
moral order is clear. The way in which 2 Timothy refers to
the ruin of what 1 Timothy builds the order of, is plain
enough. Hebrews was written late, in view of the approaching
judgment of Jerusalem, and calls on christian Jews to separate
themselves from what God was about to judge. The Epistle
of James was written when this separation had in no way
taken place. Jewish Christians are still seen as forming part
of the Israel not yet finally cast out, only owning Jesus to be
the Lord of glory. But, as all the Catholic Epistles, it was
written toward the close of the apostolic history, when
Christianity had been widely received by the tribes of Israel,
and the Jewish history was now closing in judgment. In
1 Peter we see that the gospel had widely spread among the
Jews: it was written to the christian Jews of the dispersion.
The second of course is later, at the close when he was about
to put off his tabernacle and would leave them in writing the
warnings apostolic care would soon no longer furnish. Hence,
like Jude, it contemplates grievous departure from the path
of godliness on the part of those who had received the faith,
and a mocking of the testimony that the Lord was coming.
1 John insists on its being 'the last time.' Apostates were
already manifested, apostates from the truth of Christianity
denying the Father and the Son, as well as with Jewish
unbelief denying that Jesus was the Christ. Jude comes
morally before John. These false brethren had crept in
unawares, but the evil is pursued to the final rebellion and
judgment. It differs from 2 Peter in viewing the evil not
simply as wickedness, but departure from first estate.
Revelation completes this picture by shewing Christ judging
in the midst of the candlesticks; the first having left its first
love, and threatened, if it did not repent and return to its
original estate, to have the candlestick removed: the final
judgment being in Thyatira, and in Laodicea; and then it
shews the judgment of the world and the return of the Lord,
the kingdom and heavenly city and eternal state. This general
character of departure and failure, stamped on all the last
books from Hebrews to Revelation, is very striking: Paul's
epistles, save 2 Timothy, which gives individual direction in
the midst of ruin, though prophesying of this state of things,
express the labour and the care of the wise master-builder.
The interest of their date is in connection with his history


xxvi               REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

in the Acts; but Hebrews, and the Catholic Epistles, and
Revelation, all shew predicted departure already set in (for
even 1 Peter, which is least so, tells us the time was come for
judgment to begin at the house of God), and so the judgment
of the professing church, and then prophetically of the world
risen up against God. This closing character of the Catholic
Epistles is very striking and instructive.

The contents of the books of the New Testament must be
sought elsewhere: I can only give here some very general
thoughts upon them. It will be remarked at once that the
character of the first three Gospels is different from that of
John. The principle of this difference is this: the first three
present Christ, though in different characters, to man to be
received, and shew His rejection by man. John begins with
this as the starting-point of his Gospel, being the display of
the divine nature, and what man and the Jew was in presence
of. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him,
and the world knew Him not. He came to His own, and His
own received Him not. Hence we have sovereign grace,
election; man must be born again, wholly anew; and the
Jews are all through treated as reprobate; the divine and
incarnate Person of the Lord as the foundation of all blessing,
and a work of atonement which is the basis even of the sinless
condition of the new heavens and the new earth wherein
dwelleth righteousness, together with, at the close, the gift
of the Comforter, form the subject of the Gospel, in contrast
with Judaism. Instead of tracing the Lord to the Abrahams
and Davids, the roots of promise, or to Adam, to bring in as
Son of man blessing to man, or giving the account of His
service in ministry as the great Prophet that was to come,
it brings a divine Person, the Word made flesh, into the
world. What I have just said stamps their character on the
four Gospels. Matthew is the fulfilment of promise and
prophecy, Emmanuel among the Jews, rejected by them,
stumbling thus on the stone of stumbling, and shewn to be
really a sower; fruit-seeking was in vain; and then the Church
and the Kingdom substituted for Israel blessed by promises,
which they refused in His Person; but after judgment, when
they owned Him, to be owned under mercy. The ascension
is not found in Matthew, I believe, for this very reason:
Galilee in Matthew, not Jerusalem, is the scene of His
interview with the disciples after His resurrection. He is with


xxvii              REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

the poor of the flock, who owned the word of the Lord, where
the light had sprung up to the people sitting in darkness.
The commission to baptise goes forth hence and applies to
Gentiles. Mark gives the servant-prophet, Son of God: Luke,
the Son of man, the first two chapters affording a lovely
picture of the remnant in Israel: John, a divine Person
come into the world, the foundation (redemption being
accomplished) of the new creation; the object and pattern
of faith, revealing the Father; with the promise of the
Comforter while away. Paul and John reveal our being in a
wholly new place in Christ. But John is mainly occupied
with revealing the Father in the Son to us, and thus life by
the Son in us: Paul with presenting us to God, and His
counsels in grace. If we confine ourselves to the Epistles, the
latter only speaks of the Church, save 1 Peter ii, the building
of living stones, but Paul only speaks of the Body. The Acts
shew the founding of the Church by the Holy Ghost come
down from heaven, and then the Jerusalem or Palestinian
labours of the apostles, and other free labourers, especially
the work of Peter, and then that of Paul. With the history of
the rejection of his Gospel by the Jews of the dispersion the
history of scripture closes.


                          CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

             OF THE KINGS AND PROPHETS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL,
         subsequent to the reigns of SAUL, DAVID, and SOLOMON,
              which were of 40 years each (B.C. 1O95-975)

PROPHETS                                                               PROPHETS
OF JUDAH    KINGS OF JUDAH                      KINGS OF ISRAEL        OF ISRAEL

                       Reigned B.C.   1 Kings   B.C.    Reigned
Shemaiah    Rehoboam [17 years] 975  14.20,21   975 Jeroboam [22years] The man of
Iddo        Abijam    [3 years] 958    15.1                             God from
Azariah,    Asa      [41 years] 955    -- 9                             Judah
 son of                                                                 Ahijah
 Oded                                  -- 25    954 Nadab    [2 years]
Hanani                                 -- 33    953 Baasha  [24 years]
                                        16.8    930 Elah     [2 years]
                                       -- 10    929 Zimri     [7 days]
                                       -- 16    929 Omri    [12 years] Elijah
Jehu, son                              -- 29    918 Ahab    [22 years] Micah, son
 of Hanani  Jehoshaphat [25years] 914  22.41                            of Imlah
                                       -- 52    897 Ahaziah  [2 years] Elisha
Jahaziel,                             2 Kings
 the Levite                              3.1    896 Joram   [12 years]
Eliezer,    Jehoram   [8 years] 892     8.16
 son of     Ahaziah    [1 year] 885    -- 25
 Dodavah    Athaliah            884    10.36    884 Jehu    [28 years]
Zechariah   Jehoash  [40 years] 878     12.1
 son of                                 13.1    856 Jehoahaz[17 years] Jonah
 Jehoiada                              -- 10    841 Jehoash [16 years]
Un-named    Amaziah  [29 years] 839     14.1
 prophet                               -- 23    825 Jeroboam [41 years] Hosea
 (2 Chron.                                      784 _Interregnum_ [11 years] Amos
  25.15)                                        773 Zachariah
Zechariah   Uzziah, or [52 years] 810  -- 21                [6 months]
 (2 Chron.   Azariah                    15.8    772 Shallum  [1 month]
  26.5)                                -- 13    772 Menahem [10 Years]
                                       -- 17    761 Pekahiah [2 years]
                                       -- 23    759 Pekah   [20 years]
Isaiah                                 -- 27                            Oded
Micah       Jotham   [16 years] 758    -- 32    739     (Anarchy of 9 Years)  (2Chron.
            Ahaz     [16 years] 742     16.1    730 Hoshea   [9 years]         28.9)

Nahum       Hezekiah [29 years] 727     18.1    721 Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. Puts
                                                     an end to the kingdom of Israel by
Joel        Manasseh [55 years] 698     21.1         taking Samaria, in the ninth year of
            Amon      [2 years] 643    -- 19         Hoshea, and carries away the people
Jeremiah    Josiah   [31 years] 641     22.1         to Assyria.
                                                      ------------------------
Habakkuk    Jehoahaz [3 months] 610    23.31              THE CAPTIVITY
Zephaniah   Jehoiakim  [11 years] 610  -- 36    606 Nebuchadnezzar reigns, at first con-
Ezekiel     Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah                  jointly with Nabopolassar -- and
Daniel      [3 months, 10 days] 599     24.8         carries away the Jews to Babylon.
Obadiah                                --  1         The 'times of the Gentiles' com-
            Zedekiah [11 Years] 599    -- 18         mence. Beginning of the 70 years' cap-
                                                     tivity in Babylon.
            Jerusalem taken; de- 588   25.      604 Nebuchadnezzar reigns alone.
             struction of the temple            588 Nebuchadnezzar completely destroys
                                                     Jerusalem, city and temple.
              -----------------------
         GOVERNORS OF JERUSALEM                 538 Cyrus, King of Persia. captures Bab-
          AFTER THE CAPTIVITY                        ylon: Reign of Darius the Mede.
                                                     Dan. 5.31.
Haggai    Zerubbabel            536  Ezra 1.11
Zechariah Ezra                  468   -- 7.1    536 Cyrus reigns there, and in the first
Malachi   Nehemiah              455  Neh. 1.1        year of his reign decrees a party un-
                                                     der Zerubbabel to go and rebuild the
                                                     temple at Jerusalem. (End of cap-
                                                     tivity of 70 years.) Ezra 1.8-10.
          Birth of the MESSIAH    5

529 Cambyses (son of cyrus) (called Ahasuerus). Ezra 4.6.
522 Smerdis (called Artaxerxes). Ezra 4.7.
521 Darius Hystaspes (called Darius). Ezra 4.24; Hag. 1.1; Zech. 1.1.
485 Xerxes (son of Darius Hystaspes) (called Ahasuerus). Esther 1.1.
474 Artaxerxes I, Longimanus (son of Xerxes) (called Artaxerxes). Ezra 7; Neh 2.
468 Return of Ezra from Babylon.
455 This twentieth year of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) when the order was given through Nehemiah
      to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, is the starting-point of the 'seventy weeks' of Dan. 9. Neh. 2.1.


                       NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL
                                 DATES

                      (Translated from the French)

The dates follow generally accepted chronology, and are
based sometimes upon detailed information given by
various passages of Scripture, and sometimes upon verses
such as Ex. 12. 40, 41; Judges 11. 26; 1 Kings 6. 1; which
cover a lengthy period of time. Only two or three of these
passages require comment. For the reigns of the kings of
Judah and Israel the duration of which is clearly stated, the
reader is referred to the table on opposite page.

In order to determine the scope of the expression 'the
residence of the children of Israel' (Ex. 12. 40), it must be
borne in mind that the promise of God to Abram (Gen. 15.
13, 16) mentions 'four hundred years', and then the assurance
that the patriarch's descendants would return in the fourth
generation to the land of Canaan. It follows therefore that
the time of the sojourn or pilgrimage of the elect family
must be reckoned from the days of Abraham, and presumably
from his entrance into the land of Canaan. Compare also
Acts 7. 17.

The period of '450 years', mentioned in Acts 13. 20,
appears to be an approximate figure covering the time which
elapsed between the entry into the wilderness and the end of
the reign of Saul, verse 21 being a parenthesis intended to
fix the attention on the period the apostle had in mind,
namely, the reign of David to whom the promise of Saviour-
King had been made. We must remember that the Judges
often exercised their authority over a part of the people only.
Thus Ehud and Shamgar wrought amongst the tribes in the
south, whereas Deborah and Barak brought about deliverance
in the north. The reference to Ehud rather than Shamgar
(Judges 4. 1), would prove that the 'rest' mentioned in
Judges 5. 31 must form part of the 'rest' spoken of in ch. 3.
30, especially referring to the tribes in the south. Jephthah's
reply to the Ammonites shows that the children of Israel,
at this period, had been only three centuries in possession
of Heshbon and Aroer -- all the country lying between the
Arnon and the Jabbok having been won not from the


xxx                 NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL DATES

Ammonites but from the Amorites (Num. 21. 24-26).
Finally, it was during a part of the 'forty years' of Philistine
oppression that Samson judged Israel (Judges 13. 1; 15. 20);
this period came to an end with the victory of Samuel
(1 Sam. 7. 13).

For the chronology of the lapse of time between the Old
Testament and the New, we have to consider the '70 weeks'
of Dan. 9. 24. As one of these 'weeks' of years refers to the
future, there remain 69 'weeks', that is to say 483 years,
reckoning 'from the going forth of the word to restore and
to build' not the temple but the city of 'Jerusalem'. Per-
mission to do this was given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I
in the twentieth year of his reign; the state of desolation in
which Nehemiah found the city on his arrival is given in
considerable detail. Verse 26 of Dan. 9 shows that the
sixty-nine weeks do not end before the manifestation of the
Messiah to Israel (John 1. 31), perhaps not even before His
death. It would therefore be necessary to deduct 33 years to
arrive at the date of His birth, which would have been 450
years after permission was given to rebuild the city, or 530
years after the return of the first captives from Babylon.
These considerations enable us to arrive at the following
summary:

                                                           Years
From the creation to the flood, when Noah was 600 years
 old (Gen. 5. 3 -- 29; 7. 11)                              1,656
From the flood to the birth of Terah (Gen. 11. 10-25)        222
When his father died at the age of 205 years, Abraham was
75                                                           130
                                                           -----
Which fixes his birth, from the creation of the world      2,008
His entrance into the land of Canaan took place 75 years
 later (Gen. 12. 4)                                           75
Up to the exodus from Egypt (Gen. 15. 13, 16; Ex. 12. 40)    430
Up to the building of the temple 480 years later             480
Length of Solomon's reign, less three years already past
  (1 Kings 6. 1)                                              37
Kings of Israel and Judah, up to the Babylonish captivity    370
Length of the captivity 70 years, and up to Nehemiah 80
 years                                                       150
Sixty-nine 'weeks' less 33 years (Dan. 9. 26)                450
                                                           -----
From the creation to the birth of the Messiah              4,000
                                                           =====


xxxi                NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL DATES

For the facts related in the New Testament, we have no
chronological dates of the same kind as those in the Old
Testament. It was of the greatest importance to be able to
indicate accurately the time of the coming into the world
of the promised Messiah, not however according to human
calculation, but according to the principles of prophecy.
The same divine wisdom which fixes our attention on what
has already been fulfilled requires that our hearts should be
alert during the whole period which elapses before the last
'week' of Daniel. The Lord said 'a little while and ye do not
behold me; and again a little while and ye shall see me,
because I go away to the Father'. It is sufficient to recall as
a well-established historical fact, that the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans took place forty years after the
Saviour's death (Luke 19. 41-44; 21. 20-24; 23. 28, 29).


                              THE BOOKS OF
                       THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT

                   WITH THE NUMBER OF THEIR CHAPTERS

                     The Books of the Old Testament

                PAGE    CHAPS.                          PAGE    CHAPS.
GENESIS            1        50      Ecclesiastes         820        12
Exodus            70        40      Song of Songs        831         8
Leviticus        127        27      Isaiah               837        66
Numbers          170        36      Jeremiah             906        52
Deuteronomy      229        34      Lamentations         984         5
Joshua           281        24      Ezekiel              991        48
Judges           315        21      Daniel              1062        12
Ruth             350         4      Hosea               1084        14
1 Samuel         354        31      Joel                1094         3
2 Samuel         399        24      Amos                1098         9
1 Kings          436        22      Obadiah             1106         1
2 Kings          479        25      Jonah               1108         4
1 Chronicles     520        29      Micah               1110         7
2 Chronicles     559        36      Nahum               1116         3
Ezra             606        10      Habakkuk            1119         3
Nehemiah         620        13      Zephaniah           1122         3
Esther           640        10      Haggai              1125         2
Job              651        42      Zechariah           1127        14
Psalms           689       150      Malachi             1139         4
Proverbs         788        31

                     The Books of the New Testament

                PAGE    CHAPS.                          PAGE    CHAPS.
MATTHEW         1145        28      2 Thessalonians     1431         3
Mark            1190        16      1 Timothy           1433         6
Luke            1218        24      2 Timothy           1439         4
John            1265        21      Titus               1443         3
The Acts        1301        28      Philemon            1445         1
Epistle to  the                     Hebrews             1446        13
  Romans        1347        16      Epistle of James    1463         5
1 Corinthians   1369        16      1 Peter             1468         5
2 Corinthians   1389        13      2 Peter             1474         3
Galatians       1403         6      1 John              1478         5
Ephesians       1410         6      2 John              1484         1
Philippians     1417         4      3 John              1484         1
Colossians      1422         4      Jude                1485         1
1 Thessalonians 1427         5      Revelation          1487        22
$$Darby Marks 1
/* this is a list of the dark and light stars which appear in the
 * text.  The meaning of the stars is detailed in JND.DOC.
 * '<' = light star
 * '<>' = dark star
 *
 * IMPORTANT: 2 stars appear in mid-verse, and can be found in this
 * file be searching for the word 'IMPORTANT'.
 *
JOB:3:1.<>
JOB:3:11.<
JOB:3:20.<
JOB:4:1.<>
JOB:4:7.<
JOB:4:12.<
JOB:5:17.<
JOB:6:1.<>
JOB:6:8.<
JOB:6:14.<
JOB:6:24.<
JOB:7:11.<
JOB:7:17.<
JOB:8:1.<>
JOB:8:8.<
JOB:9:1.<>
JOB:9:22.<
JOB:9:27.<
JOB:10:14.<
JOB:10:18.<
JOB:11:1.<>
JOB:11:13.<
JOB:12:1.<>
JOB:12:6.<
JOB:13:6.<
JOB:13:14.<
JOB:13:20.<
JOB:14:13.<
JOB:15:1.<>
JOB:15:7.<
JOB:15:17.<
JOB:16:1.<>
JOB:17:6.<
JOB:17:11.<
JOB:18:1.<>
JOB:19:1.<>
JOB:20:1.<>
JOB:21:1.<>
JOB:21:27.<
JOB:22:1.<>
JOB:22:21.<
JOB:23:1.<>
JOB:24:2.<
JOB:25:1.<>
JOB:26:1.<>
JOB:27:11.<
JOB:28:12.<
JOB:30:20.<
JOB:32:1.<>
JOB:33:8.<
JOB:34:16.<
JOB:34:29.<
JOB:34:33.<
JOB:37:14.<
JOB:38:1.<>
JOB:38:12.<
JOB:38:16.<
JOB:38:19.<
JOB:38:22.<
JOB:38:31.<
JOB:38:39.<
JOB:39:5.<
JOB:39:9.<
JOB:39:13.<
JOB:39:19.<
JOB:39:26.<
JOB:40:3.<
JOB:40:6.<
JOB:40:15.<
JOB:42:1.<>
PS:1:4.<
PS:2:4.<
PS:2:7.<
PS:2:10.<
PS:3:1.<>
PS:3:4.<
PS:3:7.<
PS:4:2.<
PS:4:6.<
PS:5:3.<
PS:5:8.<
PS:6:4.<
PS:6:8.<
PS:7:3.<
PS:7:6.<
PS:7:8.<
PS:7:10.<
PS:7:17.<
PS:8:3.<
PS:9:1.<>
PS:9:3.<
PS:9:11.<
PS:9:15.<
PS:9:19.<
PS:10:2.<
PS:10:12.<
PS:10:16.<
PS:11:1.<>
PS:11:2.<
PS:11:5.<
PS:12:2.<
PS:12:6.<
PS:12:8.<
PS:13:6.<
PS:14:2.<
PS:14:4.<
PS:14:7.<
PS:15:2.<
PS:16:1.<>
PS:16:2.<
PS:16:4.<
PS:17:6.<
PS:17:15.<
PS:18:1.<>
PS:18:4.<
PS:18:7.<
PS:18:19.<
PS:18:30.<
PS:18:43.<
PS:18:46.<
PS:19:1.<>
PS:19:7.<
PS:19:12.<
PS:20:6.<
PS:21:8.<
PS:22:1.<>
PS:22:4.<
PS:22:12.<
PS:22:16.<
PS:22:21.6.< {IMPORTANT - star is in mid verse}
PS:22:25.<
PS:22:27.<
PS:22:30.<
PS:23:4.<
PS:23:6.<
PS:24:7.<
PS:25:1.<>
PS:25:4.<
PS:25:8.<
PS:25:16.<
PS:27:2.<
PS:27:7.<
PS:27:14.<
PS:28:6.<
PS:29:3.<
PS:29:10.<
PS:30:4.<
PS:31:6.<
PS:31:15.<
PS:31:19.<
PS:31:23.<
PS:32:3.<
PS:32:5.<
PS:32:8.<
PS:32:10.<
PS:32:11.<
PS:33:6.<
PS:33:10.<
PS:33:12.<
PS:33:20.<
PS:34:4.<
PS:34:11.<
PS:34:19.<
PS:35:4.<
PS:35:11.<
PS:35:17.<
PS:36:5.<
PS:37:12.<
PS:37:23.<
PS:37:30.<
PS:37:35.<
PS:38:2.<
PS:38:9.<
PS:38:13.<
PS:39:7.<
PS:39:12.<
PS:40:1.<>
PS:40:4.<
PS:41:4.<
PS:41:11.<
PS:41:13.<>
PS:42:5.<
PS:42:7.<
PS:42:11.<
PS:44:1.<>
PS:44:9.<
PS:44:17.<
PS:44:23.<
PS:45:2.<
PS:45:6.<
PS:45:8.<
PS:45:16.<
PS:46:4.<
PS:46:8.<
PS:46:10.<
PS:46:11.<
PS:47:5.<
PS:48:2.<
PS:48:8.<
PS:48:11.<
PS:49:1.<>
PS:49:5.<
PS:50:1.<>
PS:50:3.<
PS:50:7.<
PS:50:22.<
PS:51:7.<
PS:51:14.<
PS:52:1.<>
PS:53:2.<
PS:53:4.<
PS:53:6.<
PS:54:4.<
PS:55:4.<
PS:55:9.<
PS:55:12.<
PS:55:16.<
PS:55:20.<
PS:55:22.<
PS:56:4.<
PS:56:5.<
PS:56:10.<
PS:56:12.<
PS:57:2.<
PS:57:6.<
PS:57:7.<
PS:57:11.<
PS:58:6.<
PS:59:6.<
PS:59:9.<
PS:59:11.<
PS:59:14.<
PS:60:4.<
PS:60:6.<
PS:60:9.<
PS:61:2.<
PS:62:3.<
PS:62:9.<
PS:63:8.<
PS:65:3.<
PS:66:8.<
PS:66:13.<
PS:66:16.<
PS:67:3.<
PS:67:5.<
PS:68:4.<
PS:68:7.<
PS:68:15.<
PS:68:24.<
PS:68:28.<
PS:68:32.<
PS:69:1.<>
PS:69:5.<
PS:69:20.<
PS:69:32.<
PS:71:4.<
PS:71:10.<
PS:71:17.<
PS:71:19.<
PS:72:1.<>
PS:72:5.<
PS:72:6.<
PS:72:18.<>
PS:73:2.<
PS:73:13.<
PS:73:21.<
PS:73:27.<
PS:74:12.<
PS:74:18.<
PS:74:22.<
PS:75:2.<
PS:75:4.<
PS:75:9.<
PS:76:4.<
PS:76:10.<
PS:77:4.<
PS:77:13.<
PS:78:5.<
PS:78:9.<
PS:78:12.<
PS:78:17.<
PS:78:21.<
PS:78:26.<
PS:78:32.<
PS:78:40.<
PS:78:56.<
PS:78:65.<
PS:79:5.<
PS:80:4.<
PS:80:8.<
PS:80:17.<
PS:81:6.<
PS:81:13.<
PS:82:2.<
PS:82:5.<
PS:82:8.<
PS:83:9.<
PS:84:1.<>
PS:84:5.<
PS:84:8.<
PS:84:12.<
PS:85:8.<
PS:86:6.<
PS:86:11.<
PS:86:14.<
PS:87:3.<
PS:88:10.<
PS:89:3.<
PS:89:15.<
PS:89:19.<
PS:89:38.<
PS:89:52.<>
PS:90:2.<
PS:90:7.<
PS:90:13.<
PS:91:2.<
PS:91:3.<
PS:91:9.<
PS:91:14.<
PS:92:5.<
PS:93:1.<>
PS:94:3.<
PS:94:8.<
PS:94:12.<
PS:94:16.<
PS:94:21.<
PS:95:6.<
PS:96:4.<
PS:96:11.<
PS:97:2.<
PS:97:10.<
PS:97:12.<
PS:98:4.<
PS:99:5.<
PS:99:9.<
PS:101:1.<>
PS:101:2.<
PS:102:3.<
PS:102:11.<
PS:102:16.<
PS:102:17.<
PS:102:23.<
PS:103:1.<>
PS:103:6.<
PS:103:13.<
PS:103:19.<
PS:104:5.<
PS:104:10.<
PS:104:14.<
PS:104:19.<
PS:104:24.<
PS:104:25.<
PS:104:31.<
PS:105:1.<>
PS:105:4.<
PS:105:8.<
PS:105:16.<
PS:105:23.<
PS:105:39.<
PS:106:6.<
PS:106:13.<
PS:106:19.<
PS:106:24.<
PS:106:28.<
PS:106:32.<
PS:106:34.<
PS:106:40.<
PS:106:47.<
PS:106:48.<>
PS:107:10.<
PS:107:17.<
PS:107:23.<
PS:107:33.<
PS:107:43.<
PS:108:3.<
PS:108:7.<
PS:108:10.<
PS:109:6.<
PS:109:21.<
PS:109:30.<
PS:110:2.<
PS:110:5.<
PS:111:1.<>
PS:111:2.<
PS:112:4.<
PS:112:10.<
PS:113:5.<
PS:114:1.<>
PS:114:3.<
PS:114:5.<
PS:115:2.<
PS:115:9.<
PS:115:12.<
PS:115:16.<
PS:116:3.<
PS:116:7.<
PS:116:16.<
PS:118:5.<
PS:118:10.<
PS:118:13.<
PS:118:15.<
PS:118:19.<
PS:118:22.<
PS:118:27.<
PS:119:1.<>
PS:120:1.<>
PS:121:3.<
PS:121:5.<
PS:122:3.<
PS:122:6.<
PS:123:2.<
PS:125:4.<
PS:126:4.<
PS:127:3.<
PS:129:4.<
PS:130:5.<
PS:132:6.<
PS:132:11.<
PS:132:13.<
PS:135:1.<>
PS:135:5.<
PS:135:13.<
PS:135:19.<
PS:136:4.<
PS:136:23.<
PS:137:1.<>
PS:137:4.<
PS:138:3.<
PS:138:6.<
PS:139:7.<
PS:139:14.<
PS:139:19.<
PS:140:6.<
PS:141:3.<
PS:141:7.<
PS:142:3.<
PS:143:3.<
PS:143:7.<
PS:144:3.<
PS:144:9.<
PS:145:3.<
PS:145:8.<
PS:145:13.<
PS:145:21.<
PS:146:1.<>
PS:146:3.<
PS:146:7.12.< {IMPORTANT: star is in mid verse.}
PS:147:2.<
PS:147:7.<
PS:147:12.<
PS:148:7.<
PS:148:14.<
PS:149:5.<
PR:10:1.<>
PR:22:17.<>
PR:24:23.<>
PR:25:1.<>
PR:30:1.<>
PR:31:1.<>
PR:31:10.<
SO:1:8.\
SO:1:9.\
SO:1:12.\
SO:1:15.\
SO:1:16.\
SO:2:2.\
SO:2:3.\
SO:2:8.<>
SO:3:6.<>
SO:4:1.\
SO:4:16.\
SO:5:1.\
SO:5:2.\
SO:5:2.<>
SO:6:4.\
SO:6:13.<>
SO:7:10.\
SO:8:5.\
SO:8:5.<>
SO:8:6.\
SO:8:8.\
SO:8:10.\
SO:8:13.\
SO:8:14.\
ISA:2:1.<>
ISA:5:1.<>
ISA:6:1.<>
ISA:7:1.<>
ISA:9:8.<>
ISA:13:1.<>
ISA:14:28.<>
ISA:15:1.<>
ISA:17:1.<>
ISA:18:1.<>
ISA:19:1.<>
ISA:20:1.<>
ISA:21:1.<>
ISA:21:11.<>
ISA:21:13.<>
ISA:22:1.<>
ISA:23:1.<>
ISA:28:1.<>
ISA:29:1.<>
ISA:30:1.<>
ISA:33:1.<>
ISA:34:1.<>
ISA:36:1.<>
ISA:38:1.<>
ISA:39:1.<>
ISA:40:1.<>
ISA:49:1.<>
ISA:52:13.<>
ISA:58:1.<>
ISA:63:7.<>
JER:2:1.<>
JER:5:1.<>
JER:7:1.<>
JER:10:1.<>
JER:11:1.<>
JER:13:1.<>
JER:14:1.<>
JER:16:1.<>
JER:18:1.<>
JER:20:1.<>
JER:21:1.<>
JER:24:1.<>
JER:25:1.<>
JER:26:1.<>
JER:27:1.<>
JER:29:1.<>
JER:30:1.<>
JER:32:1.<>
JER:34:1.<>
JER:35:1.<>
JER:36:1.<>
JER:37:1.<>
JER:39:1.<>
JER:40:1.<>
JER:44:1.<>
JER:45:1.<>
JER:46:1.<>
JER:50:1.<>
JER:52:1.<>
LA:1:12.<
LA:1:18.<
LA:2:11.<
LA:2:18.<
LA:3:1.<>
LA:4:1.<>
LA:4:7.<
LA:4:11.<
LA:4:21.<
LA:5:19.<
EZE:8:1.<>
EZE:12:1.<>
EZE:13:1.<>
EZE:14:1.<>
EZE:14:12.<>
EZE:15:1.<>
EZE:16:1.<>
EZE:17:1.<>
EZE:18:1.<>
EZE:19:1.<>
EZE:20:1.<>
EZE:20:45.<>
EZE:22:1.<>
EZE:24:1.<>
EZE:25:1.<>
EZE:28:20.<
EZE:29:1.<>
EZE:33:1.<>
EZE:33:21.<>
EZE:33:23.<>
EZE:37:1.<>
EZE:38:1.<>
EZE:40:1.<>
EZE:47:13.<>
EZE:48:30.<>
DA:3:1.<>
DA:4:1.<>
DA:5:1.<>
DA:6:1.<>
DA:7:1.<>
DA:8:1.<>
DA:10:1.<>
HO:2:1.<>
HO:4:1.<>
HO:5:1.<>
HO:6:4.<>
HO:8:1.<>
HO:11:1.<>
HO:14:1.<>
AM:3:1.<>
AM:5:1.<>
AM:6:1.<>
AM:7:1.<>
AM:8:1.<>
AM:9:1.<>
MIC:3:1.<>
MIC:6:1.<>
NA:2:1.<>
NA:3:1.<>
HAB:2:1.<>
HAB:3:1.<>
HAB:3:7.<
HAB:3:16.<
HAB:3:17.<
HAG:2:1.<>
ZEC:3:1.<>
ZEC:4:1.<>
ZEC:5:1.<>
ZEC:6:1.<>
ZEC:7:1.<>
ZEC:9:1.<>
ZEC:10:1.<>
ZEC:11:1.<>
ZEC:12:1.<>
MAL:3:1.<>
$$Darby Marks 2
/* this is a list of the dark and light stars which appear in the
 * text.  The meaning of the stars is detailed in JND.DOC.
 * '<' = light star
 * '<>' = dark star
 *
 * IMPORTANT: 2 stars appear in mid-verse, and can be found in this
 * file be searching for the word 'IMPORTANT'.
 *
JOB:3:1.<>
JOB:3:11.<
JOB:3:20.<
JOB:4:1.<>
JOB:4:7.<
JOB:4:12.<
JOB:5:17.<
JOB:6:1.<>
JOB:6:8.<
JOB:6:14.<
JOB:6:24.<
JOB:7:11.<
JOB:7:17.<
JOB:8:1.<>
JOB:8:8.<
JOB:9:1.<>
JOB:9:22.<
JOB:9:27.<
JOB:10:14.<
JOB:10:18.<
JOB:11:1.<>
JOB:11:13.<
JOB:12:1.<>
JOB:12:6.<
JOB:13:6.<
JOB:13:14.<
JOB:13:20.<
JOB:14:13.<
JOB:15:1.<>
JOB:15:7.<
JOB:15:17.<
JOB:16:1.<>
JOB:17:6.<
JOB:17:11.<
JOB:18:1.<>
JOB:19:1.<>
JOB:20:1.<>
JOB:21:1.<>
JOB:21:27.<
JOB:22:1.<>
JOB:22:21.<
JOB:23:1.<>
JOB:24:2.<
JOB:25:1.<>
JOB:26:1.<>
JOB:27:11.<
JOB:28:12.<
JOB:30:20.<
JOB:32:1.<>
JOB:33:8.<
JOB:34:16.<
JOB:34:29.<
JOB:34:33.<
JOB:37:14.<
JOB:38:1.<>
JOB:38:12.<
JOB:38:16.<
JOB:38:19.<
JOB:38:22.<
JOB:38:31.<
JOB:38:39.<
JOB:39:5.<
JOB:39:9.<
JOB:39:13.<
JOB:39:19.<
JOB:39:26.<
JOB:40:3.<
JOB:40:6.<
JOB:40:15.<
JOB:42:1.<>
PS:1:4.<
PS:2:4.<
PS:2:7.<
PS:2:10.<
PS:3:1.<>
PS:3:4.<
PS:3:7.<
PS:4:2.<
PS:4:6.<
PS:5:3.<
PS:5:8.<
PS:6:4.<
PS:6:8.<
PS:7:3.<
PS:7:6.<
PS:7:8.<
PS:7:10.<
PS:7:17.<
PS:8:3.<
PS:9:1.<>
PS:9:3.<
PS:9:11.<
PS:9:15.<
PS:9:19.<
PS:10:2.<
PS:10:12.<
PS:10:16.<
PS:11:1.<>
PS:11:2.<
PS:11:5.<
PS:12:2.<
PS:12:6.<
PS:12:8.<
PS:13:6.<
PS:14:2.<
PS:14:4.<
PS:14:7.<
PS:15:2.<
PS:16:1.<>
PS:16:2.<
PS:16:4.<
PS:17:6.<
PS:17:15.<
PS:18:1.<>
PS:18:4.<
PS:18:7.<
PS:18:19.<
PS:18:30.<
PS:18:43.<
PS:18:46.<
PS:19:1.<>
PS:19:7.<
PS:19:12.<
PS:20:6.<
PS:21:8.<
PS:22:1.<>
PS:22:4.<
PS:22:12.<
PS:22:16.<
PS:22:21.6.< {IMPORTANT - star is in mid verse}
PS:22:25.<
PS:22:27.<
PS:22:30.<
PS:23:4.<
PS:23:6.<
PS:24:7.<
PS:25:1.<>
PS:25:4.<
PS:25:8.<
PS:25:16.<
PS:27:2.<
PS:27:7.<
PS:27:14.<
PS:28:6.<
PS:29:3.<
PS:29:10.<
PS:30:4.<
PS:31:6.<
PS:31:15.<
PS:31:19.<
PS:31:23.<
PS:32:3.<
PS:32:5.<
PS:32:8.<
PS:32:10.<
PS:32:11.<
PS:33:6.<
PS:33:10.<
PS:33:12.<
PS:33:20.<
PS:34:4.<
PS:34:11.<
PS:34:19.<
PS:35:4.<
PS:35:11.<
PS:35:17.<
PS:36:5.<
PS:37:12.<
PS:37:23.<
PS:37:30.<
PS:37:35.<
PS:38:2.<
PS:38:9.<
PS:38:13.<
PS:39:7.<
PS:39:12.<
PS:40:1.<>
PS:40:4.<
PS:41:4.<
PS:41:11.<
PS:41:13.<>
PS:42:5.<
PS:42:7.<
PS:42:11.<
PS:44:1.<>
PS:44:9.<
PS:44:17.<
PS:44:23.<
PS:45:2.<
PS:45:6.<
PS:45:8.<
PS:45:16.<
PS:46:4.<
PS:46:8.<
PS:46:10.<
PS:46:11.<
PS:47:5.<
PS:48:2.<
PS:48:8.<
PS:48:11.<
PS:49:1.<>
PS:49:5.<
PS:50:1.<>
PS:50:3.<
PS:50:7.<
PS:50:22.<
PS:51:7.<
PS:51:14.<
PS:52:1.<>
PS:53:2.<
PS:53:4.<
PS:53:6.<
PS:54:4.<
PS:55:4.<
PS:55:9.<
PS:55:12.<
PS:55:16.<
PS:55:20.<
PS:55:22.<
PS:56:4.<
PS:56:5.<
PS:56:10.<
PS:56:12.<
PS:57:2.<
PS:57:6.<
PS:57:7.<
PS:57:11.<
PS:58:6.<
PS:59:6.<
PS:59:9.<
PS:59:11.<
PS:59:14.<
PS:60:4.<
PS:60:6.<
PS:60:9.<
PS:61:2.<
PS:62:3.<
PS:62:9.<
PS:63:8.<
PS:65:3.<
PS:66:8.<
PS:66:13.<
PS:66:16.<
PS:67:3.<
PS:67:5.<
PS:68:4.<
PS:68:7.<
PS:68:15.<
PS:68:24.<
PS:68:28.<
PS:68:32.<
PS:69:1.<>
PS:69:5.<
PS:69:20.<
PS:69:32.<
PS:71:4.<
PS:71:10.<
PS:71:17.<
PS:71:19.<
PS:72:1.<>
PS:72:5.<
PS:72:6.<
PS:72:18.<>
PS:73:2.<
PS:73:13.<
PS:73:21.<
PS:73:27.<
PS:74:12.<
PS:74:18.<
PS:74:22.<
PS:75:2.<
PS:75:4.<
PS:75:9.<
PS:76:4.<
PS:76:10.<
PS:77:4.<
PS:77:13.<
PS:78:5.<
PS:78:9.<
PS:78:12.<
PS:78:17.<
PS:78:21.<
PS:78:26.<
PS:78:32.<
PS:78:40.<
PS:78:56.<
PS:78:65.<
PS:79:5.<
PS:80:4.<
PS:80:8.<
PS:80:17.<
PS:81:6.<
PS:81:13.<
PS:82:2.<
PS:82:5.<
PS:82:8.<
PS:83:9.<
PS:84:1.<>
PS:84:5.<
PS:84:8.<
PS:84:12.<
PS:85:8.<
PS:86:6.<
PS:86:11.<
PS:86:14.<
PS:87:3.<
PS:88:10.<
PS:89:3.<
PS:89:15.<
PS:89:19.<
PS:89:38.<
PS:89:52.<>
PS:90:2.<
PS:90:7.<
PS:90:13.<
PS:91:2.<
PS:91:3.<
PS:91:9.<
PS:91:14.<
PS:92:5.<
PS:93:1.<>
PS:94:3.<
PS:94:8.<
PS:94:12.<
PS:94:16.<
PS:94:21.<
PS:95:6.<
PS:96:4.<
PS:96:11.<
PS:97:2.<
PS:97:10.<
PS:97:12.<
PS:98:4.<
PS:99:5.<
PS:99:9.<
PS:101:1.<>
PS:101:2.<
PS:102:3.<
PS:102:11.<
PS:102:16.<
PS:102:17.<
PS:102:23.<
PS:103:1.<>
PS:103:6.<
PS:103:13.<
PS:103:19.<
PS:104:5.<
PS:104:10.<
PS:104:14.<
PS:104:19.<
PS:104:24.<
PS:104:25.<
PS:104:31.<
PS:105:1.<>
PS:105:4.<
PS:105:8.<
PS:105:16.<
PS:105:23.<
PS:105:39.<
PS:106:6.<
PS:106:13.<
PS:106:19.<
PS:106:24.<
PS:106:28.<
PS:106:32.<
PS:106:34.<
PS:106:40.<
PS:106:47.<
PS:106:48.<>
PS:107:10.<
PS:107:17.<
PS:107:23.<
PS:107:33.<
PS:107:43.<
PS:108:3.<
PS:108:7.<
PS:108:10.<
PS:109:6.<
PS:109:21.<
PS:109:30.<
PS:110:2.<
PS:110:5.<
PS:111:1.<>
PS:111:2.<
PS:112:4.<
PS:112:10.<
PS:113:5.<
PS:114:1.<>
PS:114:3.<
PS:114:5.<
PS:115:2.<
PS:115:9.<
PS:115:12.<
PS:115:16.<
PS:116:3.<
PS:116:7.<
PS:116:16.<
PS:118:5.<
PS:118:10.<
PS:118:13.<
PS:118:15.<
PS:118:19.<
PS:118:22.<
PS:118:27.<
PS:119:1.<>
PS:120:1.<>
PS:121:3.<
PS:121:5.<
PS:122:3.<
PS:122:6.<
PS:123:2.<
PS:125:4.<
PS:126:4.<
PS:127:3.<
PS:129:4.<
PS:130:5.<
PS:132:6.<
PS:132:11.<
PS:132:13.<
PS:135:1.<>
PS:135:5.<
PS:135:13.<
PS:135:19.<
PS:136:4.<
PS:136:23.<
PS:137:1.<>
PS:137:4.<
PS:138:3.<
PS:138:6.<
PS:139:7.<
PS:139:14.<
PS:139:19.<
PS:140:6.<
PS:141:3.<
PS:141:7.<
PS:142:3.<
PS:143:3.<
PS:143:7.<
PS:144:3.<
PS:144:9.<
PS:145:3.<
PS:145:8.<
PS:145:13.<
PS:145:21.<
PS:146:1.<>
PS:146:3.<
PS:146:7.12.< {IMPORTANT: star is in mid verse.}
PS:147:2.<
PS:147:7.<
PS:147:12.<
PS:148:7.<
PS:148:14.<
PS:149:5.<
PR:10:1.<>
PR:22:17.<>
PR:24:23.<>
PR:25:1.<>
PR:30:1.<>
PR:31:1.<>
PR:31:10.<
SO:1:8.\
SO:1:9.\
SO:1:12.\
SO:1:15.\
SO:1:16.\
SO:2:2.\
SO:2:3.\
SO:2:8.<>
SO:3:6.<>
SO:4:1.\
SO:4:16.\
SO:5:1.\
SO:5:2.\
SO:5:2.<>
SO:6:4.\
SO:6:13.<>
SO:7:10.\
SO:8:5.\
SO:8:5.<>
SO:8:6.\
SO:8:8.\
SO:8:10.\
SO:8:13.\
SO:8:14.\
ISA:2:1.<>
ISA:5:1.<>
ISA:6:1.<>
ISA:7:1.<>
ISA:9:8.<>
ISA:13:1.<>
ISA:14:28.<>
ISA:15:1.<>
ISA:17:1.<>
ISA:18:1.<>
ISA:19:1.<>
ISA:20:1.<>
ISA:21:1.<>
ISA:21:11.<>
ISA:21:13.<>
ISA:22:1.<>
ISA:23:1.<>
ISA:28:1.<>
ISA:29:1.<>
ISA:30:1.<>
ISA:33:1.<>
ISA:34:1.<>
ISA:36:1.<>
ISA:38:1.<>
ISA:39:1.<>
ISA:40:1.<>
ISA:49:1.<>
ISA:52:13.<>
ISA:58:1.<>
ISA:63:7.<>
JER:2:1.<>
JER:5:1.<>
JER:7:1.<>
JER:10:1.<>
JER:11:1.<>
JER:13:1.<>
JER:14:1.<>
JER:16:1.<>
JER:18:1.<>
JER:20:1.<>
JER:21:1.<>
JER:24:1.<>
JER:25:1.<>
JER:26:1.<>
JER:27:1.<>
JER:29:1.<>
JER:30:1.<>
JER:32:1.<>
JER:34:1.<>
JER:35:1.<>
JER:36:1.<>
JER:37:1.<>
JER:39:1.<>
JER:40:1.<>
JER:44:1.<>
JER:45:1.<>
JER:46:1.<>
JER:50:1.<>
JER:52:1.<>
LA:1:12.<
LA:1:18.<
LA:2:11.<
LA:2:18.<
LA:3:1.<>
LA:4:1.<>
LA:4:7.<
LA:4:11.<
LA:4:21.<
LA:5:19.<
EZE:8:1.<>
EZE:12:1.<>
EZE:13:1.<>
EZE:14:1.<>
EZE:14:12.<>
EZE:15:1.<>
EZE:16:1.<>
EZE:17:1.<>
EZE:18:1.<>
EZE:19:1.<>
EZE:20:1.<>
EZE:20:45.<>
EZE:22:1.<>
EZE:24:1.<>
EZE:25:1.<>
EZE:28:20.<
EZE:29:1.<>
EZE:33:1.<>
EZE:33:21.<>
EZE:33:23.<>
EZE:37:1.<>
EZE:38:1.<>
EZE:40:1.<>
EZE:47:13.<>
EZE:48:30.<>
DA:3:1.<>
DA:4:1.<>
DA:5:1.<>
DA:6:1.<>
DA:7:1.<>
DA:8:1.<>
DA:10:1.<>
HO:2:1.<>
HO:4:1.<>
HO:5:1.<>
HO:6:4.<>
HO:8:1.<>
HO:11:1.<>
HO:14:1.<>
AM:3:1.<>
AM:5:1.<>
AM:6:1.<>
AM:7:1.<>
AM:8:1.<>
AM:9:1.<>
MIC:3:1.<>
MIC:6:1.<>
NA:2:1.<>
NA:3:1.<>
HAB:2:1.<>
HAB:3:1.<>
HAB:3:7.<
HAB:3:16.<
HAB:3:17.<
HAG:2:1.<>
ZEC:3:1.<>
ZEC:4:1.<>
ZEC:5:1.<>
ZEC:6:1.<>
ZEC:7:1.<>
ZEC:9:1.<>
ZEC:10:1.<>
ZEC:11:1.<>
ZEC:12:1.<>
MAL:3:1.<>
$$Greek NT

                   PUBLIC DOMAIN GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

          With variants identified and tagged for reference to
            source of transmission and schools of emphasis.



   - Textus Receptus
     - Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
     - Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
   - Byzantine Majority
     - as identified by Von Soden and Hoskier, and utilized by Hodges &
       Farstad, Robinson & Pierpont. [these editions agree on 99.75
       percent of the Byzantine texts, and greater than 98 percent with
       the TR.]
   - Alexandrian
     - as identified by United Bible Society, 3rd ed., and utilized by
       modern translations such as the NIV and NASB.



                       PUBLIC DOMAIN DECLARATION

Jesus commanded in John 2:16,  "Do not make my Father's house a house of
merchandise" (Greek: "m poieite ton oikon tou patros mou oikon
emporiou").  This Greek New Testament, with variant words identified and
tagged, is Public Domain and may be used freely and for any purpose. The
format of the files, as detailed later, is designed to provide readers
with the ability to view significant various readings at a glance and
determine the transmissional source of those variants, as well as the
emphasis applied by various scholars.  This format is ideally suited to
programmatic look-up and display.


                         TRANSLITERATION METHOD

The transliteration of the Greek is simple and follows that documented
in Strong's Dictionary.  It is as follows:

   Alpha    = a                                Nu       = n
   Beta     = b                                Xi       = x
   Gamma    = g                                Omicron  = o
   Delta    = d                                Pi       = p
   Epsilon  = e                                Rho      = r
   Zeta     = z                                Sigma    = s  (final included)
   Eta      =  (ascii 136)  (ANSI 234 Windows)Tau      = t
   Theta    = th                               Upsilon  = u
   Iota     = i                                Phi      = pf
   Kappa    = k                                Chi      = ch
   Lambda   = l                                Psi      = ps
   Mu       = m                                Omega    =  (ascii 147)(ANSI 244 Windows)


If it is desirable to change this transliteration to something more
in keeping with a Greek typewriter, simply use any text editor and
perform the following global changes.

  Psi:   'ps' to 'q'
  Chi:   'ch' to 'c'
  Phi:   'ph' to 'f'
  Theta: 'th' to 'y'
  Omega: ''  to 'w'
  Eta:   ''  to 'h'

Be sure to perform these changes in the *exact* order listed, otherwise
the wrong characters will be changed.  For instance, changing eta to 'h'
before theta to 'y', would cause tau eta to appear as theta, and this
would be erroneously changed to 'y'.  The above order has been tested
and works.


If representation of final sigma is desired, change the following.

         's '    to 'v '
         's[Hrt] to 'v[Hrt]'
         's]'    to 'v]'
         's>'    to 'v>'

The [Hrt] is for Word Perfect, and may be different depending on your
editor.  The idea is to get final sigma on blank delimted words, as well
as words at end of line.  Hence, the [Hrt].


                      ORTHOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS

The orthographic methods utilized are those established by George Ricker
Berry in his edition of "The Interlinear Literal Translation of the
Greek New Testament" (New York: Hinds & Noble, 1897).  This method
follows Berry as stated in his "Introduction," p.ii [Greek modified to
current transliteration format]:

        we have...added the final -n to the third person
        singular and plural in -si; third singular in -e; in
        datives plural in -si &c.  For "out" we have given
        "outs."

This method is utilized solely for ease of pronunciation, and does not
change the meaning of the Greek text. Note also that Berry's method is
more in accord with the practice of the earliest Greek manuscripts than
modern structured grammars would suggest.

In the Majority book of the Revelation (alone) this method does not
consistently apply, due to specific data collation requirements.


                             VERSE NUMBERS

For ease of reference, the verse numbering scheme has been made to
conform closely to that found in most standard English versions of the
New Testament, following the Authorized (King James) Version of 1611.
Where considerate verse numbering differences occur, they are added to
the text in brackets.


             BREATHINGS, ACCENTS, AND DIACRITICAL MARKINGS

All breathings, accents, capitalization, punctuation, and diacritical
markings have been omitted.  These are primarily a product of modern
editorship and are lacking in ancient mss.


                      BOOK TITLES AND COLOPHONS

Book titles do not appear within the present files. The Greek closing
colophons to the epistles which appear in the English of the Authorized
Version have been placed in brackets [] wherever they occur in the
Stephens 1550 edition (only).



                         VARIANT TAGGING METHOD

The following tags have been applied to those words peculiar to one
stream of transmission, or scholarly group which emphasizes a particular
variant word.  Those words with no tag are do not differ in the various
printings of the Greek.

  t= Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus.

      The text used is George Ricker Berry's edition of "The Interlinear
      Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament."  This text is
      virtually identical to Erasmus 1516, Beza 1598, and the actual
      Textus Receptus: Elzevir 1633.  Berry states that "In the main
      they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as
      the Textus Receptus" (Berry, p.ii).

      These early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text
      of the English King James Authorized Version of 1611, since that
      version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed little
      from its "Textus Receptus" predecessors. These Textus Receptus
      editions follow the Byzantine Majority mss., which was predominant
      during the period of manual copying of Greek New Testament
      manuscripts.

  s= Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus

      The text used is " Kain Diathk: The New Testament.  The Greek
      Text underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611" (London:
      Trinitarian Bible Society, 1977).  This is an unchanged reprint of
      Scrivener's "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to
      the Text followed in the Authorised Version" (Cambridge:
      University Press, 1894, 1902).

      Scrivner attempted to reconstruct the Greek text underlying the
      English 1611 KJV for comparison to the 1881 English R.V. In those
      places where the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate (Joh 10:16),
      Scrivener inserted the greek reading, as opposed to
      back-translating the Latin to Greek--which would have produced a
      Greek word with no Greek mss. evidence.  Scrivner's work follows
      the Byzantine Majority texts, and in many places matches the
      modern Alexandrian based editions.

  b= Byzantine Majority

      The text is that identified by Freiherr Von Soden, "Die Schriften
      des Neuen Testaments in ihrer altesten erreichbaren Textgestalt"
      (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911) and Herman C. Hoskier,
      "Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse" (London: Bernard Quaritch,
      1929).  This technique of Byzantine identification and weighting,
      was utilized by Hodges and Farsted in "The Greek New Testament
      according to the Majority Text" (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982;
      1985). It was subsequently utilized by Robinson and Pierpont,
      resulting in 99.75 percent agreement between the two texts.

      The Byzantine Majority text is closely identified with the Textus
      Receptus editions, and well it should with greater than 98%
      agreement. As Maurice Robinson pointed out in his edition of the
      Byzantine Majority: "George Ricker Berry correctly noted that 'in
      the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be
      referred to as the Textus Receptus' (George Ricker Berry, ed.,
      _The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament_
      [New York: Hinds & Noble, 1897], p.ii).

  a= Alexandrian

      The differences are those identified by United Bible Society 3rd
      ed., and utilized by modern translations such as NIV and NASB.
      While these variants come from mss. with less textual evidence
      than the Byzantine Majority, many of the differences are exactly
      the same as those identified by the Byzantine Majority and
      Scrivner.  The percentage of variants are quite small and occur
      mainly in word placement, and spelling.  Many of the variations
      identified are omitted or bracketed words, which is not surprising
      due to a significantly smaller base of text from this stream of
      transmission.


                        WHERE TO FIND THIS TEXT

The latest, most up-to-date and maintained copy of these files can
be found on:

    The Bible Foundation web site, http://www.bf.org

Or by contacting:

    Mark Fuller
    1129 East Loyola Drive
    Tempe, Arizona, 85282
    602-829-8542
$$Vulgate
                Jerome's 405 a.d., Latin Vulgate
 
                    ***  Public Domain  ***
                    ***   Copy Freely   ***


These files were produced following modern scholarship of the
available Vulgate mss.  The apocryphal books are prefixed with
an "x".  For instance, First Maccabees is "x1ma.vul" contained
in "vul-x1ma.zip".

It should be noted Jerome translated Psalms from the Hebrew as
well as the Greek.  Accordingly, there were 2 Psalms texts, and
these are called "ps-h.vul" and "ps-g.vul".

Jerome (c. 347-420) began his work in 382.  In 386 he moved to
Bethlehem and worked on the Old Testament.  He began on using
the Greek LXX, but quickly decided to work directly from the
Hebrew.  In 405 the Old Testament, as well as the rest of the
New Testament was completed. Due to older Latin texts in
circulation, Jerome's work was not widely popular until the
ninth century.  The influence of Jerome's Bible was quite
extensive.  For instance, the first knowledge of the Bible in
the British Isles was from the Vulgate.

These files, as well as other Bible text files, are maintained
on the following web site where the most up to date, and corrected
files can be found:

   Bible Foundation, http://www.bf.org 

Or by contacting:

   Mark Fuller
   1129 East Loyola Drive
   Tempe, Arizona.  85282
   (602) 829-8542 (voice)
$$World English (WEB)
Generated from: web.gbf
 Last revised: 17 August 2000

The World English Bible is in the Public Domain.
Feel free to copy it and give it to your friends.

This copy of the World English Bible is a draft version.
Updates are available at http://eBible.org. Typo reports
and suggestions may be emailed to editors@eBible.org.

The World English Bible (WEB) is in the Public Domain. Comments and
typo reports to editors@eBible.org are welcome. Please see
http://eBible.org/bible/web for updates and revision status.


 These files comprise a draft translation that isn't fully updated
 to contemporary English. The following books of the Bible have,
 however, been updated and proofread: The New Testament (Matthew
 through Revelation), plus Psalms and Proverbs. These books may
 still be edited where well justified, but our primary effort is
 in proofreading and updating the language of the remaining books.
$$Webster
                    Webster Bible Electronic Format.
                             PUBLIC DOMAIN

                             February 1992
                      Major correction Aug. 1993


TOPICS:

        - Webster Biography
        - Introduction to the Electronic Format
        - Process Description
        - Text Considerations
        - Typeset Corrections
        - Word/Spelling Standardizations
        - 12/25/91 Corrections
        - 08/15/93 Corrections

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Webster Biography:

  Noah Webster: America's first grammarian and founding father of
  American education.  In 1828 Noah Webster published the
  "American Dictionary of the English Language".  This dictionary
  demonstrates the Christian values which were found in America's
  educational and scholarly systems.  It is from this early
  dictionary that we have todays popular "Webster Dictionary".

  In 1833 Noah Webster, who had mastered 20 languages including
  Hebrew and Greek, published the King James Authorized Version
  "with amendments to the language".  In stating his reasons for
  producing this version of the Bible, Webster said:

    "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
    and perspicuous; ... in many passages uniting sublimity with
    beautiful simplicity.  In my view, the general style of the
    version ought not to be altered.  But, in the lapse of two or
    three centuries, changes have taken place, which, in
    particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure the
    sense, of the original languages.  ...  they do not present to
    the reader the Word of God.  ...  My principal aim is to
    remedy this evil."

  It was with cautious reverence that Webster corrected misused
  grammar, removed offensive terms and expressions, and
  substituted commonly understood words for words that had fallen
  into disuse, or no longer carried the same meaning.

  In 1834, the year after completing the Webster Bible, Noah
  Webster wrote a companion piece titled "Value of the Bible and
  Excellence of the Christian Religion - For the Use of Families
  and Schools".

  Webster, who was considered "The schoolmaster to a nation", and
  produced the earliest spellers and textbooks for America's school
  children, believed Christian religious values and American public
  education to be inseparable.  He believed the Webster Bible to be
  "the most important enterprise" of his life, and referred to the
  Bible as:

    "...  the chief moral cause of all that is good, and the best
    corrector of all that is evil, in human society; the best book
    for regulating the temporal concerns of men, and the only book
    that can serve as an infallible guide to future felicity."


Introduction to the Electronic Format:

  Beginning in July of 1991 the task of placing the Webster Bible
  text in electronic format began.  The original purpose was to
  provide Larry Pierce (who produces the On-Line Bible program),
  with a more modern *public domain* text, similar in content and
  style to the AV but with a grammar that would provide better
  comprehension in todays English.

  The maintainted and most correct text, can be found on the Bible
  Foundation web site, www.bf.org.

  Or, by contacting me:

    Home phone 602-829-8542
    Address    Mark Fuller
               1129 East Loyola Drive
               Tempe Arizona, 85282

Process Description:

  The process which occurred was:
    - Photocopy pages from a Webster Bible facsimile, enlarging and
      controlling contrast for maximum character recognition.
      The Webster Bible used was printed by Baker Book House,
      1987, isbn 0-8010-9684-7.
    - Mail the photocopies to the Bible Foundation where they were
      OCR scanned using an HP Scanjet and Omni-Page OCR software.
    - Visual comparison and cleaning of the resulting scan files
      against the printed Webster Bible.
    - Spell checking.
    - Electronic comparison of the Webster text files against the
      KJV AV text files contained in the On-Line Bible program.
      All differences were double checked against the printed
      Webster Bible.
      The program used for comparing was the IBM Superc Compare
      Facility developed for IBM Mainframe computer environments
      and available for the IBM PC platform. (see below)
    - Produce a list of unique (ignoring the case of the first
      character of each word) words contained in the Webster
      files, with a count of their occurrence.  This list was then
      checked for consistency of spellings, hyphenations.


Text Considerations:

  During this process the opportunity presented itself to
  'enhance' the text.  These changes could have fallen into 3
  categories:

    - Correcting obvious and perceived 1833 typesetting errors.
    - Correcting spellings not currently in use today.

  It was decided to limit changes to the first category, as there
  were a fairly large amount of 1833 typesetting errors
  discovered.  Some are quite obvious while others are
  questionable; extreme caution was taken in deciding what should
  be corrected.  For instance, the word Spirit is not capitalized
  in many places.  Based on the pattern I see, I believe this was
  intentional on Webster's part: although I disagree with it.  In
  the second category there are a number of word spellings which
  are wholly incorrect today: Cesar, lanch, to-day. These have not
  been changed.

  Anyone desiring to validate this text should consider
  electronicaly comparing it to the AV.  This produces the fastest
  check of integrity. The compare program I used, the IBM Superc
  Compare Facility for the IBM PC, can be obtained from IBM.  Cost
  is $15, plus $5 for shipping.  To order call 800-426-7279 and
  ask for 'Superc'. This is an outstanding compare program.
  Perform a Word type compare with a Delta listing.

  Another useful tool for working with the raw ascii texts is the
  PS text find program available as Shareware on many BBS's.

  A good reference tool for understanding the changes Webster
  made, and did not make, is the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary.
  This provides a clear insight into what Webster had in mind
  regarding the English language in 1833.  This dictionary is
  available from the Foundation for American Christian Education,
  PO Box 27035, San Francisco, CA, 94127.


Typeset Corrections:

NU  32:32 {Extraneous line from 2 verses below appears in this
           verse.}
NU  33:49 Beth-jesimoth > Beth-jeshimoth
GE  24:31 LORd > LORD
EX   1:22 every > Every
EX   7:16 the > The
EX   8:1  let > Let
EX   9:29 as > As
EX  13:8  this > This
EX  15:26 if > If
EX  16:25 eat > Eat
EX  20:6  commadments > commandments
EX  23:11 my > may
EX  25:30 alway > always
EX  22:5  ano4her > another
EX  26:1  lined > linen
EX  32:25 v.35 > v.25
EX  33:15 him if > him, If
EX  39:23 hand > band
EX  39:43 had, > had
LE  18:15 v.45 > v.15
DE   1:13 v.12 > v.13
DE   3:24 according thy > according to thy
DE  13:10 bonddage > bondage
DE  23:4  thy > they
DE  26:7  heared > heard
DE  28:49 nnderstand > understand
JOS 14:12 hearedst > heardest
JOS 19:35 Cinnereth > Chinnereth
JOS 22:20 son Zerah > son of Zerah
JUD  6:11 nnder > under
JUD  7:24 Beth-bara > Beth-barah
JUD 11:34 Jepthath > Jephthah
JUD 11:39 she > he
JUD 20:35 v.25 > v.35
JUD 20:40 behold the > behold, the
RU   1:22 the the > the
1SA  6:4  emerods. > emerods,
1SA  8:10 of of > of
1SA 14:30 to day > to-day
1SA 24:11 trangression > transgression
1SA 24:21 out my > out of my
1SA 25:41 they > thy
1SA 26:7  and, behold, > and behold,
2SA  1:7  answered Here > answered, Here
2SA  3:5  sixth > sixth,
2SA 10:14 Abashai, > Abishai,
2SA 13:34 hill side > hillside
2SA 16:21 Aphithophel > Ahithophel
2SA 17:17 Enrogel > En-rogel
2SA 21:19 Beth-lehemite. > Beth-lehemite,
2SA 23:26 Tekoite. > Tekoite,
2SA 23:27 Hushathite. > Hushathite,
1KI  4:5  the the king's > the king's
1KI  6:6  ahout > about
1KI  6:16 plaee > place
1KI  7:36 proprotion > proportion
1KI  8:11 of LORD. > of the LORD.
1KI 18:31 of LORD > of the LORD
1KI 19:2  ahout > about
1KI 20:26 Ben-hahad > Ben-hadad
2KI  2:3  to day > to-day
2KI  7:9  upon upon > upon
2KI  9:21 saying > saying,
2KI 13:13 Israel? > Israel.
2KI 13:24 Benhadad > Ben-hadad
2KI 15:16 Manahim > Manahem
1CH  2:17 Ismaelite > Ishmaelite
1CH  2:37 Obed. > Obed,
1CH  4:24 Memuel > Nemuel
1CH  4:28 Moladar > Moladah
1CH  3:9  and and > and
1CH  6:22 sons > son
1CH  6:22 on > son
1CH  6:81 suburbs, > suburbs.
1CH  7:32 Hothan > Hotham
1CH  8:8  after, > after
1CH  9:3  of of > of
1CH  9:28 ministring > ministering
1CH 11:45 Jedial > Jediael
1CH 24:26 Malhi > Mahli
1CH 25:14 brethren > brethren,
1CH 25:20 brethren > brethren,
1CH 25:21 brethren > brethren,
1CH 25:27 sons > sons,
1CH 27:7  couse > course
1CH 27:13 Maharia > Maharai
2CH  4:8  a a > a
2CH  6:29 bis > his
2CH 10:7  forever > for ever
2CH 12:1  pass. > pass,
2CH 15:1  spirit > Spirit
2CH 17:1  Johosaphat > Jehoshaphat
2CH 22:2  Jerusalem, > Jerusalem.
2CH 28:12 son Johanan > son of Johanan
2CH 29:35 of LORD > of the LORD
2CH 35:1  Joash > Josiah
2CH 35:12 familes > families
NE   3:15 Shallum > Shallun
NE   9:10 a a > a
NE  11:4  of of > of
ES   9:12 shall done > shall be done
JOB 21:5  and and > and
JOB 31:18 be > he
PS  31:11 me- > me.
PS  75:5  wot > not
PS  78:36 Nethertheless > Nevertheless
PS  82:1  the the > the
PS 119:76 Let > Let,
PS 119:141 depised > despised
PS 132:7  foostool > footstool
PS 137:6  roof my > roof of my
PR   1:9  shatl > shalt
PR  13:6  wickednesss > wickedness
PR  15:33 humilty > humility
PR  20:20 obscnre > obscure
PR  21:1  the the > the
PR  23:12 intruction > instruction
SO   7:9  roof thy > roof of thy
ISA 14:9  tho > the
ISA 21:16 LORD, > LORD
ISA 23:12 thou > Thou
ISA 32:7  detroy > destroy
ISA 35:8  and and > and
ISA 43:9  and and > and
ISA 66:11 we > ye
ISA 66:19 them. > them,
JER  4:10 {line 3 and 4 were reversed}
JER  4:12 againt > against
JER  5:15 saith LORD > saith the LORD
JER  5:19 ye he have > ye have
JER  6:4  lenghtened > lengthened
JER  7:24 and and > and
JER 14:13 he > ye
JER 14:19 lothed > loathed
JER 25:4  hearkenened > hearkened
JER 36:15 ears, > ears.
JER 42:4  you God > your God
JER 49:36 whether > whither
JER 52:21 cubits? > cubits;
LA   3:60 imginations > imaginations
LA   4:4  break > bread
EZE  3:14 of LORD > of the LORD
EZE  6:1  word the > word of the
EZE 11:11 it > it;
EZE 17:1  come > came
EZE 28:1  word the > word of the
EZE 28:25 when > When
EZE 45:8  Isral > Israel
EZE 48:16 An > And
DA   1:19 them > them;
DA   2:10 there > There
DA   8:17 the the > the
DA   9:24 reconconciliation > reconciliation
HO  14:3  your hands > our hands
JOE  2:20 northen > northern
AM   1:6  for > For
AM   2:6  trangressions > transgressions
AM   5:8  the mout > them out
MIC  5:4  strengh > strength
NA   3:4  familes > families
NA   3:7  see > seek
NA   3:18 shepsherds > shepherds
HAG  2:13 it > It
ZEC  1:4  heaken > hearken
ZEC  7:1  of LORD > of the LORD
MT   2:2  where > Where
MT   4:1  spirit > Spirit
MT   7:21 me > me,
MT   8:31 v.21 > v.31
MT  10:1  pow- [against] > power [against]
MT  15:32 v.22 > v.32
MT  16:22 LORD > Lord
MT  17:26 from > From
MT  21:21 If > if
MT  21:41 he > He
MT  25:17 two. > two,
MT  26:8  to > To
MT  26:40 alseep > asleep
MT  27:65 said them > said to them
MR   6:1  Juda > Judas
MR   9:21 from > From
MR   9:50 yourselvs > yourselves
MR  10:45 ranson > ransom
MR  11:14 let > Let
LU   3:30 Juda > Judah
LU   3:33 Juda > Judah
LU   3:34 Nachor > Nahor
LU   3:34 Thara > Terah
LU   3:35 Saruch > Serug
LU   3:35 Ragau > Reu
LU   3:35 Phalec > Peleg
LU   3:36 Sem > Shem
LU   3:37 Mathusala > Methuselah
LU   4:10 he > He
LU   5:4  lanch > Lanch
LU   5:27 him > him,
LU   6:10 as other > as the other
LU   6:13 choose > chose
LU  10:41 her > her,
LU  17:33 peserve > preserve
LU  20:6  from > From
LU  20:14 the the > the
LU  24:34 the > The
AC   1:6  the the > the
AC   2:18 those, days > those days,
AC  12:8  And > and
AC  16:18 name Jesus > name of Jesus
AC  16:25 prases > praises
AC  17:6  word > world
AC  18:6  go the > go to the
AC  19:17 name, > name
AC  22:16 of Lord > of the Lord
RO   5:4  patience > patience,
RO   9:26 ye > Ye
RO  16:1  is Cenchrea > is at Cenchrea
RO  16:25 keept > kept
2CO  8:7  into his > in this
2CO 11:2  jealously > jealousy
EPH  4:1  LORD > Lord
EPH  4:17 LORD > Lord
COL  1:1  Chirst > Christ
1TI  5:18 And > And,
TIT  2:8  vs.9 > vs.8
HEB  4:3  the the > the
HEB  4:5  if > If
HEB  6:20 Melchizedec > Melchisadec
HEB  9:19 and and > and
HEB 11:32 Sampson > Samson
1PE  3:12 aad > and
1PE  4:15 your > you
1JO  3:11 beginning > beginning,
1JO  4:11 love another > love one another
RE   3:22 spirit > Spirit
RE   4:11 LORD > Lord
RE  15:6  of temple > of the temple
RE  17:4  stone > stones
RE  17:9  wisdom, > wisdom.
RE  21:20 ninth > ninth,


Word/spelling standardization:
----------------------------------------------------------------
birthright in Heb 12:16 is the only non-hyphenated occurrence.
   Changed to birth-right as 9 other occurrences.
bride-groom in LU 5:35 is the only hyphenated occurrence.
   Changed to bridegroom.
handbreadth in PS 39:5 is the only non-hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to hand-breadth as in 6 other occurences.
hand-maid in EX 23:12 is the only hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to handmaid as in 43 other occurrences.
hand-maidens in AC 2:18 is the only hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to handmaidens as in 2 other plural occurences.
land-mark(s) in DE 19:14, 27:17 is hyphenated unlike other
   occurences in PR and JOB.  changed to landmark(s).
mill-stone 2SA 11:21 is the only hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to millstone as 10 other occurences.
outstreched EX 6:6 JER 21:5 is not hyphenated.
   changed to out-strecthed as in 15 other occurrences.
rain-bow RE 4:3. hyphenated unlike the only other occurrence.
   changed to rainbow as RE 10:1
roe-buck(s) 1KI 4:23 DE 14:5, 15:22.  hyphenated unlike 2 other
   occurences.  changed to roebuck as in DE 12:15, 12:22
shew LU 20:24 is the only spelling.  Webster changed hundreds of
   these.  changed to show.
stablished PS 148:6 is the only occurrence and apparently
   overlooked. changed to established as webster did to all
   others.
stedfast(ly) JOB 11:15 PS 78:8, 78:37, RU 1:18 the only occurences
   of this spelling.  Webster changed all the others.
   changed to steadfast(ly).
water-courses ISA 44:4 this is the only hyphenated occurrence, and
   the hyphen in the printed copy looks somewhat like an
   imperfection.  changed to watercouses as 2 other occurences.
wayfaring JUD 19:17 is unhyphenated.
   changed to way-faring like 5 other occurences.
winepresses JOB 24:11 is the only un-hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to wine-presses as 17 other occurences.
Baalzephon EX 14:2 is the only un-hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to Baal-zephon as 2 other occurences.
bare-foot 2SA 15:30 is the only hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to barefoot as 4 other occurences in ISA.
Beersheba JOS 19:2 is the only un-hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to Beer-sheba as 33 other occurences.
Bethel 1CH 7:28 2KI 2:23 EZR 2:28 not hyphenated.
   changed to Beth-el as 63 other occurences.
Bethjeshimoth EZE 25:9 is the only non-hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to Beth-jeshimoth as 3 other occurences.
Bethshemesh JER 43:13 is the only non-hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to Beth-shemesh as 20 other occurences.
Bethlehem GE 48:7 2CH 11:6 are the only OT non-hyphenated
   occurences.  changed to Beth-lehem as 27 other OT occurences.
   Bethlehem is used in the NT.
earrings JUD 8:24,25 the only un-hyphenated occurences.
   changed to ear-rings as 13 other occurences.
eye-lids PR 4:25 PS 11:4 is hyphenated unlike 7 other occurences.
   changed to eyelids.
fether(s)(ed) PS 68:13, 78:27, 91:4 JOB 39:13 not spelled as other
   5 occurences.  changed to feather(s)(ed).
fore-skin GE 17:24,25 are the only hyphenated occurences.
   changed to foreskin as 12 other occurences.
fore-part EX 28:27 is the only hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to forepart as 4 other occurences.
four-square EX 27:1, 28:16, 30:2, 37:25, 38:1, 39:9 are hyphenated
   unlike other occurences.  changed to foursquare as 4 other
   occurences.
Gathrimmon JOS 19:45 not hyphenated.
   changed to Gath-rimmon as 3 other occurences.
high-way DE 2:27 NU 20:19 are the only 2 hyphenated occurences.
   changed to highway as 25 other occurences.
Kibroth-Hattaavah NU 11:35 is the only capitalized H.
   changed to Kibroth-hattaavah as 4 other occurences.
law-giver DE 33:21, NU 21:18, JAS 4:12, GE 49:10 are hyphenated
   unlike 3 un-hyphenated occurrences at PS 60:7;108:8, ISA 33:22
   changed to lawgiver.
manslayer NU 35:6 is the only non-hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to man-slayer as 2 other occurences.
needlework PS 45:14 is the only non-hyphenated occurrence.
   changed to needle-work as 7 other occurences.
noonday JOB 5:14,11:17, ISA 16:3 not hyphenated.
   changed to noon-day as 4 other occurences.
oliveyard(s) EX 23:11, NE 5:11;9:25 not hyphenated.
   changed to olive-yard(s) as 2 other occurences.
Rabsaris 2KI 18:17 not hyphenated.
   changed to Rab-saris as in 2 other occurences.
sheepcote(s) 1CH 17:7 not hyphenated.
   changed to sheep-cote as 2 other occurences.
sheepfold(s) PS 78:70, JOH 10:1 is not hyphenated.
   changed to sheep-fold(s) as 2 other occurrences.
soothsayer JOS 13:22, MIC 5:12 not hyphenated.
   changed to sooth-sayer as in 6 other occurrences.
storehouse(s) 2CH 32:28, JER 50:26 not hyphenated.
   changed to store-house(s) as in 6 other occurences.
stript GE 37:33, EX 33:6 changed the only 2 occurences of stript
   to stripped as 16 other occurences.
arch-angel 1TH 4:16 hyphenated.
   changed to archangel as JUDE 1:9.
bondmen EZR 9:9, DE 6:21; 7:8, GE 43:18 not hyphenated.
   changed to bond-men as 20 other occurences.
sevenfold ISA 30:26 not hyphenated.
   changed to seven-fold as 5 other occurences.
threshold 1KI 14:17, 1SA 5:4; 5:5 not spelled uniformly.
   changed to threshhold as 14 other occurences.


12/25/91 - Corrections (after original release)

ISA 59:17 breast-place > breast-plate - This is a typo in the original
          1833 text which was not detected in the previous process.
MR   7:26 Syro-phenician > Syrophenician - The hyphen was for word
          wrap and was accidently retained.  After reading the chapter
          intro, which uses no hyphen, it became obvious it should
          not be hyphenated.

08/15/93 - Further corrections

    All of the OT was examined for representation of the Divine
    Name, Yahweh.  It was discovered the 1833 ed. contained a
    great number of mistranslations in this regard, with LORD
    being used where Adonai appears.  Also a fair amount of Lord
    God being reversed with LORD God, when the text reads Adonay
    Yahwey (Lord GOD).  These have all been corrected.

$$Webster's Bible
This text is an abridgement of the documentation that came with the electronic text of Webster's Holy Bible (8/15/93). It covers both the e-text itself and the book it is based on. The material reproduced here is well worth reading - especially Webster's own introduction, where he explains his changes to the Authorized Version. Webster is quaint and often pedantic. But he is no fool, and makes many good observations about the meanings of words. His section on euphemisms makes for amusing reading. 
Webster Biography
Noah Webster: America's first grammarian and founding father of American education. In 1828 Noah Webster published the `American Dictionary of the English Language". This dictionary demonstrates the Christian values which were found in America's educational and scholarly systems. It is from this early dictionary that we have todays popular "Webster Dictionary". 
In 1833 Noah Webster, who had mastered 20 languages including Hebrew and Greek, published the King James Authorized Version "with amendments to the language". In stating his reasons for producing this version of the Bible, Webster said: 
In the present version, the language is, in general, correct and perspicuous; ...in many passages uniting sublimity with beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version ought not to be altered. But, in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure the sense, of the original languages...they do not present to the reader the Word of God.... My principal aim is to remedy this evil. 
It was with cautious reverence that Webster corrected misused grammar, removed offensive terms and expressions, and substituted commonly understood words for words that had fallen into disuse, or no longer carried the same meaning. 
In 1834, the year after completing the Webster Bible, Noah Webster wrote a companion piece titled "Value of the Bible and Excellence of the Christian Religion - For the Use of Families and Schools". 
Webster, who was considered "The schoolmaster to a nation", and produced the earliest spellers and textbooks for America's school children, believed Christian religious values and American public education to be inseparable. He believed the Webster Bible to be "the most important enterprise" of his life, and referred to the Bible as: 
[T]he chief moral cause of all that is good, and the best corrector of all that is evil, in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men, and the only book that can serve as an infallible guide to future felicity. 
Introduction to the Electronic Format
Beginning in July of 1991 the task of placing the Webster Bible text in electronic format began. The original purpose was to provide Larry Pierce (who produces the On-Line Bible program), with a more modern *public domain* text, similar in content and style to the AV but with a grammar that would provide better comprehension in todays English. 
The maintainted and most correct text, can be found on the Bible Foundation BBS: 
Bible Foundation BBS 602-242-2462 (14.4 kbs) Or, by contacting me: 
Internet acus10@waccvm.corp.mot.com 
Home phone 602-829-8542 
Address: 
Mark Fuller
1129 East Loyola Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282 USA 
Improvements to the Text
During the digitization process the opportunity presented itself to `enhance' the text. These enhancements could have fallen into two categories: 
Correcting obvious and perceived 1833 typesetting errors. 
Correcting spellings not currently in use today. 
It was decided to limit changes to the first category, as there were a fairly large amount of 1833 typesetting errors discovered. Some are quite obvious while others are questionable; extreme caution was taken in deciding what should be corrected. For instance, the word Spirit is not capitalized in many places. Based on the pattern I see, I believe this was intentional on Webster's part: although I disagree with it. In the second category there are a number of word spellings which are wholly incorrect today: Cesar, lanch, to-day. These have not been changed. 
Anyone desiring to validate this text should consider electronicaly comparing it to the AV. This produces the fastest check of integrity. The compare program I used, the IBM Superc Compare Facility for the IBM PC, can be obtained from IBM. Cost is $15, plus $5 for shipping. To order call 800-426-7279 and ask for `Superc'. This is an outstanding compare program. Perform a Word type compare with a Delta listing. 
Another useful tool for working with the raw ascii texts is the PS text find program available as Shareware on many BBS's. 
A good reference tool for understanding the changes Webster made, and did not make, is the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary. This provides a clear insight into what Webster had in mind regarding the English language in 1833. This dictionary is available from the Foundation for American Christian Education, PO Box 27035, San Francisco, CA, 94127. 
List of Typeset Corrections
Nu 32:32 Extraneous line from 2 verses below appears in this verse. 
Nu 33:49 Beth-jesimoth > Beth-jeshimoth 
Ge 24:31 LORd > LORD 
Ex 1:22 every > Every 
Ex 7:16 the > The 
Ex 8:1 let > Let 
Ex 9:29 as > As 
Ex 13:8 this > This 
Ex 15:26 if > If 
Ex 16:25 eat > Eat 
Ex 20:6 commadments > commandments 
Ex 23:11 my > may 
Ex 25:30 alway > always 
Ex 22:5 ano4her > another 
Ex 26:1 lined > linen 
Ex 32:25 v.35 > v.25 
Ex 33:15 him if > him, If 
Ex 39:23 hand > band 
Ex 39:43 had, > had 
Le 18:15 v.45 > v.15 
De 1:13 v.12 > v.13 
De 3:24 according thy > according to thy 
De 13:10 bonddage > bondage 
De 23:4 thy > they 
De 26:7 heared > heard 
De 28:49 nnderstand > understand 
Jos 14:12 hearedst > heardest 
Jos 19:35 Cinnereth > Chinnereth 
Jos 22:20 son Zerah > son of Zerah 
Jud 6:11 nnder > under 
Jud 7:24 Beth-bara > Beth-barah 
Jud 11:34 Jepthath > Jephthah 
Jud 11:39 she > he 
Jud 20:35 v.25 > v.35 
Jud 20:40 behold the > behold, the 
Ru 1:22 the the > the 
1Sa 6:4 emerods. > emerods, 
1Sa 8:10 of of > of 
1Sa 14:30 to day > to-day 
1Sa 24:11 trangression > transgression 
1Sa 24:21 out my > out of my 
1Sa 25:41 they > thy 
1Sa 26:7 and, behold, > and behold, 
2Sa 1:7 answered Here > answered, Here 
2Sa 3:5 sixth > sixth, 
2Sa 10:14 Abashai, > Abishai, 
2Sa 13:34 hill side > hillside 
2Sa 16:21 Aphithophel > Ahithophel 
2Sa 17:17 Enrogel > En-rogel 
2Sa 21:19 Beth-lehemite. > Beth-lehemite, 
2Sa 23:26 Tekoite. > Tekoite, 
2Sa 23:27 Hushathite. > Hushathite, 
1Ki 4:5 the the king's > the king's 
1Ki 6:6 ahout > about 
1Ki 6:16 plaee > place 
1Ki 7:36 proprotion > proportion 
1Ki 8:11 of LORD. > of the LORD. 
1Ki 18:31 of LORD > of the LORD 
1Ki 19:2 ahout > about 
1Ki 20:26 Ben-hahad > Ben-hadad 
2Ki 2:3 to day > to-day 
2Ki 7:9 upon upon > upon 
2Ki 9:21 saying > saying, 
2Ki 13:13 Israel? > Israel. 
2Ki 13:24 Benhadad > Ben-hadad 
2Ki 15:16 Manahim > Manahem 
1ch 2:17 Ismaelite > Ishmaelite 
1Ch 2:37 Obed. > Obed, 
1Ch 4:24 Memuel > Nemuel 
1Ch 4:28 Moladar > Moladah 
1Ch 3:9 and and > and 
1Ch 6:22 sons > son 
1Ch 6:22 on > son 
1Ch 6:81 suburbs, > suburbs. 
1Ch 7:32 Hothan > Hotham 
1Ch 8:8 after, > after 
1Ch 9:3 of of > of 
1Ch 9:28 ministring > ministering 
1Ch 11:45 Jedial > Jediael 
1Ch 24:26 Malhi > Mahli 
1Ch 25:14 brethren > brethren, 
1Ch 25:20 brethren > brethren, 
1Ch 25:21 brethren > brethren, 
1Ch 25:27 sons > sons, 
1Ch 27:7 couse > course 
1Ch 27:13 Maharia > Maharai 
2Ch 4:8 a a > a 
2Ch 6:29 bis > his 
2Ch 10:7 forever > for ever 
2Ch 12:1 pass. > pass, 
2Ch 15:1 spirit > Spirit 
2Ch 17:1 Johosaphat > Jehoshaphat 
2Ch 22:2 Jerusalem, > Jerusalem. 
2Ch 28:12 son Johanan > son of Johanan 
2Ch 29:35 of LORD > of the LORD 
2Ch 35:1 Joash > Josiah 
2Ch 35:12 familes > families 
Ne 3:15 Shallum > Shallun 
Ne 9:10 a a > a 
Ne 11:4 of of > of 
Es 9:12 shall done > shall be done 
Job 21:5 and and > and 
Job 31:18 be > he 
Ps 31:11 me- > me. 
Ps 75:5 wot > not 
Ps 78:36 Nethertheless > Nevertheless 
Ps 82:1 the the > the 
Ps 119:76 Let > Let, 
Ps 119:141 depised > despised 
Ps 132:7 foostool > footstool 
Ps 137:6 roof my > roof of my 
Pr 1:9 shatl > shalt 
Pr 13:6 wickednesss > wickedness 
Pr 15:33 humilty > humility 
Pr 20:20 obscnre > obscure 
Pr 21:1 the the > the 
Pr 23:12 intruction > instruction 
So 7:9 roof thy > roof of thy 
Isa 21:16 LORD, > LORD 
Isa 23:12 thou > Thou 
Isa 32:7 detroy > destroy 
Isa 35:8 and and > and 
Isa 43:9 and and > and 
Isa 59:17 breast-place > breast-plate 
Isa 66:11 we > ye 
Isa 66:19 them. > them, 
Jer 4:10 line 3 and 4 were reversed 
Jer 4:12 againt > against 
Jer 5:15 saith LORD > saith the LORD 
Jer 5:19 ye he have > ye have 
Jer 6:4 lenghtened > lengthened 
Jer 7:24 and and > and 
Jer 14:13 he > ye 
Jer 14:19 lothed > loathed 
Jer 25:4 hearkenened > hearkened 
Jer 36:15 ears, > ears. 
Jer 42:4 you God > your God 
Jer 49:36 whether > whither 
Jer 52:21 cubits? > cubits; 
La 3:60 imginations > imaginations 
La 4:4 break > bread 
Eze 3:14 of LORD > of the LORD 
Eze 6:1 word the > word of the 
Eze 11:11 it > it; 
Eze 17:1 come > came 
Eze 28:1 word the > word of the 
Eze 28:25 when > When 
Eze 45:8 Isral > Israel 
Eze 48:16 An > And 
Da 1:19 them > them; 
Da 2:10 there > There 
Da 8:17 the the > the 
Da 9:24 reconconciliation > reconciliation 
Ho 14:3 your hands > our hands 
Joe 2:20 northen > northern 
Am 1:6 for > For 
Am 2:6 trangressions > transgressions 
Am 5:8 the mout > them out 
Mic 5:4 strengh > strength 
Na 3:4 familes > families 
Na 3:7 see > seek 
Na 3:18 shepsherds > shepherds 
Hag 2:13 it > It 
Zec 1:4 heaken > hearken 
Zec 7:1 of LORD > of the LORD 
Mt 2:2 where > Where 
Mt 4:1 spirit > Spirit 
Mt 7:21 me > me, 
Mt 8:31 v.21 > v.31 
Mt 10:1 pow- [against] > power [against] 
Mt 15:32 v.22 > v.32 
Mt 16:22 LORD > Lord 
Mt 17:26 from > From 
Mt 21:21 If > if 
Mt 21:41 he > He 
Mt 25:17 two. > two, 
Mt 26:8 to > To 
Mt 26:40 alseep > asleep 
Mt 27:65 said them > said to them 
Mr 6:1 Juda > Judas 
Mr 7:26 Syro-phenician > Syrophenician 
Mr 9:21 from > From 
Mr 9:50 yourselvs > yourselves 
Mr 10:45 ranson > ransom 
Mr 11:14 let > Let 
Lu 3:30 Juda > Judah 
Lu 3:33 Juda > Judah 
Lu 3:34 Nachor > Nahor 
Lu 3:34 Thara > Terah 
Lu 3:35 Saruch > Serug 
Lu 3:35 Ragau > Reu 
Lu 3:35 Phalec > Peleg 
Lu 3:36 Sem > Shem 
Lu 3:37 Mathusala > Methuselah 
Lu 4:10 he > He 
Lu 5:4 lanch > Lanch 
Lu 5:27 him > him, 
Lu 6:10 as other > as the other 
Lu 6:13 choose > chose 
Lu 10:41 her > her, 
Lu 17:33 peserve > preserve 
Lu 20:6 from > From 
Lu 20:14 the the > the 
Lu 24:34 the > The 
Ac 1:6 the the > the 
Ac 2:18 those, days > those days, 
Ac 12:8 And > and 
Ac 16:18 name Jesus > name of Jesus 
Ac 16:25 prases > praises 
Ac 17:6 word > world 
Ac 18:6 go the > go to the 
Ac 19:17 name, > name 
Ac 22:16 of Lord > of the Lord 
Ro 5:4 patience > patience, 
Ro 9:26 ye > Ye 
Ro 16:1 is Cenchrea > is at Cenchrea 
Ro 16:25 keept > kept 
2Co 8:7 into his > in this 
2Co 11:2 jealously > jealousy 
Eph 4:1 LORD > Lord 
Eph 4:17 LORD > Lord 
Col 1:1 Chirst > Christ 
1Ti 5:18 And > And, 
Tit 2:8 vs.9 > vs.8 
Heb 4:3 the the > the 
Heb 4:5 if > If 
Heb 6:20 Melchizedec > Melchisadec 
Heb 9:19 and and > and 
Heb 11:32 Sampson > Samson 
1Pe 3:12 aad > and 
1Pe 4:15 your > you 
1Jo 3:11 beginning > beginning, 
1Jo 4:11 love another > love one another 
Re 3:22 spirit > Spirit 
Re 4:11 LORD > Lord 
Re 15:6 of temple > of the temple 
Re 17:4 stone > stones 
Re 17:9 wisdom, > wisdom. 
Re 21:20 ninth > ninth, 
All of the OT was examined for representation of the Divine Name, Yahweh. It was discovered the 1833 ed. contained a great number of mistranslations in this regard, with LORD being used where Adonai appears. Also a fair amount of Lord God being reversed with LORD God, when the text reads Adonay Yahwey (Lord GOD). These have all been corrected. 
Preface (1833)
The English version of the sacred scriptures, now in general use, was first published in the year 1611, in the reign of James I. Although the translators made many alterations in the language of former versions, yet no small part of the language is the same, as that of the versions made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 
In the present version, the language is, in general, correct and perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin; peculiarly adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity with beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version ought not to be altered. 
But in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very injurious. 
In my own view of this subject, a version of the scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such words, according to the original languages. That many words in the present version, fail to do this, is certain. My principal aim is to remedy this evil. 
The inaccuracies in grammar, such as `which' for `who', `his' for `its', `shall' for `will', `should' for `would', and others, are very numerous in the present version. 
There are also some quaint and vulgar phrases which are not relished by those who love a pure style, and which are not in accordance with the general tenor of the language. To these may be added many words and phrases, very offensive to delicacy and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I have conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in company without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding, exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy religion. 
These considerations, with the approbation of respectable men, the friends of religion and good judges of this subject, have induced me to undertake the task of revising the language of the common version of the scriptures, and of presenting to the public an edition with such amendments, as will better express the true sense of the original languages, and remove objections to particular parts of the phraseology. 
In performing this task, I have been careful to avoid unnecessary innovations, and to retain the general character of the style. The principal alterations are comprised in three classes. 
The substitution of words and phrases now in good use, for such as are wholly obsolete, or deemed below the dignity and solemnity of the subject 
The correction of errors in grammar 
The insertion of euphemisms, words and phrases which are not very offensive to delicacy, in the place of such as cannot, propriety, be uttered before a promiscuous audience. 
A few errors in the translation, which are admitted on all hands to be obvious, have been corrected; and some obscure passages, illustrated. In making these amendments, I have consulted the original languages, and also several translations and commentaries. In the body of the work, my aim has been to `preserve', but, in certain passages, more clearly to `express', the sense of the present version. 
The language of the Bible has no inconsiderable influence in forming and preserving our national language. On this account, the language of the common version ought to be correct in grammatical construction, and in the use of appropriate words. This is the more important, as men who are accustomed to read the Bible with veneration, are apt to contract a predilection for its phraseology, and thus to become attached to phrases which are quaint or obsolete. This may be a real misfortune; for the use of words and phrases, when they have ceased to be a part of the living language, and appear odd or singular, impairs the purity of the language, and is apt to create a disrelish for it in those who have not, by long practice, contracted a like predilection. It may require some effort to subdue this predilection; but it may be done, and for the sake of the rising generation, it is desirable. The language of the scriptures ought to be pure, chaste, simple and perspicuous, free from any words or phrases which may excite observation by their singularity; and neither debased by vulgarisms, nor tricked out with the ornaments of affected elegance. 
As there are diversities of tastes among men, it is not to be expected that the alterations I have made in the language of the version will please all classes of readers. Some persons will think I have done too little; others, too much. And probably the result would be the same, were a revision to be executed by any other hand, or even by the joint labors of many hands. All I can say is, that I have executed this work in the manner which, in my judgment, appeared to be the best. 
To avoid giving offense to any denomination of christians, I have not knowingly made any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar tenets. 
In this country there is no legislative power which claims to have the right to prescribe what version of the scriptures shall be used in the churches, or by the people. And as all human opinions are fallible, it is doubtless for the interest of religion that no authority should be exerted in this case, except by commendation. 
At the same time, it is very important that all denominations of christians should use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises and controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform. Alterations in the popular version should not be frequent; but the changes incident to all living languages render it not merely expedient, but necessary at times to introduce such alterations as will express the true sense of the original languages, in the current language of the age. A version thus amended may require no alteration for two or three centuries to come. 
In this undertaking, I subject myself to the charge of arrogance; but I am not conscious of being actuated by any improper motive. I am aware of the sensitiveness of the religious public on this subject; and of the difficulties which attend the performance. But all men whom I have consulted, if they have thought much on the subject, seem to be agreed in the opinion, that it is high time to have a revision of the common version of the scriptures; although no person appears to know how or by whom such revision is to be executed. In my own view, such revision is not merely a matter of expedience, but of moral duty; and as I have been encouraged to undertake this work, by respectable literary and religious characters, I have ventured to attempt a revision upon my own responsibility. If the work should fail to be well received, the loss will be my own, and I hope no injury will be done. I have been painfully solicitous that no error should escape me. The reasons for the principal alterations introduced, will be found in the explanatory notes. 
he Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is `good', and the best corrector of all that is `evil', in human society; the `best' book for regulating the temporal concerns of men, and the `only book' that can serve as an infallible guide to future felicity. With this estimate of its value, I have attempted to render the English version more useful, by correcting a few obvious errors, and removing some obscurities, with objectionable words and phrases; and my earnest prayer is, that my labors may not be wholly unsuccessful. 
N. W.
New Haven, September, 1833.
Note.--The copy used by the compositors was the quarto Bible, prepared for the press by the late President Witherspoon, and published by the late Isaac Collins, of New York. The proof-sheets were read and compared by another copy, either one published by the American Bible Society, or a copy from the authorized Edinburgh press, or other approved edition. No material differences in the copies have been discovered. 
Introduction (abridged, from 1833 ed.)
he principal alterations in the language of the common version of the Scriptures, made in this edition, stated and explained. 
`Who' is substituted for `which', when it refers to persons.
`Its' is substituted for `his', when it refers to plants and things without life. 
`To' is used for `unto'. This latter word is not found in the Saxon books, and as it is never used in our present popular language, it is evidently a modern compound. The first syllable `un' adds nothing to the signification or force of `to'; but by increasing the number of unimportant syllables, rather impairs the strength of the whole clause or sentence in which it occurs. It has been rejected by almost every writer, for more than a century. 
`Why' is substituted for `wherefore', when inquiry is made; as, "'why' do the wicked live?" Job 21.7. 
`My' and `thy' are generally substituted for `mine' and `thine', when used as adjectives. The latter are wholly obsolete. 
`Wherein', `therein', `whereon', `thereon', and other similar compounds, are not wholly obsolete, but are considered, except in technical language, inelegant. I have not wholly rejected these words, but have reduced the number of them; substituting ` in which', `in that' or `this', `in it', `on which', &. 
`Assemble', `collect', or `convene', for the tautological words `gather together'. In some cases, `gather' is retained and `together' omitted as superfluous. `Collection' for `gathering together'. Gen. 1.10. 
`Know' or `knew', for `wist', `wit' and `wot'. Ex. 16.15. Gen. 21.26, &. 
Part' for `deal', as a tenth `part' of flour. Ex. 29.40. `Deal', in this sense, is wholly antiquated. 
`Bring' for `fetch', in most cases.
`Suppose' for `trow'. Luke 17.9.
`Falsehood' for `leasing'. Ps. 4.2; 5.6.
`Skillful' for `cunning', when used of `persons'; and `curious' for the same word, when applied to things. Gen. 23.27; Ex. 26.1, &. 
`Surely' or `certainly', for, " of a `surety'." The latter word is now used exclusively for `security' against loss, or for the person who gives bail for another. In the phrase `of a surety', the word is now improper. Gen. 15.13, &. 
`Number' for `tell', when used in the sense of count. Gen. 15.5, &. 
`Sixty' for `three score', and `eighty' for `four score'. `Two score' and `five score' are never used. It appears to me most eligible to retain but one mode of specifying numbers. Uniformity is preferable to diversity. Gen. 25.26; Ex. 7.7, &. 
`Go' or `depart', for `get thee', `get you', `get ye'. Gen. 12.1; 19.14; 34.10, &. 
`Evening' for `even' and `even-tide'. Gen. 19.1, &c 
`Expire', generally for `give' or `yield up the ghost', Gen. 49.33, &c. or yield the breath. Job 11.20; 14.10. 
`Custody', in some cases, for `ward'. Gen. 40.3, &c. 
`Perhaps' or `it may be', in some cases, for `peradventure'. Gen. 27.12; 31.31, &c. 
`Cows' for `kine'. The latter is nearly obsolete, and the former is used in several passages of the version; it is therefore judged expedient to render the language uniform. Gen. 32.15, &c. 
`Employment' or `occupation' for `trade'. The latter, as the word is now used, is improper. Gen. 46.32.34. 
`Severe', `grievous' or `distressing', for `sore', and corresponding adverbs, or `bitterly' for `sorely'. Gen. 41.56,57, &c. In some passages, a different word is used. See Gen. 19.9; Judges 10.9. 
`People' or `persons', for folk. Gen. 33.15; Mark 6.5, &c. 
`Kinsmen' for `kinsfolk'. Job 19.14; Luke 2.44, &c. 
`Male-child' for `man-child'. Gen. 17.10, &c. 
`Interest' for `usury'. Usury originally signified what is now called `interest', or simply a compensation for the use of money. The Jews were not permitted to take `interest' from their brethren for the use of money loaned; and when the Levitical law forbids the taking of `usury', the prohibition intended is that of any `gain' or `compensation' for the use of money or goods. Hence, `usury' in the scriptures is what we call `interest'. The change of signification in the word `usury', which now denotes unlawful interest, renders it proper to substitute `interest' for `usury'. Ex. 22.25; Lev. 25.36, &c. 
`Hinder' for `let', Rom. 1.13: `Restrain'. 2Thess. 2.7.
`Number' for `tale', when the latter has that signification. Ex. 5.8, &c. 
`Button' for `tache'. Ex. 26.6, &c
`Ate', in many cases, for `did eat'. Gen. 3.6; 27.25, &c. 
`Boiled' for `sodden'. Ex. 12.9; Lev. 6.28, &c.
`Strictly' for `straitly'. Gen. 43.7; Ex. 13.19; 1 Sam. 14.28. 
`Staffs' for `staves'. It seems that `staves', in the translation, is used for the plural of `staff'; an anomaly, I believe, in our language. The consequence is, in this country, it coincides in orthography with the plural of `stave', a piece of timber used in making casks, an entirely different word, in modern usage. I have given the word its regular plural form. Ex. 25.13; 40.20, &c. 
`Capital' for `chapiter', the top of a column; the latter being entirely obsolete. Ex. 36.38; 38.28, &c. 
`Fortified' for `fenced' and `defenced'. `Fence', `fenced', are not now used in the sense which they generally have in the present version of the scriptures. As applied to cities and towns, the sense is now expressed by `fortify', `fortified'. Deut. 3.5; Num. 32.17; Is. 36.1, &c. 
`Repent' for `repent him'. The latter form is wholly obsolete. Deut. 32.36; Ps. 90.13, &c. 
`Invite' for `bid', when the latter has this signification. Zeph. 1.7; Matt. 22.9; Luke 14.12, &c. 
`Advanced' for `stricken', in age or years. Gen. 18.11; Josh.13.1, &c. 
`Encamped' for `pitched', when applied to troops, companies, or armies; but `pitched' used of `tents' is retained. Ex. 17.1; Num. 12.16. 
`Explore', in some passages, for `spy out'. Num. 13.16; 21.32. 
`Profane' for `pollute', in a few instances. See Is. 56.2.6; Jer. 34.16. To `pollute' the sabbath, to `pollute' the name of God, are expressions unknown in modern usage. 
`Melted' for `molten', when used as a participle. Ezek. 24.11; Micah 1.4. 
`Cover' for `shroud'. Ezek. 31.3.
`Border' or `limit', for `coast'. In present usage, `coast' is never used to express the border, frontier, or extremity of a kingdom, or district of inland territory. Its application is wholly or chiefly to land contiguous to the sea. Its application in the scriptures is, in most cases, to a border of inland territory. For this word I have therefore substituted, in this sense, `border' or `limit'. Deut. 19.8; Ex. 10.14, &c. Its use in most passages of scripture is as improper now, as the `coast' of Worcester, in Massachusetts, or the `coast' of Lancaster, in Pennsylvania. 
`Creeping animal' for `creeping thing'. The word `thing' signifies an event, as in the phrase, "after these things." In popular usage, it is applied to almost any substance, but its application to an animal is improper, and vulgar. Indeed, such application often implies contempt. Besides, this application makes no distinction between an `animal' and a `plant'. A `creeping thing' is more properly a `creeping plant', than a `reptile'. Gen. 1.24.26, &c. 
`Food' for `meat'. In the common English version of the scriptures, `meat' never signifies flesh only, but `food' in general, provisions or whatever is eaten by animals for nourishment. Fruits, grass, herbs, as well as flesh are denominated `meat'. Gen. 1.29,30. But the word is now used almost exclusively for flesh used or intended for food for mankind. For this word I have therefore substituted `food', except in a few cases, where the plural is used, `food' not admitting the plural number. But I have retained `meat-offering', though composed of vegetable substances. We have no word in use which can be substituted for it; and it has acquired a kind of technical application, so to speak, which renders it expedient to retain it. See Gen. 1.29,30; Deut. 20.20; Matt. 3.4, &c. 
`Shun' for `eschew'. Job 1.1.8; 2.3; 1 Pet. 3.11. `Shun' seems to be a more correct word to express the idea, than `avoid'; for a person may `avoid' evil, without intending it; `shun' implies intention. 
`Plant' or `herb', for `hay'. Prov. 27.25; Is. 15.6. `Hay' is dried grass or herbs. The use of `hay', therefore, in the passages cited is improper. What a strange expression must this appear to be to a farmer in our country. "The `hay' appeareth, and the tender grass showeth itself." 
`Provision' for `victual' or `victuals'. In the singular number, `victual' is now wholly obsolete; and its signification in the plural is much more limited than that in which it occurs in several passages of the scriptures, which extends to provisions in general, whether prepared for eating or not. In present usage, `victuals' are articles for food dressed or prepared for the table. When the word, in our version, is not thus limited, I have substituted for it `provisions'. Gen. 14.11; Josh. 1.11 , &c. 
`Treated' for `entreated', when it signifies to use, or entertain. Gen. 12.16; Ex. 5.22. 
`Afflict', `harass', `oppress', `distress', or a word of like import for `vex'. This word has suffered a material change or limitation, since our version of the scriptures was made. In that version, it is equivalent to `afflict', `harass', `distress' , `grieve', in a general or indefinite sense; in modern usage, it is nearly synonymous with `irritate', a limited sense, I believe, not intended in any passage of scripture, unless there may be three or four exceptions, in which I have retained the word. Num. 25.17; 20.15; 33.55; Judges 10.8; Lev. 18.18, &c. 
`Afflict' for `plague'. Plague, as used in our version, comprehends almost any calamity that befalls man or beast. But used as a verb, it is now too low or vulgar for a scriptural word. I have therefore used in the place of it, `afflict'. Gen. 12.17; Ex. 32.35; Ps. 73.5, 14. 
`Multiply' for `increase'. `Multiply' is properly applied to numbers; `increase' to size, dimensions, or quantity. Hence, in some passages of the present version, it is improperly used, and I have substituted for it `increase'. Deut. 8.13. On the other hand, I have, when the sense requires it, inserted `multiply' for `increase'. Hosea 10.1. 
`Killed' for `slew'. In Daniel 3.22, we read that the flame of the fire `slew' the men that threw Shadrach and his companions into the furnace. This use of `slew' is improper, so much so, that the most illiterate man would perceive the impropriety of it. `Slay' is used to denote killing by striking with any weapon whatever; but we never say a man is `slain' by poison, by drowning, or by burning. This distinction proceeds from the original signification of `slay', which was to `strike'. See Acts 13.28. 
`Diffuse'. "The lips of the wise `disperse' knowledge." Prov. 15.7. To `disperse' is to dissipate or scatter so as to destroy the thing. This cannot be the meaning of the author. He meant to say, `spread' or `diffuse' knowledge. 
`Careful', `carefulness' had formerly a more intensive sense, that at present. `Carefulness' is now always a virtue; formerly it had the sense of anxiety, or undue solicitude. Paul says to the Corinthians, "I would have you without `carefulness'." 1 Cor. 7.32. But certainly the apostle did not mean to condemn the due caution now expressed by that word. The distinction in the uses of this word is clearly marked in Phil. 4. verses 6, 10. In verse 6th the apostle writes "Be `careful' for nothing;" yet in verse 10th he commends the Philippians for being `careful'. These apparent discrepancies are easily removed by substituting `anxious' or `solicitous' for careful, when it evidently has this signification. See Jer. 17.8; Ezek. 12. 18,19; Luke 10.41; 1 Cor. 7.32,33,34. 
`Furniture' for `carriage'. The word `carriage', in our common version, signifies `that which is carried', or in our present usage, `baggage'; such things as travelers and armies carry for their accommodation. It never signifies a vehicle on wheels, although I am convinced that it is thus understood by men of good common education. I have substituted for it `furniture', judging `baggage' not to be a suitable word to be introduced into the text. I have, however, inserted an explanatory note in the margin, Judges 18.21; 1 Sam. 17.22. If the word `carriages', used Isa. 46.1, was intended to signify `vehicles', it is a mistake; it is not the sense of the Hebrew. And if intended for `loading', then the following words are improper. 
`Revive' or `vivify' for `quicken'. The latter word in scripture signifies to `revive', to `give new life' or `animate'. It is now used in the sense of `accelerate'. `Quick' is sometimes used in scripture for `living', as the `quick' and dead. I have , for the verb, substituted `revive' or `vivify', and for the adjective, `living'. Ps. 71.20; Acts 10.42, &c. 
`Terrify' or `drive away' for `fray'; the latter being entirely obsolete, and not generally understood. Deut. 28.26 ; Jer. 7.33; Zech. 1.27. 
`Vomit' for `spew'. Lev. 18.28; Rev. 3.16, &c.
`Avenge' for `revenge'. These words seem to have been used synonymously in former times; but in modern usage, a distinction between them is, if I mistake not, well established; `revenge' implying malice, and `avenge' expressing just vindication. If so, the use of `revenge', as applied to the Supreme Being, is improper. I have therefore substituted for it `avenge'. Nahum 1.2. 
`Deride' for `laugh to scorn'. The latter phrase is nearly obsolete. 2 Kings 19.21; Nehem. 2.19, &c. 
`Fornication'. This word, in modern laws and usage, has acquired a technical meaning more limited than its signification in the scriptures. For which reason among others, I have generally substituted for it a word of more comprehensive signification, generally `lewdness'. 
`Uncover', `make bare', `open', `disclose', reveal', for `discover'. The original and proper sense of `discover' is to `uncover', and there are phrases in which it is still used in that sense. But its present signification most generally is, to `find', `see', or `perceive' for the first time. In most passages in our version of the scriptures, it has the sense of `uncover', `make bare', or `expose' to `view'. In Micah 1.6, the Lord says by the prophet, "I will `discover' the foundations" of Samaria. But surely the all-seeing God had nothing to find or see for the first time. The sense of the word is to uncover, to lay bare. See Prov. 25.9; Isa. 3.17: Lam. 4:22; Job 12.22 Ezek. 13.14, &c. Two or three other alterations of this word would have been made, had the propriety of them occurred to me in due season. 
`Ask', or `inquire', for `demand'. The French original of this word properly signifies simply to `ask'; but usage has, in some measure, altered its signification in English. In our language, the word implies `right', `authority', or `claim' to an answer, or to something sought. Thus in Exodus 5.14, the inquiry made, implies an authority assumed by the task-masters of Egypt, or a right to know the reason why the Israelites had not performed their tasks. So Daniel 2.27; Job 38.3; 40.7. But in 2 Samuel 11.7, David did not demand of Uriah, but simply `inquire'. In Luke 3.14, the improper use of `demanded' is more striking. That the soldiers should `demand' any thing from Christ is not to be supposed. So Luke 17.20; Acts 21.33. But the most objectionable instance of the use of `demand' is in Job 42.4, where Job, addressing the Supreme Being, says, "I will `demand' of thee, and declare thou to me." I have, in such instances, used `ask' or `inquire', which is the true sense of the original. 
`Would God', `would to God'. These phrases occur in several passages in which they are not authorized by the original language, in which the name of the Supreme Being is not used; but the insertion of them in the version, has given countenance to the practice of introducing them into discourses and public speeches, with a levity that is incompatible with a due veneration for the name of God. In Job 14.13, the same Hebrew words are rendered `O that', the common mode of expressing an ardent wish; and I have used the same words in other passages. See Ex. 16.3; Deut. 28.67. 
`God forbid', is a phrase which may be viewed in the same light as the foregoing. It is several times used in the version, and without any authority from the original languages, for the use of the name of God. The Greek phrase thus rendered in the New Testament, signifies only "Let it not be," or "I wish it not to be." I cannot think it expedient to suffer the phrase "God forbid," to stand in the text, for the reason assigned in the foregoing paragraph. And it is to be regretted that a practice prevails of using it in common discourse. I have followed Macknight in using for these words, `By no means'. 
`God speed'. 2 John 10.11. This phrase must originally have been "God speed you;" that is, God give you welfare or success, or it is a mistake for `good speed'. It could not have been the first, for then the whole phrase must have been, "Bid him God speed you." The fact undoubtedly is, the phrase was originally `good speed'. In Saxon, `good' and God' are uniformly written alike; `god', the adjective, we now write `good', and we write goodman, Goodwin, although the English write `Godwin'. In the phrase used in scripture, which seems to have been formerly proverbial, the Saxon `god' for `good' has continued to be written with a single vowel, and the word being mistaken for the name of the Supreme Being, it came to be written with a capital initial, `God'. The Greek word is a term of salutation; the same word is used, Luke 1.28, in the address of the angel to Mary, where it is rendered `Hail', and in Matt. 28.9, `All hail'. But `God speed', as now used, is as improper as `God welfare', `God success', or `God happiness'. In a grammatical point of view, nothing can be mote absurd; it is neither grammar nor sense. And it is to be regretted, that such an outrage upon propriety continues to be used in discourse. 
`Prevent'. This word is many times used in the version, but not in the sense in which it is now universally used. Indeed, so different are its scriptural uses, that probably very few readers of common education understand it. I have had recourse to the ablest expositors, English and German, to aid me in expressing the sense of the word in the several passages in which it is used. 2 Sam. 22.6; Job 3.12; and 30.27; Ps. 18.5,18; 21.3; 59.10; 119. 147,148; Isa.21.14. 
`Take no thought'. It is probable that this phrase formerly had a more intensive signification than it has at present. In Matt. 6.25, 27,31,34, the phrase falls far short of the force, or real meaning of the original. I have expressed the idea by `Be not anxious'. So in Luke 12.22,26. 
`By and by'. This phrase as used in the scriptures denotes `immediately', without an interval of time. In present usage, it seems rather to indicate `soon', but not `immediately'. Matt. 13.21; Luke 17.7; and 21.9. 
`Presently'. This word in the scriptures signifies `immediately'. Matt. 21.19. 
`Insane' for `mad'. In our popular language, `mad' more generally signifies `very angry', which is not always its signification in the common version. I have therefore, in some instances expressed the sense by `insane' or `enraged', words less likely to be misapprehended by our common people than `mad'. John 10.20; Acts 12,15; and 26.11,24; 1 Cor. 14.23. 
`Healed' for `made whole'. When persons recover from sickness, we never say they are `made whole'. This phrase is proper only when some part of the body is broken. John 5.6. `Whole' is not the proper word to be set in opposition to `sick'. It should be `well' or `in health'. Matt. 9.12. 
`Conversation'. This word, in our version, never has the sense of `mutual discourse', which is its signification in present usage. It now retains the signification it had formerly, chiefly as a technical law term, as in indentures. Its sense in the Bible comprehends the whole moral conduct in social life, and I have used in the place of it `manner of life', or `deportment', chiefly the former, as `deportment', in ordinary use, is, perhaps, not sufficiently comprehensive. When it occurs, however, it is intended to embrace all that is understood by `manner of life', or `course of conduct'. Ps. 37. 14; 2 Cor. 1.12; Gal. 1.13, &c. 
`Offend'. I have, in some passages, substituted for this word, the words, `cause to sin', or `to fall into sin'. In other places I have explained it in a marginal note. 
`Close vessel' for `bushel'. Matt. 5.15, &c. There is now, I believe, no vessel of the measure of a bushel, in common use. The Jews used lamps, not candles, which such a measure would extinguish. I have, therefore, substituted `close vessel'. `Vessel' is used Luke 8.16. 
`Agitate', or `stir', for `trouble'. The application of `trouble' to water or other substance, in the sense of `stirring', is wholly obsolete. John 5.4,7; Ezek. 32.2; Prov. 25.26. Yet from the scriptures we retain the phrase "troubled waters." 
`Travail', with this orthography, is now used only or chiefly for the labor of child-birth. In other senses, I have substituted for it `labor' or `toil'. Eccl. 1.13; 2.23; 1 Thess. 2.8. 
Hungry for `an hungred'. Matt. 25.35, &c.
`Convicted' for `convinced'. James 2.9. See also John 8.46; Jude 15. 
`Strain out a gnat'. Matt. 23.24. The words in our version are "strain `at' a gnat." It is unaccountable that such an obvious error should remain uncorrected for more than two centuries. The Greek signifies to `strain out a gnat', as by passing liquor through a colander or a filter. It is not a doubtful point. `At' may have been a misprint for `out', in the first copies. 
`Foresaw', in Acts 2.25, is a mis-translation. The sense is not `saw beforehand', but `before' in place, or in presence. I have omitted the prefix, `fore'. The propriety of this is determined by the original passage. Ps. 16.8. 
`Constrain, for `compel'. Matt. 5.41. `Compel' may or does imply physical force; `constrain' implies moral as well as physical force, and this seems to be the most proper word. 
`Froward', Ps. 18.26, appears to me improperly applied to the Supreme Being. In its present signification, it seems to be not merely harsh, but irreverent, and incorrect. I have therefore substituted for it, `thou wilt contend'. See also 2 Sam. 22.27. 
`Earnestly' for `instantly'. Luke 7.4. 
`Man' for `fellow'. The latter word is several times inserted in our version, without any authority in the original: it implies contempt, which may have been felt, but a translator should not, I think, add to the original what is not certainly known to have been the fact. I have in the place of it inserted `man'. Gen. 19.9; Matt. 12.24, &c. 
`Body of soldiers'. The troops with which Claudius rescued Paul, Acts 23.27, cannot be called an `army', as the word is now understood. 
`Many people' are the words substituted for `much' people. Numb. 20.20; Mark 5.21, &c. 
`The door shall be opened'. Matt. 7.7. The word door is not in the original, but is necessarily implied in the verb. 
`Staff'. Matt. 10.10. The original Greek word is in the singular number. 
`Master of the house'. Luke 22.11. The phrase, `good man of the house', is not warranted by the original, which signifies `master of the house'. At the time the Bible was translated, it was customary to call men by the title, `good man', instead of `Mr'. It is seen on the records of the first settlers in New England; but if it was ever proper in our version, which can hardly be admitted, it is now improper. 
`Sat at meat'. This phrase is improper on more accounts than one. The ancients did not `sit' at table, but lay down or reclined on the left elbow. I have retained the word `sit' or `sat', however, but have inserted in the margin an explanatory note. `At meat', is obsolete, and I have substituted `at table' or `eating'. 
`Foreign' for `strange'. The latter word often signifies `foreign' or `not native', and in a few instances I have substituted for it `foreign'. In doubtful cases, no change is made. Heb. 11.9; Acts 7.6. See Ezra 10.2; Acts 26.11; 1 Kings 11.1,8. 
`Boat for `ship'. In the New Testament, the words designating the vessels which were used on the lake of Tiberias, are generally rendered `ship'. This is wholly improper. Those vessels were `boats', either with or without sails. No `ship', in the present sense of this word, could be used on a small lake. Besides, we have evidence from the facts stated in the evangelists, that the vessels were small; otherwise they would not have been "covered with the waves," Matt. 8.24; nor "rowed" with oars, Mark 6.48. In Luke 5, it is said that both ships were filled with the fish taken in a net, so that they began to sink. Surely these were not `ships'. In John 6.22,23, these `ships' are called `boats', which is the most proper word, and that which I have used. 
`Go thy way, he went his way'. These and similar forms of expression occur often in the version; but in the New Testament, and sometimes in the Old, the words `thy way, his way, your way', are not in the original, which is simply `go'. The additional words were introduced probably from the Hebrew phraseology, or in conformity to popular use; but they are wholly redundant. I have not been very particular in rejecting the superfluous words; but have done it in some instances. 
Luke 9.61. The words `at home' are redundant. The phrase in Greek is simply `at my house'. 
`Scribe's penknife', Jer. 36.23. The translators have omitted the word `scribe' or `secretary', which is in the Hebrew. It is supposed that in former times, no person had a penknife, but a secretary; or the word `pen' was supposed to include or imply the word `scribe'. I am surprised however that men, so careful generally to translate every Hebrew word, should have omitted this. In the present age, the omission would doubtless be a fault. 
`Safe and sound'. Luke 15.27. This is another instance in which the translators have followed popular use, instead of the original Greek, which signifies simply `well' or in `health'. 
`Living beings'. Rev. 4.6,7. &c. The word `beast', in the low sense the word has in present use, is considered to be very improper in various passages of the Apocalypse. The word signifies animals or living beings; and I have used the latter word as more becoming the dignity of the sacred oracles. 
`Passover' for `Easter'. Acts 12.4. The original is `pascha', passover. 
`Men, brethren'. Acts 13.15. &c. The translators have erred by inserting `and' between these words, which tends to mislead the reader into the opinion that these are addressed as different characters; whereas the sense is `men, brethren, men who are brethren'. 
`How that'. These words are frequently used very improperly, where `manner' is not expressed in the original. The original is simply `that'. This is another instance of an inconsiderate use of popular phrases. 1 Cor. 10.1; 15.3. 
A still more objectionable use of popular language occurs in employing the past tense `might' instead of `may'. When Christ asked the blind man what he desired to have done for him, he replied, "Lord, that I `might' receive my sight." MarK 10.51. So Luke 8.9. What `might' this parable mean? This mode of expression is still common among a certain class of people, who ask a stranger, "Pray, sir, what `might' I call your name?" There are many examples of this improper use of `might', where the sense is more correctly expressed by the present tense, `may'. See John 10.10. 
The old word `yea' is used, in some cases, where it is not warranted by the original; and when the original authorizes some word in this sense, it would be better to substitute for it `even', `indeed', `truly', or `verily'. `Yes' is used in the New Testament, in two or three passages, and I have introduced it for `yea', in several passages of both Testaments. 
Deut. 20.18. The present order of words in this verse may give a sense directly opposite to that which is intended. The Israelites were directed to destroy the Hittites and other heathen nations, to `prevent' the Israelites from adopting their idolatries and vices; but the passage, as it now stands, is, that they, the heathen, may teach the Israelites `not to do' after their own abominations. Surely the heathen would not teach the Israelites to avoid their own practices. By transposing not and placing it before `teach', the ambiguity is removed. 
`Holy Spirit'. The word `ghost' is now used almost exclusively for an `apparition', except in this phrase, Holy Ghost. I hare therefore uniformly used `Holy Spirit'. 
`Demon'. In the scriptures, the Greek daimon is rendered `devil'; but most improperly, as `devil' and `demon' were considered to be different beings. I have followed the commentators on the New Testament, in substituting `demon' in all cases where the Greek is daimon. I cannot think a translator justified in such a departure from the original, as to render the word by `devil'. The original word for `devil' is never plural, there being but one devil mentioned in the scriptures. 
`Hell'. The word `hell' in the Old Testament, and sometimes in the New, is used, not for a place of torment, but for the `grave', `region of the dead', `lower' or `invisible world'; `sheol' in Hebrew, `hades' in Greek. I have in most passages retained the word in the text, but have inserted an explanatory note in the margin. In Ezekiel 31, I have rendered the word `grave' in two or three verses, to make the version conformable to verse 15. 
`Master'. This word is frequently used in the New Testament for `teacher'; doubtless in conformity with the popular or vulgar practice of calling teachers of schools `masters'. I have retained the word, but have added an explanatory note in the margin. 
`Provoke'. This word formerly had, and sometimes still has, the sense of `incite', `excite', or `instigate'. In modern usage, it is generally used in the sense of `irritate'. This requires the substitution of another word for it in 1 Chron. 21.1; Heb. 10.24; 2 Cor. 9.22, in which I have used `incite' or `excite'. Ps. 4. 8. The word `only' is misplaced, and thus it gives a wrong sense. I have placed it next after `thou'. 
`Lord' for `Jehovah'. When the word `Lord' is in small capitals, it stands for `Jehovah' of the original. I have not altered the version, except in a few passages, where the word JEHOVAH seems to be important; as in Isaiah 51.22, where "thy `Lord', the LORD," seem to be at least awkward, if not unintelligible, to an illiterate reader. See also Jer. 32.18, where there is a peculiar propriety in expressing the true name of the Supreme Being. See also Jer. 23.6, and 33.16. 
Ezekiel 38.5. I have followed the Hebrew in the names `Cush' and `Phut'. 
Matt. 27.66. I have transposed the words, in order to place the expression of `security' directly before the means, that is, the watch or guard. This is in accordance with the sense of verse 65. The word `sure' is not the proper word to be used, but `secure'. 
In 1 Thes. 1.4, I have introduced the marginal construction into the text, in accordance with Macknight, and with the punctuation of Griesbach. See 2 Thess. 2.13. 
`On', `upon', for `in', `into'. In the present version, `in' is often used in the Latin sense, for `on', or `upon': so also `into'; as `in' the earth; `into' a mountain. Gen. 1.22; 19.30. This is not good English, according to present usage. 
`Against' for `by'. 1 Cor. 4.4. `By' in this verse must signify `against', or the translation is erroneous. But `by' has not that signification in present usage; I have therefore substituted `against'. 
There are many passages in which the translators have inserted and improperly, between clauses which are in apposition, and ought not to be made distinct. In 1 Cor. 4.13, the words `and are' appear to give a sense not intended by the apostle. "We are made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things." So stands the original; but by the insertion of `and are', the apostle is made to say not only that we are in estimation made as the filth of the world, but that `we actually are' the offscouring of all things. 
`Testimony' is substituted for `record', the latter, in this sense, being entirely obsolete. 
`Testimony' is often substituted for `witness', as modern usage inclines to limit the application of `witness' to the person testifying. 
`Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time'. Matt. 5.21,27,33. In our version the passage is, "was said `by' them." Dr. Campbell remarks that all the older versions have `to'; as the Vulgate, Montanus, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Luther and others; and I may add, this is the rendering in the Italian of Diodati, and in the French version published by the American Bible Society. That `to' is the true rendering, seems to be probable, from the fact, that when the original is clearly intended to express the sense of `by', the Greek words are a preposition followed by a noun in the genitive; whereas in the passages under consideration, the noun appears to be in the dative, like other nouns after a verb, signifying to `say' or `speak'. Examples in the same Evangelist may be seen in Matt. 2.15,17,23; 3.3; 4.14; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9; 22.31. 
The affirmation however must be true, with either rendering; for what was said `by' one person, must have been said `to' another. 
`Burden'. Isaiah 13.1. The verb from which the Hebrew word is formed, signifies to `bear', and the noun, `that which is borne' or `conveyed'. But in Latin we find examples of words signifying `to bear' or `carry', from which is derived the sense of `speaking', of which `fero' is an instance: `Fertur', it is said. So from `porto' we have `report'. I would suggest that, in like manner, the Hebrew word rendered `burden', may be rendered `report' or `message'; which, if correct, would be better understood. I have retained `burden' in the text, but have suggested this amendment in the margin. 
`Dodanim'. Gen. 10.4. I have retained this name in the text, although I am well satisfied it ought to be `Rodanim'. My reasons are these. 
1. The Hebrew `Resh' is easily mistaken for a `Daleth', as the letters have a near resemblance. 
2. The most ancient versions of the Pentateuch have Rodanim, particularly the Septuagint and Syriac. 
3. It is not easy to give any probable account of Dodanim. The name is evidently different from `Dedan'. 
4. The sacred penman places this name among the sons of Javan, (Ionia, Dan. 11.2,) which shows that the name belongs to Greece or Europe, not to Africa; and the other names Elishah, Tarshish and Kittim belong to the south of Europe; Elishah being probably Hellas, or interior Greece; Kittim, certain isles in the Levant; and Tarshish, being Tartessus in Spain. I therefore infer that `Rodanim' is `Rodan', [Rhodanus] the original name of the `Rhone', with the termination of Hebrew plural nouns. If so, `Rodanim' signifies the inhabitants of the Rhone or of Gaul, now France. 
The translation of the tenth chapter of Genesis, by the use of the word `sons', instead of `descendants', has, in many instances, led to a misunderstanding of several parts of the chapter. Many of the names of those called `sons' are plural, and represent nations, or tribes, not individuals. 
`On the east side of Jordan'. Deut. 1.1.4; 4.46. The translations of the scriptures differ in the rendering of the Hebrew word for `over', `beyond', `on the other side'. In the Septuagint and Vulgate, this word, in the passages under consideration, is rendered `beyond', [peran, trans.] In the English and several other modern translations, the word is rendered `on this side'; the translations being thus contradictory. This difference has proceeded from the supposed place of the writer of the book of Deuteronomy; the early translators supposing the writer of the passages cited to have been on the `west' side of the Jordan; and the modern translators supposing the writer to have been on the `east' side of that river. With regard to the author of the book in general, there can be no question. But it is most obvious that the first five verses of the first chapter, and the last six verses of the fourth, were written by the compiler; those in the first chapter serving as an introduction to the narrative of Moses, which begins at the sixth verse. That Moses was on the east side of Jordan is certain; but is it not a strange supposition that Moses, addressing the Israelites, should tell them repeatedly on which side of the river he was? In the 47th and 49th verses of chapter fourth, we are informed that the place was on the side of Jordan, `eastward, towards the sun-rising'. As there is no question with respect to the fact, and as the different translations mean the same thing, I have removed all uncertainty on the subject, by using the words, `on the east side of Jordan'. 
`Red Sea'. This appellation of the gulf of Suez, or Arabian Sea, has been so long and generally used, that it may not be expedient to change it. It was first used by the Greeks, and introduced into the Septuagint, from which our translators have adopted it. It is probable that this gulf was formerly called the `Sea of Edom', from the Edomites who inhabited the country on the east of it, which the Greeks called `Idumea'; and as `Edom', in Hebrew, signifies red, the Greeks translated the word `red', and gave to this gulf the appellation of `Red Sea'; a name of no appropriate significancy, as applied to that gulf, for the waters of it are no more red than the water of any other sea, or of the ocean. 
`Suf'. Deut. 1.1. In this passage, the English translators following the Septuagint, have rendered the Hebrew word `Suf', Red Sea; (not `Zuph', as printed in the margin of our Bibles.) This word signifies `sea-weed', and this sense it retains to this day in some of the Gothic dialects. The same word is used in Exodus, with reference to the `Red Sea'; but always in connection with the Hebrew word for `sea'. In the first verse of Deuteronomy, it is used without the Hebrew word for `sea'; and of course the use of `sea' in our translation is not authorized by the original. 
Now in the fifth verse, we are informed that the Israelites were then in the land of Moab, which was on the east side of the `Salt' or `Dead Sea'; two, three, or four hundred miles from the Red Sea, and in a different latitude. The Israelites then could not have been `over against the Red Sea', commonly so called. This would be like saying `Albany is over against Pittsburg'. In the loose way in which the Bible is often read, especially those parts of it which do not immediately concern our salvation, this mistake may have passed unnoticed by most readers; though not by inquisitive commentators. But our young people now study the scriptures with maps of Syria and Egypt. Let any person inspect a good map of those countries, and first see the position of the land of Moab, and then that of the gulf of Suez, and he will perceive at once that the Israelites were `not' over against the Red Sea; and of course he will be embarrassed, or inclined to question the truth of the narrative. 
It may be that the word `Suf' was intended for the Dead or Salt Sea. At any rate, by introducing this Hebrew word into the English version, we are sure to be right, and not expose the scriptures to the charge of error or apparent contradiction. 
If the same word in Num. 21.14, refers to the same place, it ought not to be rendered `Red Sea'. 
`Cush' for `Ethiopia'. Gen. 2.13. By following the Septuagint, in rendering the Hebrew Cush by `Ethiopia', the translators have introduced confusion into the geography of the Bible; and laid the foundation for many mistakes and much skepticism. I well remember that when I supposed `Ethiopia', here mentioned, to be the country now called by this name, my faith in the authenticity of the scriptures was shaken; for I could not conceive how the Euphrates and the Nile, whose sources are several thousand miles distant, could both proceed from Eden. Yet so ignorant of geography were the Greeks and Jews, that even Josephus expressly refers the river Gibon, which "encompassed the whole land of Ethiopia," to the Nile. But there is no difficulty in determining this to be a great mistake. 
`Cush' in Hebrew is in Chaldee `Cuth', and the word in the passage under consideration is undoubtedly the `Cuthah' and `Cuth', mentioned in 2 Kings 17.24.30, the country from which Salmaneser drew inhabitants to re-people Samaria, after the captivity of the ten tribes. It is very probable that the `Cossei' mentioned by Pliny, Lib. vi.27, were the inhabitants of the same country. This author informs us that the Cossei inhabited the country eastward of the `Susiani' in Persia. He also mentions the river Eulaeus, the Ulai of Daniel, the prophet; and says that this river separates the Elymais from the Susiani. 
In Isaiah 11.11, we read that the Israelites were to be recovered from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from `Cush', and from Elam, and from Shinar. `Cush' is here named in connection with Elam and Shinar, as well as with Egypt; and Ethiopia, now so called, cannot be intended by `Cush', as the Israelites were never dispersed into that country; at least, not to any extent, at that period. 
In Isaiah 37.9, we find mention made of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, or Cush, which must have been the same country, as this king was making war upon the king of Assyria. Now if `Cush' here mentioned was the modern Ethiopia, then the Ethiopians of Abyssinia had made war upon Sennacherib, which cannot be supposed. 
There was another `Cush', which is frequently mentioned in the scriptures. This was in Arabia. Moses, when in Midian, near the Red Sea, married a woman called an Ethiopian, but really a `Cushite', one of that nation in Arabia, which invaded Judea in the reign of Asa, with an immense army. These people or their country are mentioned by the prophets in connection with Egypt and Midian. Gen. 10.6; Hab. 3.7; Is. 43.3. With Philistia and Tyre. Ps. 87.4. With the Lubims and Libyans. 2 Chr. 16.8; Dan. 11.43. 
Ezek. 29.10. "I will make the land of Egypt waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene to the border of Ethiopia." This Ethiopia, Cush, cannot be the modern Ethiopia, for Syene was at the extreme border of Egypt on the south, nearly contiguous to Ethiopia, and if the word Cush had been intended for the modern Ethiopia, the district of country here described would not have included Egypt, the country to which the prophecy was applied. 
In 2 Chr. 21.16, we read of Arabians that were `near' the Ethiopians. 
We have then clear evidence that the word `Cush', in the scriptures, refers to two countries, one in Persia, and the other in Arabia; neither of which was the modern Ethiopia. Whether the word, in any passage, refers to the modern Ethiopia, is a question that it is not necessary to discuss in this note. 
The modern Ethiopians are descendants of Arabians. This fact I can affirm from some knowledge of their language, no small part of which is Arabic. The name Abyssinia is modern. It is stated to be formed from an Arabic word `habas' or `chabas', to be black, and a derivative from this is said to signify a mixed multitude. See Castel's Heptaglot Lexicon. However this may be, the modern Ethiopians are descendants from Arabians; but whether they bore the name `Cush', as being the offspring of the Arabian `Cushim', or on account of their color, is not a question of much importance. 
To prevent any mistake from a mistranslation of the name, I have uniformly introduced, into the text of this work, the Hebrew `Cush', except in one instance, Jer. 13.23, where the word refers to color only, without reference to place. The word `Cush' is said to signify black, and if so, `Ethiops', black face, is a translation of the name. By introducing `Cush' into the text, we are sure to be correct. But as no country except Abyssinia is now known as Ethiopia, if the reader of the Bible understands Ethiopia as referring to that country only, he will be many times led into error. Most of the passages of scripture in which `Cush' is mentioned, certainly have reference to a country in Persia, or to a territory in Arabia. 
`Shadow'. There is an established distinction in the significations of `shade' and `shadow', which is entirely disregarded in our version of the scriptures. Perhaps the distinction was not known in England, at the time the version was made. `Shadow' is the obscurity made by the interception of light by an object, in the figure or shape of the object. `Shade' is a like obscurity without reference to figure. `Shade' is used when protection only from the rays of the sun is intended. The farmer, to cool and refresh himself, says, I will go into the `shade' of a tree--never into the `shadow'. Hence, when there is no reference to figure, but to protection only, the word `shade' should always be used. Hence the impropriety of the phrase `shadow of death'. Death is the absence of life, a mere negation of being. In the phrase, `shadow of death', shadow is a figurative word denoting total darkness, deep gloom, and for this idea, the established usage now requires the plural, the `shades of death'. `Shadow' in the sense of a faint resemblance is correct, as it has reference to form, or figure. Col. 2.17; Is. 4.6; 25.4; Dan. 4.12; Hosea 4.13; Jonah 4.5,6; Heb. 8.5; 10.1. 
`Of'. In the use of this word, a great change has taken place, since the present version was made. Its original signification is `from'; but in present use in the scriptures, it is equivalent, in many passages, to `concerning'; in many others, to `by'; in others, to `from'; and in some passages, its signification is, at first view, ambiguous. Thus, `to be sick' of a thing, is generally understood to mean, to be `disgusted' with it or `tired' of it; but to be sick `of' a fever or `of' love, in scripture, is to be affected by it as the cause. In the latter sense, I have substituted `with' for `of'. Cant. 2.5; Matt. 8.14. 
In numerous passages, `of' has the sense of `concerning'. See Acts 13.29; Jude 3. 
In many passages, it signifies `by'. Acts 23. 10; 2Cor. 3.2. 
In Matt. 2.15, it must be rendered `from'. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken `of' the Lord by the prophet." What was spoken was `from' the Lord `by' the prophet. 
In many passages, its meaning may be easily mistaken. Jer. 34.4. "Thus saith the Lord `of' thee;" not Zedekiah's Lord, but `concerning thee'. See also chap. 36.30, and John 7.17,18; 2 Tim. 2.2, and numerous other passages. 
`Of' sometimes denotes belonging to, or apart of. 1 Cor. 12.15. 
The substitution of another word for `of', in order to present the true meaning at first view, is necessary in a multitude of passages. In many phrases, however, the word continues to retain its original sense. 
`Tenses'. At the time the present version of the scriptures was made, the form of the verb which most of our English Grammars arrange in the present tense of the subjunctive mode was in more general use than it has been for the last century; thus, if thou `be', if he `be', though he `have'. This form of the verb is most common in the version of the scriptures; but is far from being uniformly used. The translators seem to have been guided by no rule; and their discrepancies are numerous. James 1.26. "If any man among you `seem' to be religious and `bridleth' not his tongue." See Gen. 4.7; Job 35.6; Deut.24.3.7; Gen.47.6; Lev. 25.14; 6.2,3; Prov. 22.27; 24.10,11,12; 1 Cor. 7.12,13; John 9.31, and many other passages. 
So familiar was the subjunctive form of the verb to the translators, and so little regard had they to any rule for using it, that in the New Testament they have usually rendered the Greek indicative by the English subjunctive; as if thou `be', for if thou `art'. See Matt 4.6; 5.29,30, and numerous other passages. 
In this subjunctive form of the verb, no distinction is made between the present and future time of an action. If thou `be', may stand for if thou `art' or if thou `shalt be'. And such is the fact in a multitude of passages. More generally, the subjunctive form is really an elliptical future. Lev. 25.14. "If thou `sell aught to thy neighbor;" si vendideritis, if thou shalt sell. Matt. 7.9. "If thy son `ask' bread;" si petierit panem. But so heedless of rules were the translators, that in the verse just cited from Leviticus, they have in the second clause given the indicative, "If thou `sell' aught, or `buyest' aught." 
This subjunctive form of the verb in the present tense had, to a great extent, fallen into disuse, in the days of Addison, who, with the best authors of that and the next generation, generally used the indicative form of the verb to express acts, conditional or hypothetical, in present time. I have followed their example, as it is conformable to the most general usage of the present age; and by using `shall' or `will' to express future time, have attempted to render obvious a real distinction in time, which is not so obvious in the subjunctive form of the verb. In the language of modern statutes, both in Great Britain and in the United States, the practice is uniformly to use `shall'. If a man `shall' trespass, if he `shall' be guilty of theft. 
In the use of `shall' and `should' for `will' and `would', the errors of the version are very numerous. `Shall', in the first person, foretells, in the second and third, it promises, determines, threatens or commands. The phrases, you `shall' go, he `shall' go, imply authority in the speaker to promise what the person shall do, or to command him. Hence we never use such language to superiors. No person says to his father, or to a ruler, you `shall' do this or that. Such language is used only to inferiors or persons subject to authority. Hence the extreme impropriety of such phrases as the following, Gen. 41.16, God `shall' give Pharaoh an answer of peace. Neh. 4.20, "Our God `shall' fight for us." When Christ said to Peter, "Before the cock crow, thou `shalt' deny me thrice," he did not command him, nor promise, nor determine; he simply foretold the fact, and therefore the word `will' should be used. 
But the translators, evidently, were guided by no rule; for they often vary the phrase, using `shall' in one clause of a sentence and `will' in another. See Deut. 7.12.13; Luke 5. 37; and 21.7; Ps. 37.4,5,6, compared with Ps. 41.1,2,3; See Ps. 16.10; and Acts 13.35, in which `will' is used in the former and `shall' in the latter. A great number of similar discrepancies occur in the version, and it is probable that in my attempts to correct them, some have been overlooked. In Ps. 17.15, `will' is used for `shall', "I `will' behold." 
Equally faulty is the use of `should' for `would' in many passages; but this fault is less frequent than the use of `shall' for `will'. Heb. 8.4. "For if he were on earth, he `should' not be a priest;" verse7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then `should' no place have been sought for the second." John 13.11, "For he knew who `should' betray him." Such use of `should' is not good English, nor does it express the true sense, as `should' implies duty, equivalent to `ought'. See Job 13.5; John 6.64,71; Acts 23.27; 28.6. 
`Should' is used for `would', Ezra 10.5.
This improper use of the auxiliaries renders the translation inaccurate in hundreds of instances. 
`Plunder' for `spoil'. The verb `to spoil' is susceptible of different senses. In our version, it generally signifies to `plunder', `pillage' or `lay waste'; but in our popular use, it signifies to injure so as to render useless, by any means. To "'spoil' a tent," would not always suggest to an unlettered reader the sense of `plundering'. I have therefore, in some passages, substituted `seize', `plunder' or `lay waste'. Isa. 13.16; 33.1; and others. 
`Edom' for `Idumea'. In two passages, our version has `Idumea' for `Edom', the Greek for the Hebrew. I have retained the Hebrew word, as this will prevent the unlearned reader from supposing Edom and Idumea to be different countries. Isa. 34.5,6. 
`Lord of the whole earth'. In Micah 4.13, there is a misprint in the present version; the word `Lord' in the last line being in capitals, as if the original were `Jehovah'. This is a mistake. I have inserted `Jehovah' in the former part of the verse, according to the Hebrew, and `Lord', in small letters, in the latter part. 
`Meeting'. 1 Sam. 9.14. The importance of avoiding the use of words and phrases of equivocal signification must be obvious. When I was examining the proof sheets of this work, my grand daughter, fourteen years of age was reading the passage above referred to; at the words "Samuel came out against them," she remarked that it was strange "Samuel should come out against Saul," when they were friends. Her first impression was, that the words express enmity, as that is the most obvious signification of the phrase. I availed myself of the suggestion, and inserted the word `meeting' before `them'. 
`Benjaminite'. Benjamin, son of the right hand. What could have induced the translators to reject a part of the last syllable, a component part of the word, and write `Benjamite'? I have reinstated the rejected letters, and added the usual termination. 
In 2 Chron. 13.19, there a is mistake in the English, French and Italian versions, `Ephraim' for the Hebrew `Ephron', which I have corrected. The Septuagint is correct. 
In our version of the scriptures, as in most British books, a very common error is to use intransitive verbs in the passive form, as he `is perished'; they `were escaped'; he `is fled'; the year `was expired'; they `were' departed. 
There is no error in British writers so common and so prominent as this, borrowed probably from the French, in which it is the established usage. Dr. Lowth noticed this fault sixty or seventy years ago, but the practice continues. 
The passive form of the verb always implies the action of an agent. When a word `is' spoken or written, the implication is, that some person has spoken or written it. But when we say "The day `was' expired," the question occurs, who expired it? When it is said "counsel `is' perished," the question is, who perished it? 
`Escape' and `return' are sometimes transitive and sometimes intransitive. `Return', when transitive, admits of the passive form. "The `letter was' returned." But the passive form of the verb when intransitive, is improper, as, "If she `is' returned to her father's house." `Escape', though sometimes transitive, never I believe, admits the passive form. 
It is remarkable that the people of this country, at least in the northern states, in which my observations have been most extensive, rarely fall into this error. Even our common people uniformly say, he `has' perished, he `has' returned, the time `has' expired, the man `has' fled. 
I have corrected this error in the present edition of the Bible; with the exception in some instances of the passive form of `come' and `gone', and occasionally of one or two others, which seems to be too generally used and well established, to be wholly rejected. 
It has been justly observed by Dr. Campbell, that the words `kingdom of heaven' and `of God', have different significations in the New Testament, which ought to be distinguished. I have not altered the text, but have, in some instances, inserted an explanatory note in the margin, corresponding with his ideas. 
In the language of our version, many small words are used, which, in my opinion, are superfluous. In such a phrase as "go forth out of," `forth' and `out of', are synonymous, or so nearly so as to render the use of both unnecessary. I have in some cases retrenched a word in such phrases; and further retrenchments may be made with advantage. The employment of many small words in this manner, when not necessary to convey the meaning, serves to impair the force of expression. 
There are some passages in which the construction is very awkward; and in a few instances, it leads to a wrong signification. In such cases, I have transposed the clauses in such a manner as to place together the parts of a sentence which are closely connected in sense. See 2 Chr. 32.23; Ps. 4.8 ; Jer. 5.17; 32.30; John 19.16,20; Luke 23.8;32.53; Matt. 16.12; 14.9; Rom. 15.31; Deut. 21.8; Isa. 15.5; John 1.45. 
In the New Testament I have altered the Greek orthography of a few names, and made them conformable to the orthography of the Old Testament; as, that of `Elias' to `Elijah'; `Esaias' to `Isaiah'; `Osee' to `Hosea', &c. This will prevent illiterate persons, who compose a large part of the readers of the scriptures, from mistaking the characters. Every obstacle to a right understanding of the scriptures, however small, should be removed, when it can be done in consistency with truth. 
There are many verbal alterations which, it is believed, will appear so obviously proper, that no explanation need be offered. A few other alterations would have been made had the propriety of them occurred, before the sheets were printed. 
Rom. 8.19,20,21. I have been perhaps over-cautious in retaining the present version of this passage. It is obvious to me that the pointing of the Greek copies is wrong. There should be no point between the last word in verse 20 and the first in verse 21, and the word `that' should be substituted for `because'. The mistake doubtless proceeded from considering the Greek `oti' as a conjunction; a mistake that has been the cause of hundreds of errors in the Vulgate. So in our version, Luke 1.45. 
Euphemisms
In no respect does the present version of the scriptures require amendments, more than in the use of many words and phrases which cannot now be uttered, especially in promiscuous company, without violence to decency. In early stages of society, when men are savage or half civilized, such terms are not offensive: but in the present state of refinement, the utterance of many words and passages of our version is not to be endured; and it is well known that some parents do not permit their children to read the scriptures, without prescribing to them the chapters. To retain such offensive language, in the popular version, is, in my view, injudicious, if not unjustifiable; for it gives occasion to unbelievers and to persons of levity, to cast contempt upon the sacred oracles, or call in question their inspiration; and this weapon is used with no inconsiderable effect. 
Further, many words and phrases are so offensive, especially to females, as to create a reluctance in young persons to attend Bible classes and schools, in which they are required to read passages which cannot be repeated without a blush; and containing words which, on other occasions, a child could not utter without rebuke. The effect is, to divert the mind from the `matter' to the `language' of the scriptures, and thus, in a degree, frustrate the purpose of giving instruction. 
Purity of mind is a christian virtue that ought to be carefully cherished; and purity of language is one of the guards which protect this virtue. 
I have attempted to remove, in a good degree, this objection to the version. It was my wish to make some further alterations in this particular; but difficulties occurred which I could not well remove. 
See Gen. 20.18; 29.31; 30.22; 34.30; 38.9,24; Exod. 7.18; 16.24; Levit. 19.29; 21.7; Deut. 22.21; 23.1; 28.57; Judges 2.17; 1 Sam. 1.5; 1 Kings 14.10; 16.11; 21.21; 2 Kings 9.8; 18.27, Job 3.10,11,12; 40.17; Ps. 22.9,10; 38.5; 106.39; Eccles. 11.5; Isa. 36.12; Ezek. ch. 16 and 23; John 11.39; Eph. 5.5, &c. 

$$Weymouth New Testament
Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech: Contents
This text is an abridgement of the documentation that came with the electronic text of Weymouth's New Testament. It covers both the e-text itself and the book it is based on. Weymouth's prefaces <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/wnt.shtml> (included below) paint a picture of a thoughtful, humble, devoted old scholar who fully understood the problems of translation - as well as its inevitable shortcomings. Especially interesting are his remarks on literal translations <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/wnt.shtml>, which are remarkably insightful and balanced. 
Introduction to the Electronic Text
These files were produced by keying for use in the Online Bible. Proofreading was performed by Earl Melton. The printed edition used in creating this etext was the Kregal (ISBN 0-8254-4025-4) reprint of the Ernest Hampden-Cook (1912) Third Edition, of the edition first published in 1909 by J. Clarke, London. 
Due to the plans to add the Weymouth footnotes, the footnote markers have been left in the text and page break indicators. Other special markings are words surrounded with "*" to indicate emphasis, and phrases surrounded with "<>" to indicate bold OT qoutes. See WEYMOUTH.INT in WNTINT.ZIP for the introduction to the text, and information on Weymouth's techniques. 
The most current corrected files can be found on:
Bible Foundation BBS
602-789-7040 (14.4 kbs) 
If any errors are found, please notify me at the above bbs, or at: 
Mark Fuller
1129 East Loyola Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282 USA
(602) 829-8542 
Corrections
Introduction says personal pronouns referring to Jesus, when spoken by other than the author/narrator, are capitalized only when they recognize His deity. The following oversights in the third edition were corrected in subsequent editions. Therefore we feel justified in correcting them in this computer version. 
Mt 22:16 Capitalized `him' 
Mt 27:54 Capitalized `he'. 
Lu 11:49 Added closing quote at end of verse as later editions do. 
Lu 13:6 come > came (changed in later editions) 
Joh 21:20 Capitalized `his' 
Ro 11:16 it > if (an obvious typesetting error corrected in later editions) 
1Co 11:6 out > cut (an obvious typesetting error corrected in later editions) 
Heb 12:6 Capitalized last `HE' (referring to God) 
Php 4:3 the Word `book' in `book of Life' was not capitalized in various printings of the third edition, but it was in later editions. So we have capitalized it here. 
2Ti 1:9 deserts > desserts (misspelling perpetuated in later editions) 
Preface to the First Edition
The Translation of the New Testament here offered to English-speaking Christians is a bona fide translation made directly from the Greek, and is in no sense a revision. The plan adopted has been the following. 
An earnest endeavour has been made (based upon more than sixty years' study of both the Greek and English languages, besides much further familiarity gained by continual teaching) to ascertain the exact meaning of every passage not only by the light that Classical Greek throws on the langruage used, but also by that which the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures afford; aid being sought too from Versions and Commentators ancient and modern, and from the ample et cetera of apparatus grammaticus and theological and Classical reviews and magazines - or rather, by means of occasional excursions into this vast prairie. 
The sense thus seeming to have been ascertained, the next step has been to consider how it could be most accurately and naturally exhibited in the English of the present day; in other words, how we can with some approach to probability suppose that the inspired writer himself would have expressed his thoughts, had he been writing in our age and country. 
Lastly it has been evidently desirable to compare the results thus attained with the renderings of other scholars, especially of course witll the Authorized and Revised Versions. But alas, the great majority of even "new translations," so called, are, in reality, only Tyndale's immortal work a little - often very litlle - modernized! 
But in the endeavour to find in Twentieth Century English a precise equivalent for a Greek word, phrase, or sentence there are two dangers to be guarded against. There are a Scylla and a Charybdis. On the one hand there is the English of Society, on the other hand that of the utterly uneducated, each of these patois having also its own special, though expressive, borderland which we name `slang.' But all these salient angles (as a professor of fortification might say) of our language are forbidden ground to the reverent translator of Holy Scripture. 
But again, a modern translation - does this imply that no words or phrases in any degree antiquated are to be admitted? Not so, for great numbers of such words and phrases are still in constant use. To be antiquated is not the same thing as to be obsolete or even obsolescent, and without at least a tinge of antiquity it is scarcely possible that there should be that dignity of style that befits the sacred themes with which the Evangelists and Apostles deal. 
It is plain that this attempt to bring out the sense of the Sacred Writings naturally as well as accurately in present-day English does not permit, except to a limited extent, the method of literal rendering - the verbo verbum reddere at which Horace shrugs his shoulders. Dr. Welldon, recently Bishop of Calcutta, in the Preface (p. vii) to his masterly translation of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, writes, "I have deliberately rejected the principle of trying to translate the same Greek word by the same word in English, and where circumstances seemed to call for it I have sometimes used two English words to represent one word of the Greek;" - and he is perfectly right. With a slavish literality delicate shades of meaning cannot be reproduced, nor allowance be made for the influence of interwoven thought, or of the writer's ever shifting - not to say changing - point of view. An utterly ignorant or utterly lazy man, if possessed of a little ingenuity, can with the help of a dictionary and grammar give a word-for-word rendering, whether intelligible or not, and print `Translation' on his title-page. On the other hand it is a melancholy spectacle to see men of high ability and undoubted scholarship toil and struggle at translation under a needless restriction to literality, as in intellectual handcuffs and fetters, when they might with advantage snap the bonds and fling them away, as Dr. Welldon has done: more melancholy still, if they are at the same time racking their brains to exhibit the result of their labours - a splendid but idle philological tour de force - in what was English nearly 300 years before. 
Obviously any literal translation cannot but carry idioms of the earlier language into the later, where they will very probably not be understood; and more serious still is the evil when, as in the Jewish Greek of the N T, the earlier language of the two is itself composite and abounds in forms of speech that belong to one earlier still. For the N.T. Greek, even in the writings of Luke, contains a large number of Hebrew idioms; and a literal rendering into English cannot but partially veil, and in some degree distort, the true sense, even if it does not totally obscure it (and that too where perfect clearness should be attained, if possible), by this admixture of Hebrew as well as Greek forms of expression. 
It follows that the reader who is bent upon getting a literal rendering, such as he can commonly find in the R.V. or (often a better one) in Darby's New Testament, should always be on his guard against its strong tendency to mislead. 
One point however can hardly be too emphatically stated. It is not the present Translator's ambition to supplant the Versions already in general use, to which their intrinsic merit or long familiarity or both have caused all Christian minds so lovingly to cling. His desire has rather been to furnish a succinct and compressed running commentary (not doctrinal) to be used sidc by side with its elder compeers. And yet there has been something of a remoter hope. It can scarcely be doubted that some day the attempt will be renewed to produce a satisfactory English Bible - one in some respects perhaps (but assuredly with great and important deviations) on the lines of the Revision of 1881, or even altogether to supersede both the A.V. and the R.V.; and it may be that the Translation here offered will contribute some materials that may be built into that far grander edifice. 
THE GREEK TEXT here followed is that given in the Translator's Resultant Greek Testament. 
Of the VARIOUS READINGS only those are here given which seem the most important, and which affect the rendering into English. They are in the footnotes, with V.L. (varia lectio) prefixed. As to the chief modern critical editions full details will be found in the Resultant Greek Testament, while for the original authorities - MSS., Versions, Patristic quotations - the reader must of necessity consult the great works of Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others, or the numerous monographs on separate Books. In the margin of the R.V. a distinction is made between readings supported by "a few ancient authorities," "some ancient authorities," "many ancient authorities," and so on. Such valuation is not attempted in this work. 
Considerable pains have been bestowed on the exact rendering of the tenses of the Greek verb; for by inexactness in this detail the true sense cannot but be missed. That the Greek tenses do not coincide, and cannot be expected to coincide with those of the English verb; that - except in narrative - the aorist as a rule is more exactly represented in English by our perfect with "have" than by our simple past tense; and that in this particular the A.V. is in scores of instances more correct than the R.V.; the present Translator has contended (with arguments which some of the best scholars in Britain and in America hold to be "unanswerable" and "indisputable") in a pamphlet On the Rendering into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect. Even an outline of the argument cannot be given in a Preface such as this. 
But he who would make a truly English translation of a foreign book must not only select the right nouns, adjectives, and verbs, insert the suitable prepositions and auxiliaries, and triumph (if he can) over the seductions and blandishments of idioms with which he has been familiar from his infancy, but which, though forcible or beautiful with other surroundings, are for all that part and parcel of that other language rather than of English: he has also to beware of connecting his sentences in an un-English fashion. 
Now a careful examination of a number of authors (including Scottish, Irish, and American) yields some interesting results. Taking at haphazard a passage from each of fifty-six authors, and counting on after some full stop till fifty finite verbs - i.e. verbs in the indicative, imperative, or subjunctive mood - have been reached (each finite verb, as every schoolboy knows, being the nucleus of one sentence or clause), it has been found that the connecting links of the fifty-six times fifty sentences are about one-third conjunctions, about one-third adverbs or relative and interrogative pronouns, while in the case of the remaining third there is what the grammarians call an asyndeton - no formal grammatical connexion at all. But in the writers of the N.T. nearly two-thirds of the connecting links are conjunctions. It follows that in order to make the style of a translation true idiomatic English many of these conjunctions must be omitted, and for others adverbs, &c., must be substituted. 
The two conjunctions for and therefore are discussed at some length in two Appendices to the above-mentioned pamphlet on the Aorist, to which the reader is referred. 
The NOTES, with but few exceptions, are not of the nature of a general commentary. Some, as already intimated, refer to the readings here followed, but the great majority are in vindication or explanation of the renderings given. Since the completion of this new version nearly two years ago, ill-health has incapacitated the Translator from undertaking even the lightest work. He has therefore been obliged to entrust to other hands the labour of critically examining and revising the manuscript and of seeing it through the press. This arduous task has been undertaken by Rev. Ernest Hampden-Cook, M.A., St. John's College, Cambridge, of Sandhach, Cheshire, with some co-operation from one of the Translator's sons; and the Translator is under deep obligations to these two gentlemen for their kindness in the matter. He has also most cordially to thank Mr. Hampden-Cook for making the existence of the work known to various members of the OLD MILLHILIANS' CLUB and other former pupils of the Translator, who in a truly substantial manner have manifested a generous determination to enable the volume to see the light. Very grateful does the Translator feel to them for this signal mark of their friendship. 
Mr. Hampden-Cook is responsible for the headings of the paragraphs, and at my express desire has inserted some additional notes. 
I have further to express my gratitude to Rev. Frank Baliard, M.A., B.Sc., Lond., at present of Sharrow, Sheffield, for some very valuable assistance which he has most kindly given in connexion with the Introductions to the several books. 
I have also the pleasure of acknowledging the numerous valuable and suggestive criticisms with which I have been favoured on some parts of the work, by an old friend, Rev. Sydney Thelwall, B.A., of Leamington, a clergyman of the Church of England, whom I have known for many years as a painstaking and accurate scholar, a well-read theologian. and a thoughtful and devout student of Scripture. 
I am very thankful to Mr. H. L. Gethin. Mr. S. Hales, Mr. J. A. Latham, and Rev. T. A. Seed, for the care with which they have read the proof sheets. 
And now this Translation is humbly and prayerfully commended to God's gracious blessing. 
R.F.W.
Preface to the Third Edition
For the purposes of this edition the whole volume has been re-set in new type, and, in the hope of increasing the interest and attractiveness of the Translation, all conversations have been spaced out in accordance with modern custom. A freer use than before has been made of capital letters, and by means of small, raised figures, prefixed to words in the text, an indication has been griven whenever there is a footnote. "Capernaum" and "Philadelphia" have been substituted for the less familiar but more literal "Capharnahum" and "Philadelpheia." Many errata have been corrected, and a very considerable number of what seemed to be infelicities or slight inaccuracies in the English have been removed. A few additional footnotes have been inserted, and, for the most part, those for which the Editor is responsible have now the letters ED. added to them. 
Sincere thanks are tendered to the many kind friends who have expressed their appreciation of this Translation, or have helped to make it better known, and to the many correspondents who have sent criticisms of the previous editions, and made useful suggestions for the improvement of the volume. 
E.H.C.


$$Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
This document is just a lightly edited version of the README file that came with the electronic edition of the Revised Standard Version, as distributed by the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts (University of Pennsylvania). Basically what it says is that this text can't be used commercially without the consent of the copyright holder, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, and that copies of the full text can be made and given away on the condition that the recipients fill out the CCAT's user form. 
Although I theoretically could provide copies to people who want them, and who are willing to fill out a form, I recommend contacting the CCAT directly. The version I have online here is old - dating from 1986. Newer versions, I understand, have fewer errors, and use a more user-friendly file format. 
README File for CCAT Diskettes (version 1.0 [11/7/86 rak])
Please communicate corrections and comments to:
CCAT (R. Kraft)
Box 36 College Hall
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6303
(tel. 215 898-5827)
BITNET: KRAFT AT PENNDRLN
The materials on the accompanying diskettes are distributed by the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts (CCAT) at the University of Pennsylvania for the use of students, teachers and scholars in study and education contexts. They are not to be used, either directly or indirectly, for commercial purposes without prior written consent of the various legal authors and developers identified below. If copies are made and given to other persons for NON COMMERCIAL use, those persons are also required to register with CCAT by completing the standard "CONTRACT.txt" (included as a separate file on the diskettes) and returning it to CCAT at the address indicated above. This is for legal and collaborative purposes only; no fees are involved. 
The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is copyright by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America as follows: the Old Testament section, Copyright 1952; New Testament Section, First Edition, Copyright 1946; Second Edition, Copyright 1971. The address of the copyright holder is 475 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10115-0050. These materials are provided with the permission of the Division of Education and Ministry. It is expected that, in accord with normal scholarly etiquette, use of such materials in publications, etc., will be acknowledged appropriately. 
Richard L. Goerwitz 
Richard_Goerwitz@Brown.EDU

$$Basic Bible in English
The Bible in Basic English: Contents
This text is an abridgement of the documentation that came with the electronic edition of the Bible in Basic English (BBE). It covers both the e-text itself and the book it is based on. From a linguistic standpoint, the BBE is one of the more interesting modern biblical versions. 
Introduction to the BBE Electronic Text
The documentation that came with the machine-readable text of the Bible in Basic English asks that users report errors to Mark Fuller at: 
1129 East Loyola Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282 USA
phone: 602-829-8542 
Many thanks to Mark for making this valuable resource available.
The Bible In Basic English was printed in 1965 by Cambridge University Press. Published without any copyright notice and distributed in America, this work fell immediatly and irretrievably into the public domain in the United States according to the UCC convention of that time. Mark's call to Cambridge before converting it to electronic form resulted in an admission of this fact. 
Introduction (abridged from the 1965 ed.)
The form in which the Bible is given here is not simply another example of the Bible story put into present-day English. The language used is Basic English. 
Basic English, produced by Mr C. K. Ogden of the Orthological Institute, is a simple form of the English language which, with 850 words, is able to give the sense of anything which may be said in English. By the addition of 50 Special Bible words and the use of 100 words listed as giving most help in the reading of English verse, this number has been increased to 1000 for the purpose of putting the Bible into Basic. 
Working with the Orthological Institute, a Committee under the direction of Professor S. H. Hooke, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Studies in the University of London, has been responsible for a new English form of the Bible made from the Hebrew and the Greek. 
In this undertaking, the latest ideas and discoveries in connection with the work of putting the Bible into other languages were taken into account, and when the Basic form was complete it was gone over in detail by a Committee formed by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press. 
The Basic Bible, which in this way was watched over by two separate groups of experts through its different stages, is designed to be used wherever the English language has taken root. 
Frequently, the narrow limits of the word-list make it hard to keep the Basic completely parallel with the Hebrew and the Greek; but great trouble has been taken with every verse and every line to make certain that there are no errors of sense and no loose wording. It is only natural that, from time to time, some of the more delicate shades of sense have not been covered; on the other hand, it is well to keep in mind that in the Authorised Version the power and music of the language sometimes take so much of the reader's attention that these more delicate shades are overlooked. 
In fact, the Basic expert is forced, because of the limited material with which he is working, to give special care to the sense of the words before him. There is no question of the Basic work taking the place of the Authorised Version or coming into competition with it; but it may be said of this new English Bible that it is in a marked degree straightforward and simple and that these qualities give it an independent value. 
Signs Used in the Bible in Basic English
... are used where it is no longer possible to be certain of the true sense of the Hebrew words, and for this reason no attempt has been made to put them into Basic. 
*** are used as a sign that one or more Hebrew words, necessary to the sense, have been taken out at some time or other. 
[] are used for marking additions made by later writers. 
() are used for marking additions put in for the purpose of making the sense clear. 
The numbers used for divisions of books and for verses are the same as in the Authorised and Revised Versions of the English Bible. 

Richard L. Goerwitz 
Richard_Goerwitz@Brown.EDU

$$Jerome's Latin Vulgate

Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 C.E.)
Below is an abridgement and revision of the documentation that came with the electronic version of the Vulgate. It covers only the e-text itself, and says nothing about the printed edition that text is based on. Note that this version contains both the Gallican Psalter and the Vulgate's Psalter proper (the latter being the default in the Bible Browser). If you want to look at passages specifically in the Gallican Psalter, refer to it as Gps rather than as Pss or Psalms. 
Note: At Elizabeth Knuth's suggestion, I fetched a copy of Daniel (formerly) located at http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu/catholic/scriptures/daniel-1.txt. After editing this text to match the format of my existing Vulgate edition, I dropped this new Daniel text in as a replacement for the original da.vul file. 
This new Daniel text was created by Dennis McCarthy in memory of Elliott Harry Aldridge (May 19, 1910 - November 1, 1990). It is based on P. Michael Herzenauer's Biblia Sacra Vulgata (1922). McCarthy provides Daniel (as well as Esther) in several formats, and in both the Vulgate and LXX arrangements. Kudos to him for providing this service, and many thanks to Elizabeth for suggesting that I use his text in the Bible Browser. 
Introduction to the Original Electronic Text
These files were produced following modern scholarship of the available Vulgate MSS. It should be noted Jerome translated Psalms from the Hebrew as well as the Greek. Accordingly, there were 2 Psalms texts. His translation from the Greek, called the Gallican Psalter (Gps) is actually not wholly original to him. Rather, it is a revision of the Old Latin based on Origen's Hexapla. In the electronic text, material present in the Gallican Psalter that has no equivalent in the Hebrew as Jerome knew it are marked with a percent sign. Material that is lacking from the Old Latin, and had to be added to bring the text into line with the Hebrew is marked with an asterisk. For a more in-depth discussion of the Old Latin, Hexapla, Gallican Psalter, etc., see one of the standard intros to textual criticism (e.g., Immanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Fortress, 1992]). 
Also to be noted is that the Vulgate has an extra psalm relative to the Hebrew, i.e., Psalm 151. Psalm 151 may be searched and retrieved like any other Psalm. I have placed Psalm 151 with the Tanakh (OT) text, right after Psalm 150 according to the Hebrew. 
Jerome (c. 347-420) began his work in 382. In 386 he moved to Bethlehem and worked on the Old Testament. He began on using the Greek Septuagint, but quickly decided to work directly from the Hebrew. In 405 the Old Testament, as well as the rest of the New Testament was completed. Due to older Latin texts in circulation, Jerome's work was not widely popular until the ninth century. The influence of Jerome's Bible was quite extensive. For instance, the first knowledge of the Bible in the British Isles was from the Vulgate. 
These files, as well as other Bible text files, are maintained on the following BBS where the most up to date, and corrected files can be found: 
Bible Foundation BBS
(602) 789-7040 (14.4 kps) 
Or by contacting:
Mark Fuller
1129 East Loyola Drive
Tempe, Arizona. 85282
(602) 829-8542 (voice) 

Richard L. Goerwitz 
Richard_Goerwitz@Brown.EDU

$$King James Bible
King James Bible: Contents

Introduction to the Electronic KJV <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
Information about Project Gutenberg <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
Legal Mumbo-Jumbo <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
Before! You Use or Read This Etext <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
About Project Gutenberg-tm Etexts <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
Disclaimer <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
Right of Replacement or Refund <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
If You Distribute This Etext <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
What If You Want To Send Money? <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml> 
The following document came with the electronic King James Bible text I (Richard Goerwitz) obtained on the Internet in two parts (part 1 holding the Tanakh and NT; part 2 holding the Deuterocanon). Basically what this document says is that the text is public domain, but that you can't distribute it under the Project Gutenberg trademark for money without paying a royalty. I have edited the document lightly, merging the material on the Deuterocanon with the material for the rest of the Bible, and moving the declaration that the text is public domain to the head of the file. 
Let me just emphasize here that Project Gutenberg is a worthy cause. If you feel inclined to support such causes (and I encourage you to do so), see the instructions for contributors, reproduced in full below <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/kjvg.shtml>. 
Introduction to the Electronic KJV
This King James' Bible is the SECOND Project Gutenberg Version. This 10th edition should be labeled biblea10.txt or biblea10.zip This edition is being officially released on Easter 1992. Our FIRST version is still in the archives at the moment and may appear shortly in the directory of Project Gutenberg 1980s work. This version of the King James Bible was created by taking several public domain copies and then improved by painstakingly comparing them to find all the differences, and selecting the most common version. Each of the differences was also compared to printed versions for verification. 
This work is hereby put into the public domain by:
Derek Andrew
January 1992
andrew@sask.usask.ca 
The deuterocanonical works (available as apoc10.txt or apoc10.zip) were encoded under the direction of Robert Kraft for distribution through the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts (CCAT) at the University of Pennsylvania. [According to the CCAT, the Apocrypha was taken from an undated edition entitled The Apocrypha According to The Authorized Version (Oxford: Printed at the University Press; London: Humphrey Milford/Oxford University Press, Amen House, E.C. 4/ New York and Toronto) - RG] 
We call improved editions of etexts "editions" and the first one released to the general public is usually numbered 10th edition, as that is approximately how many we go through to get it in the form we find acceptable for general release. Any editions which have numbers less than 10 should be replaced. Most editions are going to be updated about April, 1992, so look to replace yours. "Version" is used to mark separate books being put into etext in which case we have used a very different paper book, sometimes a different translation, etc. Versions are labeled by a different letter, editions by a different number. 
aesop10 equals our first version of Aesop's Fables 
aesop11 equals to be the eleventh edition of this etext 
aesopa10 equals the second version of Aesop's Fables 
aesopa11 equals the eleventh edition of that etext 
This work is currently available only as a single large file, we will chop it into chapters and store it in a separate directory, if you request it. We heartily request you notify us of errors, as we have a suspicion that this Bible will acquire the nickname of our namesake, and we would like to have it be the best we can do in his honor. 
Information about Project Gutenberg
We produce about one million dollars for each hour we work. One hundred hours is a conservative estimate for how long it we take to get and etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, etc. Our projected audience is one hundred million readers. If our value per text is nominally estimated at one dollar, then we produce a million dollars per hour. Next year we will have to do two text files per month, thus upping our productivity to two million/hr. The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext Files by the December 31, 2001. [10,000x100,000,000 = Trillion] This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers. This is why we talk about the falling prices of computers, media etc. in our speeches and articles. 
We need your donations more than ever!
All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/IBC", and are tax deductible to the extent allowable by law ("IBC" is Illinois Benedictine College). (Subscriptions to our paper newsletter go to IBC, too) 
Send to:
David Turner, Project Gutenberg
Illinois Benedictine College
5700 College Road
Lisle, IL 60532-0900 USA 
All communication to Project Gutenberg should be carried out via Illinois Benedictine College unless via email: 
hart@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (Internet) hart@uiucvmd (Bitnet) internet:hart@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (Compuserve) 
If you have an FTP program (or emulator), please FTP directly to the Project Gutenberg archives: 
	ftp mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
	login:  anonymous
	password:  your@login
	cd etext/etext91
	or cd etext92 [for new books]
	or cd etext/articles [get suggest gut for more information]
	dir [to see files]
	get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
	GET INDEX
	
for a list of books, and for general information and newsletters: 
	GET NEW GUT
	MGET GUT*
	
Legal Mumbo-Jumbo
Why is this "small print" statement here? You know: lawyers. They tell us that we could get sued if there is something wrong with your copy of this etext, even if what's wrong is not our fault, and even if you got it for free and from someone other than us. So, among other things, this "small print" statement disclaims most of the liability we could have to you if some-thing is wrong with your copy. 
This "small print" statement also tells you how to distribute copies of this etext if you want to. As explained in greater detail below, if you distribute such copies you may be required to pay us if you distribute using our trademark, and if we get sued in connection with your distribution. 
Before! You Use or Read This Etext
By using or reading any part of the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext that follows this statement, you indicate that you agree to and accept the following terms, conditions and disclaimers. If you do not understand them, or do not agree to and accept them, then [1] you may not read or use the etext, and [2] you will receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it on request within 30 days of receiving it. If you received this etext on a physical medium (such as a disk), you must return the physical medium with your request and retain no copies of it. 
About Project Gutenberg-tm Etexts
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts, is a "Public Domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project"). Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying royalties. Special rules, set forth below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. 
To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any medium they may be on may contain errors and defects (collectively, the "Defects"). Among other things, such Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, unauthorized distribution of a work that is not in the public domain, a defective or damaged disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 
Disclaimer
As to every real and alleged Defect in this etext and any medium it may be on, and but for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, [1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 
Right of Replacement or Refund
If you received this etext in a physical medium, and the medium was physically damaged when you received it, you may return it within 90 days of receiving it to the person from whom you received it with a note explaining such Defects. Such person will give you, in his or its discretion, a replacement copy of the etext or a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it. 
If you received it electronically and it is incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt, you may send notice within 90 days of receiving it to the person from whom you received it describing such Defects. Such person will give you, in his or its discretion, a second opportunity to receive it electronically, or a refund of the money (if any) you paid to receive it. 
Aside from this limited warranty, THIS ETEXT IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 
Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the above disclaimers, exclusions and limitations may not apply to you. This "small print" statement gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights. 
If You Distribute This Etext
You agree that if you distribute this etext or a copy of it to anyone, you will indemnify and hold the Project, its officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost and expense, including legal fees, that arise by reason of your distribution and either a defect in the etext, or any alteration, modification or addition to the etext by you or for which you are responsible. This provision applies to every distribution of this etext by you, whether or not for profit or under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. 
You agree that if you distribute one or more copies of this etext under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark (whether electronically, or by disk, book or any other medium), you will: 
Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however, if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, including any form resulting from conversion by word processing or hypertext software, but only so long as EITHER: 
The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable. We consider an etext not clearly readable if it contains characters other than those intended by the author of the work, although tilde (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may be used to convey punctuation intended by the author, and additional characters may be used to indicate hypertext links. 
The etext may be readily converted by the reader at no expense into in plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent form by the program that displays the etext (as is the case, for instance, with most word processors). 
You provide, or agree to also provide on request at no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC or other equivalent proprietary form). 
Honor the terms and conditions applicable to distributors under the "RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND" set forth above. 
Pay a trademark license fee of 20% (twenty percent) of the net profits you derive from distributing this etext under the trademark, determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. The license fee: 
Is required only if you derive such profits. In distributing under our trademark, you incur no obligation to charge money or earn profits for your distribution. 
Shall be paid to "Project Gutenberg Association / Illinois Benedictine College" (or to such other person as the Project Gutenberg Association may direct) within the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) your year-end federal income tax return with respect to your profits for that year. 
What If You Want To Send Money Even If You Don't Have To?
The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time, scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribution you can think of. Money should be paid to "Project Gutenberg Association / Illinois Benedictine College". 
Drafted by CHARLES B. KRAMER, Attorney at Law
CompuServe: 72600,2026
Internet: 72600.2026@compuserve.com
Tel: (212) 254-5093 

Richard L. Goerwitz 
Richard_Goerwitz@Brown.EDU

$$King James Bible #2

This Bible was downloaded from http://www.menfak.no/bibel/hentbibel.html

Same as the King James version above, except for the following changes:
Words appearing in italic in the printed version of the King James Bible (added by the translators for clarification for English readers) appear in square brackets. For example: 

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 


$$World English Bible FAQ
World English Bible FAQ

Why create yet another English translation of the Holy Bible? 
That is a good question. There are many good English translations of the Holy Bible. Unfortunately, all of them are either (1) archaic (like the KJV and ASV of 1901), or (2) covered by copyright restrictions that prevent unrestricted free posting on the internet or other media (like the NIV and NASB). The Bible in Basic English (BBE) was in the Public Domain in the USA (but not all countries) for a while, but its copyrighted status was restored by GATT. (The BBE used a rather restricted subset of English, anyway, limiting its accuracy and readability.) In other words, there is NO OTHER complete translation of the Holy Bible in normal Modern English that can be freely copied (except for some limited "fair use") without written permission from the publisher and (usually) payment of royalties. This is the vacuum that the World English Bible is filling. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Why is the copyright such a big deal? 
The copyright laws of most nations and the international treaties that support them are a mixed blessing. By granting authors and translators a legal monopoly (for a limited, but very long, time) on the right of copying and "first sale" of their works, the law makers have made writing and translating very profitable for some people whose works are in great demand. This has, no doubt, been a factor in the creation of many of the good Modern English translations of the Holy Bible that we now enjoy. The problem with this system, with respect to the Holy Bible, is that it has had the effect of limiting distribution of God's Word in modern languages. For example, I cannot legally post copies of the entire New International Version of the Holy Bible on my web site in a downloadable, searchable, and readily copyable format without the permission of the International Bible Society and Zondervan (copyright owner and publisher). Zondervan won't grant such permission unless they get a significant royalty (they quoted me $10,000 + $10/copy distributed) and unless I convince them that my Bible search software is "good enough" for them. Needless to say, the Bible search software that I am writing with the intention of distributing as donorware will not come with the NIV. 
The problem of copyright protection of Modern English translations of the Holy Bible is not just significant on the Internet and various electronic information services. It also affects people who want to quote significant portions of Scripture in books, audio tapes, and other media. This drives up the price of preaching the Gospel. Basic economics tells us that this is not a good thing when our goal is to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). For example, the "free" Bibles that the Gideons place cost more if they use a modern version, like Thomas-Nelson's New King James Version, than if they use the (more difficult to read) King James Version. 
Naturally, I'm not suggesting that we abolish the copyright law or that existing Modern English translations be immediately released to the Public Domain. I understand the way that the profits from the sales of the NIV, for example, help fund other language translations at the International Bible Society (as well as helping to enrich some folks at Zondervan). I also understand that the business of Bible sales has helped establish a good supply of Bibles in many parts of the world, in a variety of formats, sizes, styles, and colors. What we are doing is liberating at least one Modern English translation of the Holy Bible from all copyright restrictions -- a translation that is trustworthy, accurate, and useful for evangelism and discipleship. 
Another concern where copyright restrictions come into play is in translation and creating derivative works. For example, the copyright notice of the NASB expressly forbids making translations or derivative works based on the NASB without getting permission from the Lockman Foundation. I don't know if they would make this easy or hard, expensive or cheap, but I do know that there will be no need to even ask when using the WEB. 
Isn't it dangerous not to copyright the WEB? 
No. Copyright protection is intended to protect the income of the copyright holder's sales of a work, but we are planning to GIVE AWAY the right to make copies of this version of the Holy Bible to anyone who wants it, so we have nothing to lose that way. There is some argument for copyrighting a Bible translation just to retain some legal control against some evil, cultic revision of a translation. The God's Living Word translations of John's Gospel and John's letters are copyrighted only for this reason, for example, even though blanket permission to make unlimited copies of that translation is published with them. This legal leverage is so much weaker than God's protection of His own Word that it is of questionable value. (See Revelation 22:18-19.) One other major concern is that somebody might later claim a copyright on the WEB and remove it from the Public Domain. Because there is a timely and public declaration of the Public Domain status of the WEB by those who are working on it, that would not work, and they would not be able to defend such a bogus copyright claim. 
With a Public Domain work, there is a hazard of confusion if many people start revising it or making derivative works from it and call it the same thing. For that reason, the name "World English Bible" is a trademark that may only be used to identify the World English Bible as published by Rainbow Missions, Inc., and faithful copies of that work. In addition, official distributions of the World English Bible are often digitally signed to provide a tamper-evident seal.
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
What is the WEB Revision? 
The WEB Revision is an update of the American Standard Version of 1901 <http://www.ebible.org/bible/ASV>, which is in the Public Domain. The revision is also in the Public Domain, which sets it apart from other revisions of the American Standard Version, like the New American Standard Bible and the Revised Standard Version. The first pass of the translation, which has already been done, was to convert about 1,000 archaic words and word forms to modern equivalents using a custom computer program. The second through seventh phases consist of manual editing and proofreading. The initial manual pass is to add quotation marks (the ASV of 1901 had none), update other punctuation, update usage, and spot check the translation against the original languages in places where the meaning is unclear or significant textual variants exist. The subsequent passes are to review of the results of the previous pass. In each pass, volunteers read the current draft, looking for typos, unclear passages, etc., then report back to the senior editor (Michael Paul Johnson <mpj@ebible.org <mailto:mpj@ebible.org>>), who checks the suggestions and merges the best suggestions into the master draft. As this is going on, the draft at the WEB web page <http://ebible.org/bible/web> is updated. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Who is behind the WEB Revision work? 
Rainbow Missions, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation -- and many volunteers who are born again and seeking to daily follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. If the Lord so moves you, tax-deductible financial gifts to help pay for WEB publishing and other costs associated with this project may be made to: 
Rainbow Missions, Inc. 
PO Box 1151 
Longmont CO 80502-1151 
USA 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Is the WEB a one-man translation?
Many people have been involved in the production and editing of the World English Bible from a variety of backgrounds. Because this is a revision of the American Standard Version of the Revised Bible, we start with the over 50 Evangelical scholars who worked on that project. They, in turn, relied on the work of those who had gone before them. We also rely on the work of many scholars who have found, compiled, combined, and published the excellent and highly accurate Hebrew and Greek texts from which we work. We also rely on the excellent lexicons of Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek that are available to us.
In addition to these excellent references that represent literally hundreds of years of combined labor by many committed Christian men and women, we have access to the United Bible Society handbooks on Bible translation and a large number of other English translations to compare and consult.
Among the volunteers who have contributed to this project, we have people who attend various churches, including Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, non-denominational, and many more. This broad representation helps guard against introducing sectarian bias into the work. In addition, the novel technique of publishing draft copies of the World English Bible on the Internet provides additional protection against bias, because all serious comments are carefully considered and the wording compared to the original language.
Although we don't demand credentials from people who comment on the translation by email, we do validate their comments before deciding what to do with them.
We do have one senior editor who is responsible for decisions regarding the text, but he is also accountable to several other Christians. Everyone who has authority to decide on the wording in the World English Bible believes in the inspiration by the Holy Spirit of the text as recorded by the original authors. In addition, we also believe that the Holy Spirit is still active in preserving the text and helps us in our work to the extent that we let Him.
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
What are your qualifications to do translation work? 
Standing on the shoulders of giants - those mighty men of God who provided the critically edited original language texts, translated other English versions (especially the ASV), wrote the great translation guides available from the American Bible Society, and the writers of the Greek & Hebrew study materials I use - is the most obvious. Others include having studied the Bible for years, studying several languages, and earning a Master's degree. None of those matter as much as the next reason. God called me to do this, and I willingly answered His call. God would not call me to do something without enabling me to do so. Without God's call, I would drop this project like a hot rock. Although many people contribute suggestions and typo reports, they are all checked before editing the master copy of the World English Bible <http://www.ebible.org/bible/WEB>. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
What is the WEB Translation Philosophy? 
The WEB must 
be done with prayer -- specifically prayer for inspiration by the Holy Spirit. 
be accurate and reliable (Revelation 22:18-19). 
be understandable to the majority of the world's English-speaking population (and therefore should avoid locale-specific usage). 
be kept in the Public Domain (and therefore be done by volunteers). 
be made available in a short time, because we don't know the exact time of our Lord's return. 
preserve the essential character of the original 1901 publication. 
use language that is not faddish, but likely to retain its meaning for some time. 
render God's proper Name in the Old Testament as "Yahweh." 
resolve unclear passages by referring to the original Hebrew and Greek. 
be done with utmost respect for God and His Word. 
be done by Christians from a variety of denominations and backgrounds. 
retain (at least for now) the ASV 1901's pronoun capitalization rules (lower case "he" referring to God). 
retain (in most cases) the ASV 1901's use of "he" when that word might mean ("he and/or she"). 
restrict footnotes to those which clarify the translation or provide significant alternate readings 
Bible translation (as with any natural language translation) is a balancing act, where the translators seek to preserve the following: 
The meaning of each thought or sentence. 
The meanings of individual words in their context. 
The shades of meaning implied by word forms, tense, etc. 
The impact and tone of each passage. 
The style of the original authors who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. 
Faithfulness to the target language (English, in this case). 
Note that some of the above goals are at odds with one another, like preservation of the original style vs. faithfulness to the target language, and expressing the last bit of the shades of meaning vs. preserving the impact. Still, it is possible to retain a good balance. Different balance points are chosen by different translation committees. Indeed, many translations can be characterized by the weight the translators gave to each of the above items. For example, The Amplified Bible excels at getting the meaning across, but falls down hard on impact, style preservation, and faithfulness to the target language. The New Living Translation excels at preserving the meanings of entire thoughts, impact, and faithfulness to the target language, but loses some of the style and shades of meaning. The New International Version excels at most of the above, but loses some elements of style and some of the subtleties of wording. The World English Bible attempts to balance all of the above with a fairly literal translation. 
Some people like to use the terms "formal equivalent" and "dynamic equivalent." Neither of these exactly describe what we are doing, since we have borrowed ideas from both, but I suppose that we are closer to formal equivalence than dynamic equivalence. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
What original language texts are you using? 
Since this is primarily an update of the 1901 edition, the choices made by the original 50 or so Evangelical scholars that made this translation hold unless reference is made to the original languages to help with places where the Elizabethan English is not clear, or where major textual variants are known to exist. In this case, we are using the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, also called The Stuttgart Bible, in the Old Testament, and the Byzantine Majority Text as published for use with The Online Bible in the New Testament (M-Text). This choice of Greek text is very close to what the KJV translators used, but does take advantage of some more recently discovered manuscripts. Although there are good scholarly arguments both for and against using the Byzantine Majority Text over the "Alexandrian" text based on the dating and critical editing work of Nestle and Aland and published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), we find the following to be compelling reasons: 
The UBS text has a lot of "dropout" errors relative to the M-Text. Diligent scribes with a respect for God's Word are more likely to miss copying something (i.e. by skipping a line, etc.) than to make up a line to add in. 
Different scribes copying the same passage aren't all likely to make the same mistakes at the same places, even though some mistakes are likely to be copied over many times. 
When a scribe had a choice of manuscripts to copy, he would normally copy the one that he trusted the most, thus causing the most trusted text to be copied more often. 
The UBS text relies heavily on the dating of the media upon which the text was written, but those texts that are used more and trusted more would both be copied more often and worn out from use sooner. 
The UBS text is heavily weighted to a small number of manuscripts relative to those available to us, and relies heavily on one manuscript that was pulled from a trash can at a monastery. 
The Holy Spirit takes an active interest in preserving what He has inspired. 
In those few sections where the M-Text and UBS text differ significantly, I have taken my question of textual choice directly to God, and God chose to answer me by confirming in several different ways that reading which the M-Text rendered. The main passage in question is in Mark 16, but there are others, too. While I certainly don't claim to be infallible, I do know when to say, "Yes, Sir" and follow the direction I see the Lord pointing me in. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
How does the WEB compare to other translations? 
The WEB is different enough to avoid copyright infringement, but similar enough to avoid incurring the wrath of God. By "different enough," I mean that the wording is about as different from any one Modern English translation as the current translations differ from each other. By "similar enough," I mean that the meaning is preserved and that the Gospel still cuts to the very soul. It is most similar to the ASV of 1901, of course, but I suppose that similarities will be found with other translations. 
The WEB doesn't capitalize pronouns pertaining to God. This is similar to the NRSV and NIV, and the same as the original ASV of 1901. Note that this is an English style decision, because Hebrew has no such thing as upper and lower case, and the oldest Greek manuscripts were all upper case. I kind of prefer the approach of the KJV, NKJV, and NASB of capitalizing these pronouns, because I write that way most of the time and because it is a way of offering greater honor to God. I admit that it is kind of a throw-back to the Olde English practice of capitalizing pronouns referring to the king. This is archaic, because we don't capitalize pronouns that refer to our president. It is also true that chosing to capitalize pronouns relating to God causes some difficulties in translating the coronation psalms, where the psalm was initially written for the coronation of an earthly king, but which also can equally well be sung or recited to the praise of the King of Kings. Capitalizing pronouns relating to God also makes for some strange reading where people were addressing Jesus with anything but respect. In any case, in the presence of good arguments both ways, we have decided to leave these as they were in the ASV 1901 (which also gives us fewer opportunities to make mistakes). 
The WEB, like the ASV of 1901, breaks the KJV tradition by printing God's proper Name in the Old Testament with a spelling closest to what we think it was pronounced like, instead of rendering that Name as "LORD" or "GOD" (with all caps or small caps). The current scholarly consensus has shifted from spelling this Name as "Jehovah" to spelling it as "Yahweh." There are a couple of other English translations that use "Yahweh," so this is not new, per se, but it does set it off a little from other translations. 
Because World English Bible (WEB) uses the Majority Text as the basis for the New Testament, you may notice the following differences in comparing the WEB to other translations:
The order of Matthew 23:13 and 14 is reversed in some translations. 
Luke 17:36 and Acts 15:34, which are not found in the majority of the Greek Manuscripts (and are relegated to footnotes in the WEB) may be included in some other translations. Romans 14:24-26 in the WEB may appear as Romans 16:25-27 in other translations. 
1 John 5:7-8 may read differently in some translations. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
What about the King James Only movement? 
May God open their eyes and give them a sound understanding. 
If you prefer the King James Version of the Holy Bible, then, by all means, read it and do what it teaches. I think that the KJV was a wonderful Contemporary English translation of the Holy Bible when it came out. It has been mightily used by God and has had (and continues to have) a profoundly good impact. Unfortunately, the evolution of the English language continually erodes its value as time goes on. It is now outsold by the excellent New International Version, for many good reasons. 
I guess that there are a few people that seem to believe that the KJV is more accurate than the original Hebrew and Greek of the Holy Bible, and that all the other versions are tainted with heresy and conspiracy. I've read some of their literature. I found it to be some of the most non-Christian and illogical literature that I have endured, thus further proving the claim that the KJV is the only valid Bible to be wrong, at least in my mind. I guess I've now put myself on record as being a heretic in their eyes, but I must follow God, rather than men. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
What makes you think that you can compete with multi-million dollar publishers? 
Indeed, throwing another Modern English translation into the "market" to "compete" with solid translations like the NIV and publishing giants like Zondervan sounds as silly. It sounds like that, perhaps, until you consider that the primary target for the WEB is royalty-free distribution of the Holy Bible in unlimited copies made by many people using many computers, tape recorders, photocopiers, and presses all over the world. This is a "market" that the "giants" have excluded themselves from. Indeed, if they change that policy (don't hold your breath waiting for them to), we win, anyway. If we win this area, that is enough to justify this effort. If we do an excellent job, the WEB might possibly start competing in more conventional areas (like printed Bibles in bookstores), but not because of any significant effort or marketing on our part. After all, the bookstores have lots of Bibles in Modern English, already. 
Once you look at the whole picture of what is going on, the multi-million dollar publishers and Bible translators really don't have much of an effect on us, nor do we have much of an effect on them. The result of the combined efforts of both is simply more complete availability of the Holy Bible in Modern English. 
Of course, it does take considerable effort to pull off a decent Bible translation -- even a language update like the WEB. Fortunately, there are lots of people willing to volunteer some time to help with this cause, and the Internet helps bring those people together. 
The real bottom line, though, is that this is God's project, and He is fully capable of providing everything that we need to accomplish His goals. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
What kind of editing help do you want? 
Specifically, we need people who will read drafts of WEB chapters carefully, checking the following things, and email suggestions for improvements in the following areas: 
Typos & spelling errors. 
Punctuation errors. 
Grammar & usage errors. 
Unclear wording or wording that may be misunderstood. 
Wording that varies in meaning from other good Bible translations (realizing that some will vary due to "textual variants" in the underlying original languages). 
Wording that may inadvertently be "too close" to any copyrighted Modern English translation for too many verses in a row (thus risking charges of copyright infringement). 
Questions that come up with respect to specific portions of the translation. 
Inconsistencies in style, usage, or translation. 
Note that all suggestions made in line with the above mentioned translation philosophy will be seriously considered. There is no guarantee, of course, that any suggestion will result in a change, especially in those areas that involve judgment calls, because we are likely to get conflicting suggestions for the same passage. If in doubt, suggest or ask, anyway. We want to eradicate as many of the above distractions as possible, so that the meaning and message of the Holy Bible come through clearly. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
How do you publish draft portions of the WEB? 
Draft portions of the WEB are published in the WEB mailing list and at <http://ebible.org/bible/web>, and in the unmoderated Usenet news groups alt.bible and alt.christnet.bible. Once the WEB translation is done, the mailing list will continue (if the Good Lord is willing) as a daily Bible reading list. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
How do I join the WEB mailing list? 
The easy way (if you have access to the World Wide Web) is to visit <http://ebible.org/subscribe.htm> and follow the instructions there.
If you can't do the above, send mail to majordomo@lists.sni.net with the single line in the body of the message (not the subject) saying:
subscribe bible 
Expect somewhere around 4 chapters of the Holy Bible per day, along with related material (like this FAQ, the glossary, and announcements). 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
How do I get off of the WEB mailing list? 
Visit http://ebible.org/subscribe.htm and follow the instructions there, or send mail to majordomo@lists.sni.net <mailto:majordomo@lists.sni.net> with the single line in the body of the message (not the subject) saying:
unsubscribe bible 
If you don't have access to the account you are unsubscribing from, then add your old email address to the line, like 
unsubscribe bible user@host.domain 
but substitute your own email address for user@host.domain. If that doesn't work, email mpj@ebible.org <mailto:mpj@ebible.org> for help from a real person. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
How do I change my address on the WEB mailing list? 
Just unsubscribe from the old address and subscribe from the new address, using the instructions, above. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Is anyone else working on a public domain, Modern English translation? 
Yes. Dr. Maurice Robinson is overseeing another project to revise the ASV into what he is calling the Modern American Standard Version (MASV). That project is not on quite as ambitious schedule, but it should be worth looking at when it is done. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
When will the WEB be completed? 
The New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs are finished (but we will still consider well-justified edits and typo corrections). We have no estimate of the completion date of the Old Testament, yet.
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Can I get a printed copy of the WEB?
You can get a bound, printed copy of of the New Testament plus Psalms and Proverbs of the World English Bible by ordering it on line at https://www12.secure-website.net/~ebible/buy.htm or by ordering it from a book store. Order ISBN 0-9703344-0-0. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Why the name WEB? 
World: because God's Word is to the whole world, and this translation is to be read by English-speaking people all over the world. 
English: a language spoken by about 10% of the people in the world. 
Bible: God's Holy Book. 
WEB: This translation of the Holy Bible travels by way of the World-Wide Web, aided by its copyright-free status. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Will any major publishers be interested in the WEB? 
Several publishers that don't already own rights to another modern English translation of the Holy Bible are likely to be interested. Ask them.
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Why do you use "Yahweh" for God's name in the Old Testament? 
"Yahweh" is the most probable best transliteration of this most holy proper name from the Hebrew consonants YOD HE WAW HE, or YHWH. This holy name is sometimes rendered "Jehovah" based on the mixture of the vowels for "Adonai" (Lord) with the consonants "YHWH" as it is written in some later Hebrew manuscripts. The original Hebrew manuscripts had no vowels, and we believe that the vowels for "adonai" were added to reflect the tradition of avoiding pronouncing God's name, and saying "Lord" instead, and was not an indication of how the name should be pronounced by those so bold as to actually utter God's name. This is a break from the tradition of the KJV and others that use "LORD" or "GOD" with all caps or small caps to translate "YHWH", and use "Lord" (normal mixed case) to translate "Adonai" and "God" (normal mixed case) to translate "Elohim." That tradition gets really confusing in some places, especially since "Yahweh" is used in conjunction with "Lord" and "God" in many places in the Old Testament. Since God's proper name really is separate from the titles "Lord" and "God" in the original Hebrew, we wanted the English translation to reflect that fact, even when read aloud. 
As a concession to strong tradition, the Hebrew Names Version of the World English Bible uses "LORD" or "GOD" (all capital letters) for "Yahweh."
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Where can I get the WEB? 
At <http://ebible.org/bible/web> or <http://worldenglishbible.org/>.
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
How can I help support the WEB work?
1. You can pray for everyone who works on it, that they would be sensitive to the Holy Spirit and correctly handle God's Holy Word, and that God would abundantly provide everything needed for this work.
2. You can partner with us, helping us to make the World English Bible freely available by sending tax-deductible donations to:
Rainbow Missions
PO BOX 1151
LONGMONT CO 80502-1151
USA
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> 
Who Maintains this FAQ? 
This FAQ is maintained by Michael Paul Johnson <http://ebible.org/mpj/>. Please mail comments or suggestions to mpj@ebible.org <mailto:mpj@ebible.org>. This page is kept at <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm>. 
[Contents] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm> [The World English Bible] <http://ebible.org/bible/web/> 
1951 visits since 10 March 2001. This page was last updated 21 October 2000.

$$Young's Literal Translation
Young's Literal Translation

This text is an abridgement of the documentation that came with the electronic version of Young's translation. It covers both the e-text itself and the book it is based on (i.e., Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible [1898], as reprinted by Baker Books [Grand Rapids, Michigan, ISBN: 0-8010-9910-2]). 
In his preface to the first edition <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/ylt.shtml>, Young takes great pains to disprove the existence of a Hebrew grammatical construct once called conversive vav <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/ylt.shtml>. To do this, he draws on a large body of comparative-linguistic material (most of which has been edited out by me). Young did not know about common Semitic preterites, and was thus mislead about the waw consecutive (as it is often called today). As a result, his translation has many serious flaws. Nonspecialists should also be warned to take his grammatical arguments with a grain of salt. 
Of much greater interest to nonspecialists than his views on Hebrew grammar are Young's strident remarks on literal translation <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/ylt.shtml>. Young believed in the ideal of a strictly literal, yet accurate translation. By the term literal, he meant a translation that strove to capture the sense both of words and of more general meanings. Though many other translators saw these goals as only partially compatible, Young did not. Compare Young's views, for example, with the (I believe more realistic) views of Weymouth <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/wnt.shtml>. 
Introduction to the Electronic Edition
This text was was keyed from the photo-offset edition printed by Baker Books. Thanks to Earl Melton and Sandi Cooley for much data entry work. The NT has been proof-read twice, and the OT once. The most current/corrected copy can be obtained via modem on: 
Bible Foundation BBS
602-789-7040 (300-14.4) 
Or by mail from:
Mark Fuller
1129 East Loyola Drive
Tempe, Az. 85282 
Corrections
The following is a list of corrections made by Earl Melton and Sandi Cooley to the electronic edition of Young. They also made various changes to the punctuation and spelling to make it more consistent. 
Ge 50:17 their speaking unto them > their speaking unto him 
Ex 3:22 Egyptians. > Egyptians.' 
Ex 4:12 speakest; > speakest;' 
Ex 14:15 me > Me (as My in 14:18) 
Ex 16:28 my > My (as first My in same verse) 
Nu 18:32 of of > of 
De 28:43 [is] thy midst > [is] in thy midst 
Jos 10:36 against it > against it, (as previous few verses) 
Jos 12:4 dwell- > dwelling 
Jos 19:50 hill country > hill-country (as numerous others) 
Jos 21:36-37 is bracketed - no apparent reason, brackets removed. 
Ju 5:4 dropped > dropped, 
Ju 5:6 ways > ways. 
Ju 8:21 Zeba > Zebah 
Ju 9:3 brother; > brother;' 
Ju 17:3 silverings > silverlings (as in the same passage numerous times) 
Ju 19:16 and > (and (the verse ends with a close-paren) 
Ju 19:27 threshhold > threshold 
1Sa 2:8 poor > poor, 
2Sa 10:15-19 Hadarezer > Hadadezer (three times, changed to previous occurences) 
2Sa 17:10 (a word is unreadable, 'these' or 'those'. used 'those') 
2Sa 21:10 sackloth > sackcloth 
2Sa 22:37 ancles > ankles 
1Ki 1:32 Jehoida > Jehoiada 
2Ki 15:17 of of > of 
2Ki 19:23 mountains > mountains - (some sort of puncuation was needed) 
1Ch 1:32 Jokshan; > Jokshan: 
1Ch 1:42 Dishan; > Dishan: 
1Ch 4:25 Mibsam, > Mibsam 
1Ch 4:28 Beer-sheba > Beer-Sheba 
2Ch 7:20 byeword > byword 
EZr 4:8 Shimai > Shimshai (as other occurences in this chapter) 
Ne 9:34 thy > Thy (as numerous in this passage) 
JOb 33:19 He > he (does not refer to diety) 
Ps 116:18 led > let (as v.14) 
Ps 144:10 sword evil > sword of evil (a large blank spot is in the text indicating a missing word) 
Jer 36:14 Jedhudi > Jehudi 
Jer 39:11 chief the > chief of the (as v.10,13) 
Jer 51:16 forth > forth, (the comma is absent, but appears to be needed) 
La 2:2 His > His wrath (the word is missing, and Darby & AV use 'wrath') 
Eze 10:18 off > of 
Eze 31:2 greatness > greatness? (proportional spacing indicates missing punc.) 
Ho 10:2 standing-pillars > standing pillars (as v.1.) 
Am 2:2 (print bad, could be 'of trumpet' or 'of a trumpet'. I used 'of a trumpet'.) 
Mic 6:5 Shitim > Shittim 
Mt 10:9 no scrip > nor scrip 
Mt 12:17 fulfiled > fulfilled 
Mt 13:8 hundred-fold > hundredfold (as in vs.23; 19:29) 
Mt 15:14 fall. > fall.' 
Mt 17:24 'Yes. > 'Yes.' 
Mt 18:13 ninety nine > ninety-nine (as in vs.12) 
Mt 18:18 heaven > heavens (as others in this passage) 
Mt 21:38 inheritance > inheritance; (proportional spacing indicate punctuation.) 
Mr 1:44 them. > them.' (added close qoute) 
Mr 2:25 'And > And (removed first qoute as spurious) 
Mr 6:2 done?' > done? (end qoute removed, use existing end qoute in vs.3) 
Mr 8:24 said, I > said, 'I 
Mr 8:31 again;' > again; (not qoutable speech) 
Mr 8:33 adversary > Adversary (as elsewhere) 
Mr 9:28 forth.' > forth?' 
Mr 15:28 writing > Writing (as elsewhere). 
Lu 2:5 enrol > enroll 
Lu 2:29 thy > Thy 
Lu 8:46 me ' > me.' 
Lu 14:9 Removed quotation mark at beginning of sub quote. 
Lu 14:32 ambassy > embassy (as 19:14) 
Lu 21:14 before hand > beforehand 
Joh 1:29 lamb > Lamb (as 1:36 
Joh 9:16 bad type missing open-qoute and 'a' before man. (changed) 
Joh 9:26 thee?' > thee? (in favor of close qoute at end of verse) 
Joh 16:7,13,14 capitalized personal pronouns referring to the Holy Spirit as vs. 8. 
Joh 17:23 thou > Thou (as first occurence in verse) 
Joh 18:31 `Pilate > Pilate 
Ac 5:37 enrolment > enrollment 
Ro 9:23 he > He (to match following 'Him') 
1Co 1:27 that he may > that He may (as other occurances) 
1Co 3:22 be all > be - all (proportional spacing indicates missing puncuation.) 
1Co 7:18 being uncircumcised > being circumcised (compare to AV.) 
2Co 12:6 forbear > forebear 
2Co 12:3 have have > have 
COl 1:11 his > His (as others). 
1Th 3:11 himself > Himself (as others, v.13) 
2Ti 4:2 long suffering > long-suffering (as it is in 3:10) and elsewhere. 
Heb 2:17 chief-priest > chief priest (as appears in 3:1 etc.) 
Heb 3:15 his > His (as the same quote in vs. 7.) 
Heb 11:8 whether > whither 
Heb 12:28 well pleasingly > well-pleasingly (as 13:16,21). 
Jas 2:14 `faith > faith, (it is not a qoute, and a space is present for puncuation.) 
Re 4:5 seven spirits > Seven Spirits (as previous usage) 
Re 5:6 seven Spirits > Seven Spirits (as previous usage) 
Publishers' Note to the Third Edition
NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the Revised Version of the Old and the New Testament has come into the field since the learned and lamented author first issued his Literal Translation of the Bible, the demand for it from year to year has continued remarkably steady. This indicates that it still fills a place of its own among helps to the earnest student of Holy Scripture. In 1887 Dr Young issued a Revised Edition, of which two impressions are exhausted. The work has been subjected to a fresh revision, making no alteration on the principles on which the Translation proceeds, but endeavouring to make it as nearly perfect in point of accuracy on its present lines as possible. The Publishers accordingly issue this new Revised Edition in the hope that earnest students of the Bible, by attaining to a clearer apprehension of the meaning of the inspired writer, may more clearly and fully apprehend the mind of the Spirit by whom all Holy Scripture has been given to us. 
Edinburgh, January 1898.
Preface to the Revised Edition (abridged)
THE following Translation of the New Testament is based upon the belief that every word of the original is "God-breathed," as the Apostle Paul says in his Second Epistle to Timothy, chap. 3.16. That language is, indeed, applicable, in the first place, only to the Writings of the "Old Testament," in which Timothy had been instructed, but as the Apostle Peter, in his Second Epistle, chap. 3.15,16, expressly ranks the "Epistles" of his beloved brother Paul along with "the other Scriptures," as the "Gospels" and the "Acts" of the Apostles were undoubtedly written before the date of Peter's writing, by men to whom the Saviour promised and gave the Holy Spirit, to guide them to all truth, to teach them all things, and to remind them of all things that Jesus said and did, there can be no reasonable ground for denying the inspiration of the New Testament by any one who holds that of the Old, or who is willing to take the plain unsophisticated meaning of God's Word regarding either. 
This inspiration extends only to the original text, as it came from the pens of the writers, not to any translations ever made by man, however aged, venerable, or good; and only in so far as any of these adhere to the original - neither adding to nor omitting from it one particle - are they of any real value, for, to the extent that they vary from the original, the doctrine of verbal inspiration is lost, so far as that version is concerned. 
If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. 
A strictly literal rendering may not be so pleasant to the ear as one where the apparent sense is chiefly aimed at, yet it is not euphony but truth that ought to be sought, and where in such a version as the one commonly in use in this country, there are scarcely two consecutive verses where there is not some departure from the original such as those indicated, and where these variations may be counted by tens of thousands, as admitted on all hands, it is difficult to see how verbal inspiration can be of the least practical use to those who depend upon that version alone. 
Modern scholarship is beginning to be alive to the inconsistency of thus gratuitously obscuring, and really changing, the meaning, of the sacred writers by subjective notions of what they ought to have written, rather than what they did write, for if we admit that in a single case it can be lawful to render a past tense by a present, where shall we end? who is to be judge? if we do so in one passage, to bring out what may appear to us might, could, would, or should, be the Scriptural meaning, we cannot deny the same privilege to others who may twist other passages in like manner. The alteration of an a for a the may appear a small matter not worth speaking of, but an attentive comparison of the following Translation with the common one will discover numerous passages where the entire force of the verse depends upon the insertion or non-insertion of the article. 
For example, in Mat. 2.4, Herod is represented as enquiring "where Christ ' should be born. But "Christ" is the surname of the man Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation is, that King James' Translators omitted the definite article which occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where "the Christ" should be born. Herod knew of "the Christ," the Messiah, the long promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears up the whole. There are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say any thing of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original. 
The following translation need not, and ought not, to be considered, in any sense, as coming into competition with the Common Version, but as one to be used in connection with it, and as auxiliary to it; and not a few assurances have been received from clergymen and others that they thus use it, and find it at once interesting and profitable. The change of a single word, or collocation of words, is often found to throw an entirely new shade of meaning over the Scripture. This advantage is well known to all who have compared the various ancient versions, or even the English versions that successively formed what was popularly called "the authorized version," i.e., Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, &c. 
The Greek Text followed is that generally recognized as the "Received Text," not because it is thought perfect, but because the department of Translation is quite distinct from that of Textual Criticism, and few are qualified for both. If the original text be altered by a translator, (except he give his reasons for and against each emendation,) the reader is left in uncertainty whether the translation given is to be considered as that of the old or of the new reading. And, after all, the differences in sense to be found in the 100,000 various Greek readings are so trifling compared with those to be derived from an exact translation of the Received Text, that the writer willingly leaves them to other hands; at the same time, it is contemplated, in a future edition, to give, in an Appendix, all the various readings of the Greek MSS. that are capable of being expressed in English. 
With grateful thanks to the Father of Lights, this revised edition is presented to the friends of Divine Truth, with the hope that it may be a means, in the hands of the Divine Spirit, of quickening their faith, and encouraging their hearts, in the work of the Lord. 
R.Y.
Preface to the First Edition
THE WORK, in its present form, is not to be considered as intended to come into competition with the ordinary use of the commonly received English Version of the Holy Scriptures, but simply as a strictly literal and idiomatic rendering of the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts. For about twenty years - fully half his life-time - the Translator has had a desire to execute such a work, and has been engaged in Biblical pursuits tending to this end more or less exclusively; and now, at last, in the good providence of God, the desire has been accomplished. How far he has been able to carry out the just principles of Biblical Translation, founded on a solid and immoveable foundation, time alone will tell, and for this he confidently waits. As these principles are to some extent new, and adhered to with a severity never hitherto attempted, and as the Translator has perfect confidence in their accuracy and simplicity, he proceeds at once to state them distinctly and broadly, that not merely the learned, but the wayfaring man need not err in appreciating their value. 
There are two modes of translation which may be adopted in rendering into our own language the writings of an ancient author; the one is, to bring him before us in such a manner as that we may regard him as our own; the other, to transport ourselves, on the contrary, over to him, adopting his situation, modes of speaking, thinking, acting, - peculiarities of age and race, air, gesture, voice, &c. Each of these plans has its advantages, but the latter is incomparably the better of the two, being suited - not for the ever-varying modes of thinking and acting of the men of the fifth, or the tenth, or the fifteenth, or some other century, but - for all ages alike. All attempts to make Moses or Paul act, or speak, or reason, as if they were Englishmen of the nineteenth century, must inevitably tend to change the translator into a paraphrast or a commentator, characters which, however useful, stand altogether apart from that of him, who, with a work before him in one language, seeks only to transfer it into another. 
In prosecuting the plan thus adopted, a literal translation was indispensable. No other kind of rendering could place the reader in the position contemplated, side by side with the writer - prepared to think as he does, to see as he sees, to reason, to feel, to weep, and to exult along with him. His very conception of time, even in the minor accidents of the grammatical past, present, future, are to become our own. If he speaks of an event, as now passing, we are not, on the logical ground of its having in reality already transpired, to translate his present as if it were a past; or if, on the other hand, his imagination pictures the future as if even at this moment present, we are not translators but expounders, and that of a tame description, if we take the liberty to convert his time, and tense - the grammatical expression of his time - into our own. King James' translators were almost entirely unacquainted with the two distinctive peculiarities of the Hebrew mode of thinking and speaking, admitted by the most profound Hebrew scholars in theory, though, from undue timidity, never carried out in practice, viz: - 
I. That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express the certainty of an action taking place, even though the action might not really be performed for some time. And II. That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either past or future were accustomed to act on the principle of transferring themselves mentally to the period and place of the events themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a bygone or still coming time; hence the very frequent use of the present tense. 
These two great principles of the Hebrew language are substantially to be found in the works of Lee, Gesenius, Ewald, &c.; but the present writer has carried them out in translation much beyond what any of these ever contemplated, on the simple ground that, if they are true, they ought to be gone through with. While they affect very considerably the outward form of the translation, it is a matter of thankfulness that they do not touch the truth of a single Scripture doctrine - not even one. 
Every effort has been made to secure a comparative degree of uniformity in rendering the original words and phrases. Thus, for example, the Hebrew verb nathan, which is rendered by King James' translators in sixty-seven different ways (see in the subsequent page, entitled Lax Renderings <http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/ylt.shtml>, has been restricted and reduced to ten, and so with many others. It is the Translator's ever-growing conviction, that even this smaller number may be reduced still further. 
It has been no part of the Translator's plan to attempt to form a New Hebrew or Greek Text - he has therefore somewhat rigidly adhered to the received ones. Where he has differed, it is generally in reference to the punctuation and accentuation, the division of words and sentences, which, being merely traditional, are, of course, often imperfect. For an explanation and vindication of these differences, the reader is referred to the "Concise Commentary," which is designed to supplement the present volume. 
The Translator has often had occasion to regret the want of a marginal column to insert the various renderings of passages where he has been unable to satisfy his own mind - he has, however, cast the chief of these into an appendix, under the title, "Additions and Corrections." and still more elaborately in the supplementary volume. 
EDINBURGH, 10th Sept. 1862
Style of the Sacred Writers, and of this Translation
ONE of the first things that is likely to attract the attention of the Readers of this New Translation is its lively, picturesque, dramatic style, by which the inimitable beauty of the Original Text is more vividly brought out than by any previous Translation. It is true that the Revisers appointed by King James have occasionally imitated it, but only in a few familiar phrases and colloquialisms, chiefly in the Gospel Narrative, and without having any settled principles of translation to guide them on the point. The exact force of the Hebrew tenses has long been a vexed question with critics, but the time cannot be far distant when the general principles of the late learned Professor Samuel Lee of Cambridge, with some modification, will be generally adopted in substance, if not in theory. It would be entirely out of place here to enter into details on this important subject, but a very few remarks appear necessary, and may not be unacceptable to the student. 
I. It would appear that the Hebrew writers, when narrating or describing events which might be either past or future (such as the case of Moses in reference to the Creation or the Deluge, on the one hand, and to the Coming of the Messiah or the Calamities which were to befall Israel, on the other), uniformly wrote as if they were alive at the time of the occurrence of the events mentioned, and as eye-witnesses of what they are narrating. 
It would be needless to refer to special passages in elucidation or vindication of this principle essential to the proper understanding of the Sacred Text, as every page of this Translation affords abundant examples. It is only what common country people do in this land at the present day, and what not a few of the most popular writers in England aim at and accomplish - placing themselves and their readers in the times and places of the circumstances related. 
This principle of translation has long been admitted by the best Biblical Expositors in reference to the Prophetic Delineation of Gospel times, but it is equally applicable and necessary to the historical narratives of Genesis, Ruth, etc. 
II. The Hebrew writers often express the certainty of a thing taking place by putting it in the past tense, though the actual fulfilment may not take place for ages. This is easily understood and appreciated when the language is used by God, as when He says, in Gen. xv. 18, "Unto thy seed I have given this land;" and in xvii. 4, "I, lo, My covenant is with thee, and thou hast become a father of a multitude of nations." 
The same thing is found in Gen. xxiii. 11, where Ephron answers Abraham: "Nay, my lord, hear me; the field I have given to thee, and the cave that is in it; to thee I have given it; before the eyes of the sons of my people I have given it to thee; bury thy dead." And again in Abraham's answer to Ephron: "Only - if thou wouldst hear me - I have given the money of the field; accept from me, and I bury my dead there." Again in 2 Kings v. 6, the King of Syria, writing to the King of Israel, says: "Lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman, my servant, and thou hast recovered him from his leprosy," - considering the King of Israel as his servant, a mere expression of the master's purpose is sufficient. In Judges viii. 19, Gideon says to Zebah and Zalmunnah, "If ye had kept them alive, I had not slain you." So in Deut. xxxi. 18, "For all the evils that they have done" - shall have done. 
It would be easy to multiply examples, but the above may suffice for the present. Some of these forms of expression are preceded by the conjunction "and" (waw, in Hebrew), and a very common opinion has been that the conjunction in these cases has a conversive power, and that the verb is not to be translated past (though so in grammatical form), but future. This is, of course, only an evasion of the supposed difficulty, not a solution, and requires to be supported by the equally untenable hypothesis that a (so-called) future tense, when preceded by the same conjunction waw ("and,") often becomes a past. Notwithstanding these two converting hypotheses, there are numerous passages which have no conjunction before them, which can only be explained by the principle stated above. 
III. The Hebrew writers are accustomed to express laws, commands, etc., in four ways: 
By the regular imperative form, e.g., "Speak unto the people." 
By the infinitive, "Every male of you is to be circumcised." 
By the (so-called) future, "Let there be light;" "Thou shalt do no murder; " "Six days is work done." 
By the past tense, "Speak unto the sons of Israel, and thou hast said unto them." 
There can be no good reason why these several peculiarities should not be exhibited in the translation of the Bible, or that they should be confounded, as they often are, in the Common Version. In common life among ourselves, these forms of expression are frequently used for imperatives, e.g., "Go and do this," - "This is to be done first," - "You shall go," - "You go and finish it." There are few languages which afford such opportunities of a literal and idiomatic rendering of the Sacred Scriptures as the English tongue, and the present attempt will be found, it is believed, to exhibit this more than any other Translation. 
The three preceding particulars embrace all that appears necessary for the Reader to bear in mind in reference to the Style of the New Translation. In the Supplementary "Concise Critical Commentary," which is now in the course of being issued, abundant proofs and illustrations will be found adduced at length. 
The Battle of the Hebrew Tenses
THE uncertain state of Hebrew criticism in reference to the Tenses is so fully exhibited in the following extracts from one of the latest, and in some respects one of the best, grammatical Commentaries (by the Rev. J. A. Alexander, of Princeton, New Jersey), on the Book of Isaiah, that the reader's attention to them is specially requested. 
On Isa. 5.13, Prof. A. remarks: - 'Luther, Gesenius, and Hendewerk take [the verb] as a future, which is not to be assumed without necessity. Most recent writers evade the difficulty by rendering it in the present tense. The only natural construction is the old one (Septuagint, Vulgate, Vitringa, Barnes), which gives the preterite its proper meaning, and either supposes the future to be here, as often elsewhere, spoken of as already past,' &c. [This principle, though admitted and maintained by Gesenius, Lee, &c. has never been acted upon, to any extent, by any Translator till the present. It is the only principle, however, that can carry us through every difficulty in the Sacred Scriptures.] 
On chap. 5.25, 'The future form given to the verbs by Clericus is altogether arbitrary. Most of the later writers follow Luther in translating them as presents. But, if this verse is not descriptive of the past, as distinguished from the present and the future, the Hebrew language is incapable of making any such distinction.' [Let this principle be carried out, as it ought to be, and nine-tenths of the common critical works on the Bible are rendered perfectly useless, and positively injurious.] 
On chap. 5.26, 'Here, as in v.25, the older writers understand the verbs as future, but the later ones as present. The verbs in the last clause have waw prefixed, but its conversive power commonly depends upon a future verb preceding, which is wanting here.' [And so it is in dozens of places where Prof. A. follows in the usual wake of critics.] 
On chap. 5.27, 'The English Version follows Calvin in translating all the verbs as future. The Vulgate supplies the present in the first clause, and makes the others future. But as the whole is evidently one description, the translation should be uniform, and as the preterite and future forms are intermingled, both seem to be here used for the present, which is given by Luther, and most of the late writers.' [Here, leaving all certainty and settled principles behind him, Prof. A. tells us how he thinks the inspired writer ought to have written, not what he did write.] 
On chap. 8.2, 'The Vulgate takes the verb as a preterite, and Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel read accordingly with waw conversive. The Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito make it imperative, and Hitzig accordingly. Gesenius formerly preferred an indirect or subjunctive construction, which is still retained by Henderson.' [Here are four ancient versions and, five modern critics at fives and sixes regarding what is as simple as can well be imagined!] 
On chap. 9.7, 'Another false antithesis is that between the verbs, referring one to past time, and the other to the future. This is adopted even by Ewald, but according to the usage of the language [rather of modern Hebrew grammar], Waw is conversive of the preterite only when preceded by a future, expressed or implied.' 
[By this very extraordinary rule the critic can never have any difficulty, for it is very easy to consider a verbal form implied when it suits his convenience! Yet this egregious absurdity is very commonly adopted in all existing translations, including the Common English Version; e.g., Gen, 9.12-14, where the Hebrew Text has four verbs all in the past tense, yet the first is translated as a present ('I do set'), and the remaining three as futures! The first verb is undoubtedly in the past, 'I have set,' the other three as undoubtedly, seeing the Waw by which they are preceded cannot be conversive, except when preceded by a future or an imperative, neither of which occur in this place. The solution of the supposed difficulty is only to be found in the principle stated above by Prof. A., and which is the basis of the New Translation, and maintained by Gesenius and Lee, that the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past to denote the certainty of an event taking place.] 
On chap. 9.19, 'Ewald refers the first clause to the past, and the second to the present. Umbreit the first to the present, and the second to the future. But the very intermingling of the past and the future forms shows that the whole was meant to be descriptive.' [Would they not be descriptive had they been all past, or all present, or all future?] 
On chap. 10.14, 'The present form, which Hendewerk adopts throughout the verses, is equally grammatical,' - [though the first verb is a perfect, and the second a perfect!] 
On chap. 14.24, 'Kimchi explains [the verb] to be a preterite used for a future, and this construction is adopted in most versions, ancient and modern. It is, however, altogether arbitrary, and in violation of the only safe rule as to the use of the tenses, viz., that they should have their proper and distinctive force, unless forbidden by the context or the nature of the subject, which is very far from being the case here, as we shall see below. Gesenius and De Wette evade the difficulty by rendering both the verbs as presents, a construction which is often admissible, and even necessary(!) in a descriptive context, but when used indiscriminately or inappropriately, tends both to weaken and obscure the sense. Ewald and Umbreit make the first verb present, and the second future, which is scarcely, if at all, less objectionable.' 
The above extracts are surely sufficient to show that Hebrew criticism, as hitherto taught, is capable of being used to any purpose, or moulded to any form the Critic may wish. Such a state of things surely cannot continue any longer, or be adopted by any one who regards simplicity more than ingenious guesses, truth more than tradition. 
View of Hebrew Tenses as Seen in the New Translation
THE HEBREW has only two tenses, which, for want of better terms, may be called Past and Present. 
The past is either perfect or imperfect, e.g., 'I lived in this house five years,' or 'I have lived in this house five years;' this distinction may and can only be known by the context, which must in all cases be viewed from the writer's standing-point. 
In every other instance of its occurrence, it points out either - 
A gentle imperative, e.g., "Lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman my servant, and thou hast recovered him from his leprosy;" see also Zech. 1.3 &c; or 
A fixed determination that a certain thing shall be done, e.g., "Nay, my lord, hear me, the field I have given to thee, and the cave that is in it; to thee I have given it; before the eyes of the sons of my people I have given it to thee; bury thy dead;" and in the answer, "Only - if thou wouldst hear me - I have given the money of the field." 
The present tense - as in the Modern Arabic, Syriac, and Amharic, the only living remains of the Semitic languages - besides its proper use, is used rhetorically for the future, there being no grammatical form to distinguish them; this, however, causes no more difficulty than it does in English, Turkish, Greek, Sanscrit, &c., the usages of which may be seen in the Extracts from the principal grammarians. 
In every other instance of its occurrence, it points out an imperative, not so gently as when a preterite is used for this purpose, nor so stern as when the regular imperative form is employed, but more like the infinitive, Thou art to write no more; thou mayest write no more. 
The present participle differs from the present tense just in the same manner and to the same extent as "I am writing, or, I am a writer," does from, "I write, or, I do write." 
THE ABOVE VIEW of the Hebrew tenses is equally applicable to all the Semitic languages, including the Ancient and Modern Arabic, the Ancient and Modern Syriac, the Ancient and Modern Ethiopic, the Samaritan, the Chaldee, and the Rabbinical Hebrew - not one of which is admitted to have the Waw Conversive. 
It may be added, that all the Teutonic languages - fourteen in number - agree with the Semitic in rejecting a future tense; the futurity of an event being indicated either by auxiliary verbs, adverbs, and other particles, or by the context. 
Analysis of the Verbs in Genesis ix. 12-15
12 "And God saith, This is the token of the covenant that I am making between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for generations age-during; 13 My bow I have given in the cloud, and it hath been for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth; 14 and it hath come to pass, in My sending a cloud over the earth, that the bow hath been seen in the cloud, 15 and I have remembered My covenant, that is between Me and you, and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters become no more a deluge to destroy all flesh." 
Verse 12. And God saith.] The present tense is used, according to the almost universal custom of the Hebrews, &c., to bring up the narrative to the present time. The conjunction and has no special or logical significance, but is used simply to break the abruptness of the opening sentence, as the Hebrews scarcely ever allow a verb in the present or past tense to commence a sentence, especially in prose, without some other word preceding it; the only other way would have been to put the nominative before the verb, but this, though occasionally used, is not agreeable to Hebrew taste. 
This (is) the token.] The Hebrew substantive verb is, in the present tense, very frequently omitted; in the past tense, it is very rarely, if ever, omitted. 
That I am making, lit. giving.] The participle is more strikingly expressive of present action than if the present tense had been employed. 
That (is) with you.] The present tense of the substantive verb is understood as above, according to the unus loquendi. 
V.13. My bow I have given in the cloud.] The past tense here is used to express a fixed determination_ that the circumstance mentioned is undoubtedly to take place; most unwarrantably does the Common Version translate as a present, 'I do set;' while the theory of the Waw conversive has no place here, since there is no Waw to work on. 
And it hath become.] The fixed determination is here continued from the preceding clause; on no grammatical principle can it be rendered present, much less future, as it is in the Common Version; the Waw here can have no converting power, there being no future preceding it to rest on, as the rules of Waw conversive imperatively demand. 
V.14. It hath come to pass - the bow hath been seen - I have remembered] - though rendered future in the Common Version, are all past, being preceded by pasts, and are to be explained by the same principle - of expressing the certainty of a future action by putting it in the past, owing to the determination of the speaker that it must be. 
The only remaining verb in the 15th verse is correctly put in the present tense; the speaker, going forward in thought to the period when the events alluded to take place, declares graphically that 'the waters become no more a deluge to destroy all flesh.' 
"Waw Conversive" a Fiction - Not a Fact
THE doctrine of "Waw Conversive," according to the common Hebrew Grammars, is: - 
"The past tense with the prefix waw, expresses future time when preceded by a verb in the future or by an imperative." And again: - "The future tense, with the prefix waw, and dagesh in the following letter, is used to express the past." [See the grammars of Hurwitz, Gesenius, &c.] 
The objections to this doctrine may be summed up in four particulars: - 
I. It is insufficient to explain the many thousands of passages in the Hebrew Bible where a past tense is preceded neither by a future nor by an imperative, yet where it is "converted" in the Common English Bible, and with as much propriety as in any of those instances that are supposed to be indisputable: e.g. 
Ge. 3.12, "This (is) the token of the covenant that I am making between Me and you ... my bow I have set in the cloud, and it hath become the token of the covenant ... and it hath come to pass ... and it hath been seen ... and I have remembered ... and the waters do no more," &c. Ge. 17.4, " Lo, My covenant (is) with thee, and thou hast become the father of a multitude of nations." 
The true solution of the principle involved in these passages is: That the Hebrews were in the habit of expressing the certainty of an action taking place by putting it in the past tense (see particularly Ge. 23.11, "I have given ... I have given ... I have given;" also in verse 13, "I have given"), taking its fulfilment for granted. 
II. It leads to results rather startling, viz. that most, if not all, of the Hebrew particles are conversive! Grammarians have already been driven to admit, or rather assert, that az then, and terem not yet, are conversive as well as waw. 
But the list might be enlarged with such as the following: - 
1 Kings 10.22 - ahath, once - 'once in three years cometh.' 
Num. 3.23 - ahari, behind - 'behind they do encamp westward.' 
Judg. 5. 8 - im, not - 'there is not seen.' 
Judg. 5.29 - aph, yea - 'yea, she returneth.' 
Gen. 6. 4 - asher, when - 'when they come in. 
Deut. 12.30 - aicah, how? - 'how do they serve?' 
Ezek. 21.32 - gam, also - 'this also hath not been.' 
1 Sa. 21.14 - hinneh, lo - 'lo, you see the man is mad.' 
Exod. 18.15 - ki, because - 'because the people come unto me.' 
Exod. 1.12 - ken, so - 'so they multiply.' 
Gen. 32.26 - ki im, except - 'except thou hast blessed me.' 
Ruth 2.13 - lo, not - 'and I - I am not as one.' 
1 a. 21.14 - lamah, why? - 'why do ye bring him unto me?' 
1 a. 19.24 - al ken, therefore - 'therefore they say.' 
Josh. 9. 8 - me-ayin, whence? - 'whence come ye? 
Gen. 37.12 - ma, what? - 'what dost thou seek?' 
Gen. 21. 7 - mi, who? - 'who hath said?' 
This is only a small specimen of what might be adduced. It is not too much to say that the above twenty particles (including az, waw, and terem) might be doubled, if not tripled, in number. 
III. It requires us to admit that the form yiqtol is essentially a future tense, while from the analogy of the Modern and Ancient Arabic, as well as from its use in the following passages (which might easily be multiplied), it is evidently an indefinite present, expressive of habitual action, which may very naturally be viewed as being or continuing in operation at some period afterwards as well as at present. 
Ge. 2.10 - yippared, it is parted. 
Ge. 2.19 - yikra, he calleth 
Ge. 6.4 - yavou, they come in. 
Ge. 10.9 - yeamar, it is said. 
Ge. 31.39 - ahattenah, I repay it. 
Ge. 31.39 - tevakshenah, thou dost seek it. 
1 Sa. 13.17 - yiphneh, he turneth. 
1 Sa. 14.47 - yarshia, he vexeth. 
1 Sa. 21.14 - taviu, do ye bring; tiru, you see. 
Isa. 1.11 - yomar, he saith. 
Job 3.11 - amuth, do I die. 
Job 3.3 - ivvaled, I am born. 
None of these passages can with any propriety be regarded as expressive of future action; and there seems no rational way of solving the problem but by regarding the tense as is done above. 
IV. It is not found in any other language; and in particular, it is unknown in all the cognate Semitic dialects, viz., the Samaritan, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in all the voluminous uninspired literature of the Jews. Attempts have been made to find something like it in the use of the Arabic particle pha, but, as Professor Lee has well remarked (in his Hebrew Grammar and Lexicon), the same thing might be alleged of most other Arabic particles, such as la, no, lam, not, lamma, why, summa, then, &c., which no one has ever as yet thought of doing. 
The Arabs, in order to lessen the occasional ambiguity arising from the same form of the verb being used indifferently for the present and the future, sometimes prefix to it the particle sa (a contraction of soufa, at last, hereafter), which makes it strictly future, and sometimes the word ammal (an agent), which makes it strictly present. 
The Waw Conversive - Imperfect
'ani hinne briti 'ittakh wehayita l'av hamon goyim velo yiqra `od 'et shimkha 'avram vhaya shimkha 'avraham ki 'av hamon goyim netattika [my impoverished transcription of the Hebrew - RLG] 
Common Version: - "As for Me behold, My covenant [is] with thee, and thou SHALT be a father of many nations; neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations HAVE I made thee." 
New Version: - "I - lo, My covenant [is] with thee, and thou HAST become a father of a multitude of nations, and thy name is no more called Abram, but thy name hath been Abraham, for a father of a multitude of nations HAVE I made thee." - Gen. 17.4,5. 
It is the first and the last of the verbs in the above verses to which the reader's attention is specially requested, viz, those translated in the Common Version, "Thou shalt be," and "I have made," and in the New Version, "Thou hast become," and "I have made." 
Both Versions agree in translating the last verb as a preterite, "I have made;" as the form of the verb is admitted on all hands to be that of a preterite. 
The versions differ, however, in the translation of the first verb, the one rendering it by the future "shall," the other by the preterite "hast." 
The question at issue is: Which of the two is right? both cannot be right - one must be wrong. 
It is undoubtedly in the preterite form, precisely like the last verb in the sentence, admitted on all hands to be a preterite. Why then should this not be translated as a preterite likewise? 
If it be said, that the sense requires it to be translated as a future, seeing it is not literally true that Abraham was a father of many nations at the moment that God addressed these words to him, then, on precisely the same principle, the last verb ought to be translated as a future, "I will make thee," - not "I have made thee," as both versions agree in doing - as it is not literally true, that, at the moment when God thus addressed him, He had made him a father of many nations. 
If no one will venture to translate the last verb as a future, why should the first be so rendered? 
If it be said that the first verb has a conjunction before it, called Waw, signifying "and," and that the Hebrew Grammarians have laid it down as an idiom of the language, that, in certain circumstances, Waw before a preterite indicates that the preterite is to be reckoned as a future, the answer is: These circumstances do not exist in the present case. 
The fundamental Rule laid down by all Hebrew Grammarians to regulate Waw Conversive is: that the first verb to be converted must be preceded by one of a different tense, e.g., a preterite must be preceded by a future, and a future by a preterite. 
But, in the passage before us, there is, in the Hebrew, no verb at all preceding the one supposed to be converted, and consequently the Rule cannot operate. 
On no principle of Hebrew Grammar, as commonly taught, can the Conversive Principle come into operation in this passage, and it is only one out of hundreds of similar instances. 
The solution of the matter is found in the principle: That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the preterite form of the verb to denote a fixed determination that the things mentioned shall and must take place; this principle is common to all the Semitic languages; it is distinctly admitted by the best Hebrew Grammarians; it is common to the New Testament Writers, and to the whole series of Greek and Latin Classics, (see Winer, Stuart, Kuhner, &c.) and it is the only one that meets all cases. 
The Waw Conversive, on the contrary, is unknown in every other Hebrew composition - in every other Semitic dialect - in every other language on earth. 
Summary of the New View of the Hebrew Verb
From these pages the scholar can scarcely fail to infer that: -
I. The form of the Hebrew verb yiqtol, denotes a real present, and not a future: 
Because it is admitted by Ewald, Gesenius, Lee, Rodiger, and every other Hebrew Grammarian of name, that it is so in numberless places, and because there are thousands of instances where the Common English Version, and all other versions, ancient and modern, do rightly translate it as a present. 
Because there are numerous passages where it cannot possibly be a future; and as it is impossible, in the very nature of things, for a real future to express present time, - whereas it is very common, in almost all languages, rhetorically to express futurity by a present - it must be a present, and not a future. 
Because in all the Cognate Semitic Dialects it is regarded as a present. 
II. The form of the Hebrew verb qatal denotes a past (perfect or imperfect). It is also used idiomatically: - 
To express a gentle imperative; this is universally agreed by all Hebrew Grammarians to be the case when it is preceded by a regular imperative, e.g., "Speak and say," lit., Speak, and thou hast said; but this limitation of theirs arises from imperfect acquaintance with the facts of the case, as there are many passages where there is no imperative preceding, yet where the past tense is used to express a command, e.g., Zech. 1.3, "And thou hast said," i.e, "Say thou." This idiom is also admitted to be common in all the Cognate Semitic Dialects. 
To express a fixed determination that a certain thing must and shall be. This idiom is distinctly admitted by the above-mentioned Hebrew Grammarians, and is common, not only in the Cognate Semitic Dialects, but in the Greek New Testament, and also in the Greek and Latin Classics, as shown by Stuart, Winer, Macknight, Kuhner, and others. 
III. The Waw Conversive is unnecessary. It is based upon superficial data, for: - 
It supposes yiqtol to be an exclusively future form, which is not the case. 
It ignores the idiomatic use of the past tense to express a "fixed determination," which is admitted by all Hebrew Grammarians. 
It casts the utmost uncertainty over the language, as, on the very same principles by which waw is supposed to be conversive, the particles once, behind, not, yea, when, how? also, lo, because, so, except, why? therefore, whence? what? and who? must be held to be conversive likewise - which no sane man will venture to maintain. 
It does not explain all the phenomena of the case, for there are numberless passages "where a past tense is preceded neither by a future nor by an imperative (as the rules of Waw Conversive imperatively require), yet, when it is converted in the Common English Version, and with as much propriety as in any of those instances which are supposed to be indisputable." 
It is unparalleled among all the other languages of the world - ancient and modern, eastern and western. It is found in no other composition in the Hebrew Language; in all the most ancient, and valued, and voluminous Hebrew writings it is wanting; - the Talmudim, the Perushim, the Midrashim, have it not. If the Hebrew language ever had a Waw Conversive, is it at all likely that it should suddenly, totally, and unobservedly drop out of existence? 
The result of the whole is: That the Waw Conversive does not exist in the Hebrew Bible, and is Unnecessary, Imperfect, and Unexampled in any language. 
It has only a traditional existence, being the too hasty generalization of some ancient grammarians, who observed that the Septuagint Translators had - with the freedom which characterizes their whole work both in style and sentiments - deemed the Hebrew idioms too colloquial for the fastidious Greeks, and too simple for the dignity of literary composition; and as all succeeding translators, without an exception, were under the spell of the sacred character of that Version, it is no wonder, though much to be regretted, that their example was followed. Of late years there has been a very strong tendency in translators and expositors to adhere more than ever to the exact form of the Hebrew and Greek Tenses, but the present Translation is the first and only one in which it is carried out systematically. 
Confused Renderings of King James' Revisers
The English verb 'destroy' is, in the Common Version, the representative of not less than forty-nine different Hebrew words (as may be seen in the Englishman's Hebrew Concordance, p. 1510 of second edition); - the verb 'to set,' of forty, and 'to bring,' of thirty-nine, &c. It ia evident, therefore, that the use of Cruden's Concordance, and all others based on the Common Version, can only mislead the mere English reader. 
The following list of words, with the number of their Hebrew representatives (according to the Common Version) expressed in numerals, will surprise all who have not hitherto attended to this subject; viz: - 
To abhor 12, abide 13, abundance 11, affliction 12, to be afraid 22, after 13, against 13, among 11, to be angry 10, another 11, to appoint 24, appointed 10, army 10, at 13, to bear 13, beauty 15, before 22, beside 14, to bind 15, body 12, border 13, bough 13, branch 20, to break 33, bright 10, to bring 39, to bring forth 21, broken 12, to be broken 16, to burn 19, burning 12, but 15, by 14, captain 16, captivity 10, to carry away 10, to carry 12, to cast 19, to cast down 19, to cast out 15, to catch 12, to cease 21, chain 10, chamber 10, change 16, to be changed 10, chief 10, to cleave 15, coast 10, to come 32, commandment 12, companion 10, company 22, to consider 18, to consume 21, consumed 10, to continue 11, corner 10, country 10, to cover 21, covering 13, to cry 17, to cut down 10, to be cut down 13, to cut off 18, to be cut off 14, dark 11, darkness 10, to declare 11, decree 11, to be defiled 10, to deliver 26, to depart 18, desire 13, to desire 13, desolate 16, to be desolate 11, desolation 12, to despise 10, to destroy 49, to be destroyed 17, destruction 35, to divide 19, to draw out 10, dung 10, to dwell 14, dwelling 11, east 10, end 26, to establish 13, to be exalted 11, excellent 10, to fail 30, to faint 18, to fall 14, fear 16, to fear 10, flood 10, for 21, foundation 11, from 17, fruit 12, garment 14, to gather 23, to gather together 16, to be gathered 10, to be gathered together 14, to get 16, gift 12, to give 15, glorious 12, glory 10, to go 22, goodly 15, governor 12, great 24, grief 10, to be grieved 17, grievous 10, to grow 13, habitation 17, to harden 10, haste 11, to make haste 10, height 11, to hide 14, to hide self 12, high 18, to hold 12, hurt 11, idol 11, if 10, in 13, to increase 17, iniquity 11, to be joined 10, judgment 10, to keep 11, to kindle 15, knowledge 12, labour 10, to be laid 10, to lay 24, to lead 12, to leave 15, to be left 11, to lift up 15, light 13, to long 10, to look 16, to be made 11, majesty 10, to make 23, man 12, to mark 10, measure 13, meat 14, to meet 10, midst 10, might 12, mighty 26, to mourn 12, to move 15, to be moved 13, much 10, multitude 14, net 10, not 14, now 13, of 10, to offer 22, offering 10, old 13, only 11, to oppress 10, to ordain 12, over 10, to overthrow 11, palace 10, part 14, people 10, to perceive 10, to perish 13, pit 12, place 13, pleasant 17, pleasure 10, poor 10, portion 13, to pour out 12, power 17, to prepare 14, to prevail 15, pride 10, prince 11, proud 16, to put 28, to regard 17, rejoice 19, to remain 16, remnant 11, to remove 20, to be removed 11, to repair 10, to rest 17, reward 16, riches 10, right 16, river 11, ruler 13, to run 14, scatter 12, to be scattered 10, secret 12, to set 40, to be set 13, to set up 18, to shake 15, to shew 19, to shine 11, to shut 11, side 13, to be slain 14, slaughter 12, to slay 15, to smite 12, sorrow 28, to speak 22, speech 10, spoil 10, to spoil 16, to spread 15, to stay 14, to stop 10, strength 33, to strengthen 12, strong 26, substance 14, to take 34, to take away 24, to be taken away 10, to tarry 16, to teach 10, to tell 12, terror 10, that 16, these 16, think 12, this 20, thought 11, through 11, thus 10, to 12, tremble 13, trouble 14, to trouble 12, to be troubled 14, truth 11, to turn 15, to turn aside 10, to be turned 10, understanding 14, to utter 15, to vex 16, to wait 10, wall 13, waste 10, to waste 10, when 12, where 13, which 11, wisdom 12, with 18, within 12, without 12, word 10, work 15, wrath 10, yet 10, youth 11. 
To make afraid 8, ancient 8, army 8, ask 8, assembly 8, back 9, band 9, battle 8, beat 9, because of 8, to behold 9, bottom 8, break down 8, to be brought 9, burden 8, to be burned 8, cast down 9, cause 9, to charge 8, chariot 8, clean 8, come upon 8, commit 8, to compass 9, confirm 9, cry out 8, to cut 8, to dance 8, deceitful 8, deep 9, defence 8, to be delivered 9, destroyer 8, devour 9, to direct 9, to do 9, to be done 8, to draw 9, to drive 8, drive away 8, dry 8, edge 8, enemy 9, even 8, ever 8, excellency 8, except 8, fair 8, fall down 8, fat 8, favour 8, to feed 9, fellow 9, first 9, flame 9, folly 9, foolish 9, form 9, friend 9, full 9, to gather selves together 8, be glad 9, going 9, be gone 9, goods 8, grieve 9, guide 8, heart 8, here 8, be hid 9, hole 8, honour 9, hope 9, image 9, increase 9, it 8, kill 9, lamb 9, to lament 9, to lay up 9, to leap 8, lift up self 8, to be lifted up 9, like 8, to be liked 8, line 8, little one 8, long 8, lord 8, lying 8, majesty 8, manner 9, to melt 9, mischief 8, to mock 8, mourning 8, none 8, officer 8, one 8, to open 9, oppressor 8, other 8, pain 9, to part 8, path 9, perfect 9, to perform 8, to pervert 8, piece 9, plain 8, pluck 8, polluted 9, possession 9, pray 9, precious 8, preserve 8, price 8, prison 9, prosper 9, pure 9, purpose 9, put away 9, put on 9, raise up 9, ready 8, receive 9, rejoicing 9, rest 8, return 8, ruin 8, to rule 9, to be sanctified 8, save 8, to say 8, search 8, see 9, shame 9, sheep 8, to shoot 8, to shout 8, shut up 8, sin 9, since 8, to sing 8, small 9, snare 9, son 8, sore 9, to sound 8, space 8, spring, 8, staff 9, step 8, stir up 8, stranger 9, stream 9, strike 8, strive 9, stronghold 9, subdue 8, such 8, surety 8, sweet 9, to be taken 8, tear 9, thick 8. 
The above are taken from a most useful book, entitled The Englishman's Hebrew Concordance, which only requires the insertion of the Hebrew Particles to make it a complete work. 
The Bible Student's Guide, by the Rev. W. Wilson, D.D., cannot be sufficiently commended as an accurate and elaborate Key to the mixed renderings of King James' Revisers. 
Lax Renderings of King James' Revisers
NATHAN 
'to give,' is rendered (in the Kal conjugation) by such words as: to add, apply, appoint, ascribe, assign, bestow, bring, bring forth, cast, cause, charge, come, commit, consider, count, deliver, deliver up, direct, distribute, fasten, frame, give, give forth, give over, give up, grant, hang, hang up, lay, lay to charge, lay up, leave, lend, let, let out, lift up, make, O that, occupy, offer, ordain, pay, perform, place, pour, print, put, put forth, recompense, render, requite, restore, send, send out, set, set forth, shew, shoot forth, shoot up, strike, suffer, thrust, trade, turn, utter, would God, yield; besides seventeen varieties in idiomatic renderings=84! 
ASAH 
'to do,' (in Kal) by: to accomplish, advance, appoint, to be at, bear, bestow, bring forth, bring to pass, bruise, be busy, have charge, commit, deal, deal with, deck, do, dress, execute, exercise, fashion, finish, fit, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, hold, keep, labour, maintain, make ready, make, observe, offer, pare, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, require, sacrifice, serve, set, shew, spend, take, trim, work, yield; besides twenty idiomatic renderings=74! 
DABAR 
'a word,' is rendered by: act, advice, affair, answer, anything, book, business, care, case, cause, certain rate, commandment, communication, counsel decree, deed, due, duty, effect, errant, hurt, language, manner, matter, message, oracle, ought, parts, pertaining, portion, promise, provision, purpose, question, rate, reason, report, request, sake, saying, sentence, something to say, speech, talk, task, thing, thought, tidings, what, wherewith, whit, word, work; besides thirty-one idiomatic renderings=84! 
PANIM 
'face,' is rendered by: afore, afore-time, against, anger, at, because of, before, before-time, countenance, edge, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront, forepart, form, former time, forward, from, front, heaviness, it, as long as, looks, mouth, of, off, of old, old time, open, over-against, person, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason of, right forth, sight, state, straight, through, till, time past, times past, to, toward, unto, upon, upside, with, within; besides forty-two idiomatic renderings=94! 
SUM or SIM 
'to set,' is (in Kal) rendered by: appoint, bring, care, cast in, change, charge, commit, consider, convey, determine, dispose, do, get, give, heap up, hold, impute, be laid, lay, lay down, lay up, leave, look, be made, make, make out, mark, ordain, order, place, be placed, preserve, purpose, put, put on, rehearse, reward, set, cause to be set set on, set up, shew, take, turn, work; besides fourteen idiomatic renderings=59! 
SHUB 
(in Hiphil) 'to turn back,' is rendered by: to answer, cause to answer, bring, bring back, bring again, bring home again, carry back, carry again, convert, deliver, deliver again, draw back, fetch home again, give again, hinder, let, pull in again, put, put again, put up again, recall, recompense, recover, refresh, relieve, render, render again, be rendered, requite, rescue, restore, retrieve, return, cause to return, make to return, reverse reward, send back, set again, take back, take off, turn away, turn back, cause to turn, make to turn, withdraw; besides fifteen idiomatic renderings=60! 
NASAH 
'to lift up,' is (in Kal) rendered by: accept, arise, able to bear, bear up, be borne, bring, bring forth, burn, be burned, carry, carry away, cast, contain, ease, exact, exalt, fetch, forgive, go on, hold up, lade, be laid, lay, lift up, pluck up, marry, obtain, offer, pardon, raise, raise up, receive, regard, respect, set, set up, spare, stir up, suffer, take, take away, take up, wear, yield; besides four idiomatic renderings=46! 
OBAR 
'to pass over,' is (in Kal) rendered by: to alienate, be altered, come, come over, come on, be delivered, enter, escape, fail, get over, go, go away, go beyond, go by, go forth, go his way, go in, go on, go over, go through, be gone, have more, overcome, overpass, overpast, overrun, pass, pass along, pass away, pass beyond, pass by, pass on, pass out, pass over, pass through, give passage, be past, perish, transgress; besides three idiomatic renderings=42! 
RAB 
'many, much,' is rendered by: abound, abundance, abundant, captain, elder, common, enough, exceedingly, full, great, great multitude, great man, great one, greatly, increase, long, long enough, manifold, many, many a time, so many, have many many things, master, mighty, more, much, too much, very much, multiply, multitude, officer, plenteous, populous, prince, suffice, sufficient; besides seven idiomatic renderings=44! 
TOB 
'good,' is rendered, by: beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, fair, fair word, to favour, be in favour, fine, glad, good, good deed, goodlier, goodliest, goodly, goodness, goods, graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh, liketh best, loving, merry, pleasant, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, well, to be well; besides four idiomatic renderings=41! 
It would be easy to multiply examples of lax renderings did space permit. The following are some that have been marked; e.g. 
Ahad by 23, Altar 25, Ish 31, Al 36, Im 23, Amar 37, Aphes 23, Asher 27, Bo 32, Bin 20, Ben 20, Gam 20, Halak 36, Ze 21, Hul 27, Hazak 23, Hai 22, Hayil 26, Tob 37, Jad 36, Jada 36, Yom 32, Hatib 28, Yalak 24, Jatza 37, Ysh 31, Yashab 20, Ki 36, Kol 20, Kalah 21, Lakah 20, Meod 21, Moed 20, Matza 22, Maneh 20, Mishpat 27, Natah 21, Naphal 20, Nephesh 35, Sabab 20, Ad 22, Oud 26, Oulam 24, Al 34, Alah 37, Im 21, Amad 23, Anah 20, Arak 20, Pe 29, Panah 20, Pagod 25, Qum 27, Qarah 24, Raah 32, Rosh 21, Hirbah 30, Ra 37, Shub 35, Shalom 28, Shillah 27, Shillet 20, Shama 20. 

$$Haitian Creole

This Haitian translation of the Bible is also available at: Online Bible for Macintosh <http://www.cbc.bryan.tx.us/cbc/onlinebible.htm>
The Creolist Archive <http://www.ling.su.se/Creole/Bible-Haitian-Index.html>
Spelling: IPA with the following modifications:
oral vowel + [n] = nasal vowel
[y] = /j/
[] = front open-mid unrounded vowel
[] = back open-mid rounded vowel
[ou] = /u/
[u] = Voiceless labial-palatal approximant, i.e. semi-vowel corresponding to /y/
[ch] = Voiceless postalveolar fricative
[j] = Voiced postalveolar fricative

$$Maori Bible
Maori Bible prepared by Timothy Mora. Text reproduced by Dr. Cleve Barlow.
$$Gaelic Scripture Portions (Manx Gaelic)
The Manx Gaelic Scripture portions were found at: http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~kelly/menu.html#BIB <http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~kelly/menu.html>.
They include Esther, Jonah, Matthew, Luke, and John. This looks like it has been scanned in, so there are probably a few spelling errors. Manx was spoken on the Isle of Man in Great Britain. The Ethnologue lists Manx as having no native speakers. http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/ 

$$Greek New Testament (Stephanus - 1550)

Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) 1550 edition, being an early and well-known Textus Receptus.
View a chart of the transliteration. <http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=translit&lang=English> 
$$Greek New Testament (Scrivener - 1894)

Scrivener's 1894 edition, an attempt to reconstruct the Greek Vorlage for the KJV NT, insofar as this can be found in Greek MSS, without retranslating Vulgate readings back into unattested Greek.
View a chart of the transliteration. <http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=translit&lang=English> 

$$Greek New Testament (Westcott-Hort)

Plain Westcott-Hort edition.
View a chart of the transliteration. <http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=translit&lang=English> 

$$Hebrew Old Testament

This is the unpointed Tanach, from the Masoretic text. The word Tanach is a Hebrew acronymn for Torah (Law), Neviim (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings), the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible. The base for this Tanach was Steve Gross' ASCII Transliterated Tanach, stored at israel.nysernet.org.
Information about Hebrew Fonts <http://unbound.biola.edu/help/index.cfm?fuseaction=front&lang=English&expand=fonts> 
$$Transliterated Hebrew Old Testament

Thinking it might be helpful for those who cannot get the Hebrew fonts, I took the text for the Hebrew Old Testament (see above) and transliterated it into Roman characters, with a few extras.
View a chart of the transliteration. <http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=translit&lang=English> 
$$Bulgarian Bible

Bible text Copyright  1924 Pridvorna Petchatnica 

$$Croatian Bible

BIBLIJA Prijevod KS Stari i Novi Zavjet 
Copyright by Kranska sadanjost, Zagreb 1988. 
Zahvaljujemo Kranskoj sadanjosti to nam je ustupila svoj tekst. 
This Bible was found at: <http://mypage.direct.ca/b/bibleman/Biblija.html> 
$$Danish Bible

(C) 1931, 1933.
Denne elektroniske udgave af bibelen kommer fra den danske 1933 udgave. Det Gamle Testamente er en oversttelse fra 1931 og Det Nye Testamente er en oversttelse fra 1907.

The electronic edition of this Bible comes from the Danish 1933 edition. The Old Testament is an update from the 1931 edition, and the New Testament is an update from the 1907 edition.
$$Dutch Bible

Dutch Statenvertaling, published in 1750.
$$Finnish Bible

PYH RAAMATTU
(C) 1933, 1938
Vanha Testamentti XI 1933 Uusi Testamentti XII 1938
$$Indonesian Bibles:

These were found at: <http://www.bit.net.id/SABDA-Web/>.

Terjemahan Lama (TL)
Apparently an older version of the Terjemahan Baru.

Terjemahan Baru (TB)
Copyright (C) Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia (Indonesian Bible Society), 1994.
Released for non-profit scholarly and personal use. Not to be sold for profit.
When making formal public reference to the materials, please acknowledge The Indonesian Bible Society (Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia) as the copyright holder.

Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari (BIS)
Copyright (C) Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia (Indonesian Bible Society), 1994.
Released for non-profit scholarly and personal use. Not to be sold for profit.
When making formal public reference to the materials, please acknowledge The Indonesian Bible Society (Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia) as the copyright holder.

$$Portuguese Bible

Joo Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada
$$Rumanian Bible

Cornilescu Version

$$Spanish Bibles

La Biblia Reina Valera

La Biblia de las Amricas
Translated by the Lockman Foundation.
More information <http://unbound.biola.edu/lbdla_info.cfm> 

Las Sagradas Escrituras Version Antigua
Copyright (c) 1999, Russell Martin Stendal
This Bible may be used freely provided that the contents are not altered. 

$$Uma New Testament

The New Testament in Uma. Central Sulawest, Indonesia.
Copyright (c) 1996, Wycliffe Bible Translators
Released for non-profit scholarly and personal use. Not to be sold for profit.

$$Vietnamese Bible

Published in 1934.

$$Norwegian Bible 

The Norwegian Bible (Bibelselskapets utgave 1930) was downloaded from http://www.menfak.no/bibel/hentbibel.html

$$Danish Bible

The Danish Bible was downloaded from http://www.menfak.no/bibel/hentbibel.html

$$Revised Standard Version (RSV)

Was downloaded from http://www.menfak.no/bibel/hentbibel.html
This text is Copyright and may only be used for personal use. 
The RSV is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611.

The British and foreign Bible Society 1967.

$$Swedish Bible

Swedish version of the Authorized Version of 1917

Svensk utgave AV 1917
 
http://www.menfak.no/bibel/

$$Indonesian Bibles

These were found at: <http://www.bit.net.id/SABDA-Web/>.

Terjemahan Lama (TL)
Apparently an older version of the Terjemahan Baru.

Terjemahan Baru (TB)
Copyright (C) Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia (Indonesian Bible Society), 1994.
Released for non-profit scholarly and personal use. Not to be sold for profit.
When making formal public reference to the materials, please acknowledge The Indonesian Bible Society (Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia) as the copyright holder.

Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari (BIS)
Copyright (C) Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia (Indonesian Bible Society), 1994.
Released for non-profit scholarly and personal use. Not to be sold for profit.
When making formal public reference to the materials, please acknowledge The Indonesian Bible Society (Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia) as the copyright holder.

$$Cebuano Bible
Cebuano Bible
This is the Bible in Cebuano, one of the languages spoken in the Philippines.
This Bible was originally found at: <http://members.xoom.com/kamakazikenz/bible.html>
Project to put the Cebuano Bible in RealAudio format. <http://members.xoom.com/visyan/bible/> 














