The apostle writes (in most Bibles):<\/p>\n\n\n\n
a door was opened for me in the Lord<\/strong>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Greek word used for \u2018in\u2019 is \u03b5\u03bd<\/a>, which can be translated as \u2018in\u2019. However, it can also mean \u2018by\u2019 as in \u2018by means of\u2019. The same dual use applies to the equivalent Aramaic word<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So in English, this is more suitably translated as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n a door was opened for me by the Lord<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Or, since this verse seems to be using Lord as a euphemism for the Divine Name of God (see the link in the text for details), our translation says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jehovah had opened a door [of opportunity] for me there..<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/2001translation.org\/notes\/2corinthians2-12<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Most Bibles say something like the NIV, which says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n we do not peddle<\/strong> the word of God for profit<\/strong>. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity<\/strong> as those sent from God.[emphasis added]<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, this could be a mistranslation, or at least, a misunderstanding. Firstly, note that no Greek manuscripts<\/a> actually say \u2018for profit\u2019 like the NIV does above \u2013 no, that\u2019s just a translator insertion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What about the rest? Well, we defer to the Aramaic manuscripts whenever they say something differently from the Greek (see why<\/a>) \u2013 and interestingly, the Aramaic version doesn\u2019t use a word meaning \u2018peddle\u2019 here. Instead, the Aramaic uses a word for \u2018mixing\u2019 or \u2018diluting,\u2019 and this is probably where the problem started…<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dishonest merchants would water down (dilute) wine by mixing it with water, to boost their profits. So this word came to mean such \u2018diluters\u2019 or \u2018mixers,\u2019 which implied an \u2018unscrupulous merchant,\u2019 or as we say in English: a \u2018peddler.\u2019 So while it\u2019s true that some people make money from God\u2019s word, was that really the point? Was Paul emphasizing making money? Or was he emphasizing the watering down of God\u2019s word for a dishonest purpose?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, if the point was only about money-making, it wouldn\u2019t completely fit the context, because Paul contrasts it by saying, \u2018instead<\/strong> we speak the truth.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Is money-making the opposite of truth-speaking? Perhaps in some contexts. But isn\u2019t the opposite of making money, giving something away for free?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s ask it another way: What is the opposite of speaking truth? Is it making money? No \u2013 the opposite of speaking truth<\/em> is speaking lies<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, according to the lexicons, the Greek word<\/a> translated as \u2018peddlers\u2019 can also mean to \u2018adulterate\u2019 or \u2018corrupt.\u2019 So a 1st-century Greek reader may have understood it to mean watering-down after all; perhaps Paul was saying that, unlike dishonest merchants who dilute and adulterate their wine, he doesn\u2019t water-down or adulterate God\u2019s word, but instead says says the whole, unadulterated truth \u2013 the real, genuine article!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n But of course, the Greek doesn\u2019t say he is \u2018speaking the truth,\u2019 it says he speaks \u2018with sincerity.\u2019 So what about that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, the Aramaic<\/a> clearly says \u2018truth\u2019 instead of \u2018sincerity\u2019 here. Yet there\u2019s more to it…<\/p>\n\n\n\n The word is a very specific version of \u2018truth\u2019 \u2013 more like \u2018reality\u2019 or \u2018actuality,\u2019 and doubles as meaning \u2018firmness.\u2019 So the Apostle wasn\u2019t just saying he speaks truth, but he speaks reality<\/em> \u2013 he says things that actually exist<\/em> and are true<\/em>, and these facts are strong<\/em>, firm<\/em>, and sure<\/em>. This contrasts nicely with people who might water down or dilute God\u2019s message to be weaker \u2013 just like wine diluted with water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And lo and behold, according to the lexicons, the Greek word<\/a> translated as \u2018sincerity\u2019 has an additional definition that (depending on the context) means \u2018clearness\u2019 \u2013 or as we might say, he speaks with \u2018plainness.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n So if this line of thought is correct… Paul was actually saying that he doesn\u2019t dilute God\u2019s words to make them weaker (like a dishonest merchant might do to his wine), but instead he repeats God\u2019s words plainly, and firmly, just as they are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also, note that the Aramaic manuscripts speak of the plural \u2018God\u2019s words<\/strong>,\u2019 and not the singular \u2018God\u2019s word.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, while making money off religion is indeed wrong \u2013 that perhaps wasn\u2019t Paul\u2019s point in 2 Corinthians 2:17<\/a>. So this translation puts it this way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, we aren\u2019t like the rest who\u00a0dilute and weaken<\/strong>\u00a0God\u2019s words [like a dishonest merchant does to wine]. No, instead we speak the\u00a0plain truth<\/strong>\u00a0from God in God\u2019s sight (through the Anointed One).<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/2001translation.org\/notes\/peddlers<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This verse, both in the Masoretic and the Greek Septuagint says that GoliAth was killed by a man named \u2018EleAnan the son of AriOrgim\u2019 instead of David. This obviously contradicts the other famous accounts, including the account earlier on in the book of 1 Samuel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further, the duplicate account in 1 Chronicles 20:5<\/a> says that EleAnan actually killed GoliAth\u2019s brother<\/em>, a man named LachMi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So what\u2019s going on? Why does 2 Samuel get it wrong?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, there seems to be a simple scribal error in the original Hebrew manuscript!<\/p>\n\n\n\n That duplicate account in 1 Chronicles 20:5<\/a> also says that EleAnan (also spelled ElHanan) was actually called the son of Ari<\/em> not son of AriOrgim<\/em>. Indeed, the word \u2018Orgim\u2019 is not a person\u2019s name, it means weaver<\/em>. A scribe seems to have accidentally duplicated the word \u2018weaver\u2019 from the end of the verse, where it talks about GoliAth\u2019s spear being as thick as a weaver\u2019s beam. This duplicated word then makes the entire verse make no sense and mucks up the Hebrew grammar (and remember, Hebrew grammar works very differently from European grammar).<\/p>\n\n\n\n To clear up the confusing mess, it was assumed that \u2018Orgim\u2019 (weaver) was part of Ari\u2019s name, making a compound name: AriOrgim, or in English: AriWeaver.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then, because the grammar now makes no sense, the name of Goliath\u2019s brother, LachMi (which looks like the word for \u2018bread\u2019), was probably \u2018corrected\u2019 by someone to form part of the name of \u2018Bethlehem\u2019 (which means \u2018house of bread\u2019)!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly, the scribe seems to have confused two similar-looking Hebrew words: \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9 (brother of) and \u05d0\u202c\u05ea (a Hebrew grammatical marker). So he turned the \u2018brother of\u2019 into that marker, essentially removing the word from the text!<\/p>\n\n\n\n So we started off with \u2018EleAnan the son of Ari killed LachMi, the brother of GoliAth,\u2019 and we ended up with, \u2018EleAnan the son of AriWeaver<\/em> from Bethlehem<\/em> killed GoliAth\u2019!<\/p>\n\n\n\n What a mess!<\/p>\n\n\n\n This Hebrew scribal error \u2013 possibly a result of more than one scribe \u2013 was either present when the Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BCE, or some later person \u2018helpfully\u2019 \u2018corrected\u2019 the Septuagint text to agree with Hebrew error. We don\u2019t know which it was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So while the Bible cannot contradict itself, copyists can. It\u2019s a good example of an apparent contradiction that\u2019s easily solved by a little insider knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It also shows the inadequacy of certain Bible translations, as some have done nothing at all to correct this error!<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s good that many modern Bibles insert the words \u2018the brother of\u2019 to help fix the problem, but then they leave in the reference to \u2018Bethlehem\u2019 \u2013 making no note of the fact that it\u2019s a corruption of the name of GoliAth\u2019s brother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/2001translation.org\/notes\/who-killed-goliath<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The account at 2 Samuel 6:14<\/a> is a great example of why we trust the Greek Septuagint manuscripts over the Hebrew Masoretic text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the Septuagint, King David is described as wearing a fine robe<\/strong> (\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd<\/em>) while he danced in the parade leading God\u2019s Sacred Chest into JeruSalem for the first time. On the other hand, the Hebrew Masoretic text says that he was wearing just a linen ephod (vest)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So when his wife Michal accused him of exposing himself while he danced, the conclusion that the Hebrew text implies is that he celebrated bringing Jehovah\u2019s Chest to JeruSalem by dancing naked from the waist down! This certainly doesn\u2019t sound appropriate or likely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Greek Septuagint shows that he was fully covered in fine clothes, so Michal\u2019s accusation could just be the exaggeration of a disgusted wife who didn\u2019t approve of David\u2019s dancing. Perhaps she thought that her husband was not behaving in the dignified matter that her father Saul would have done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, did David actually expose his genitals?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, apparently, ancient IsraElites didn\u2019t wear underpants beneath their robes, so lively dancing may have caused David to accidentally expose himself. But the rest of Michal\u2019s and David\u2019s words may just mean that she disapproved of his exuberant dancing and used exaggeration to make her point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/2001translation.org\/notes\/2samuel6-14<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The precise wording and meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:9<\/a> is a bit unclear, and we have chosen to deviate from the thoughts expressed in other Bibles for the following reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, the New American Standard Bible, says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction<\/strong> away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, we believe that this is in error. Literally, the Greek source reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018which\/ones justice will\/pay ruin<\/a> age-long<\/a><\/strong> (Greek: holethron aionion<\/em>) from face of\/the Lord and from the glory of\/the strength of\/him.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Firstly, aionion<\/em> does not mean eternal<\/em>, but age-long<\/em>. In other words, it lasts for a specific period. How long that period may last is unspecified. Yes, it could turn out to be eternity, but it may not turn out to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Secondly, being eternally destroyed is inconsistent with the thought of being sent away from the face of the Lord. Is one being destroyed or sent away? Which is it? Indeed, Strong\u2019s<\/em> says this about the word used in the Greek source, that the word:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c…does not imply \u2018extinction\u2019 (annihilation). Rather it emphasizes the consequent loss that goes with the complete \u2018undoing.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n If indeed this should be understood to mean a complete loss<\/em> or a complete undoing,<\/em> then the Aramaic sources might agree. The Aramaic word can mean \u201closs, perdition, waste\u201d, although it could mean \u201cruin\u201d and \u201cdestruction\u201d too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, we have translated this verse more literally in a way that harmonizes the Greek and Aramaic, and the context, as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Yes, in justice, they\u2019ll be repaid with\u00a0age-long ruin<\/strong>\u00a0away from the face of the Lord and the glory of his might\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/2001translation.org\/notes\/2-thessalonians1-9<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Apostle quotes two phrases here. The first is usually understood as a quote of Numbers 16:5<\/a> (or Nahum 1:7<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second one, however, is a \u2018mystery\u2019 to academics. Nobody knows what the apostle was quoting. Some have proposed that it\u2019s alluding to certain passages, but none really fit. Some have even suggested that he was combining the thoughts of two different passages into one. However, it sounds very much like a direct quote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In most Bibles it reads like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.\u2019 \u2013NIV<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, what is the answer to this little mystery?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, maybe we have it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While it\u2019s certainly true that we should turn away from wickedness<\/em>, our theory is that this is actually a mistranslation. However, not a modern<\/em> mistranslation, but an ancient<\/em> one!<\/p>\n\n\n\n You see, the word which appears above as \u2018turn away\u2019 is translated from the Greek, which our project believes was likely translated from an Aramaic original. Now, in the Aramaic manuscripts, the word used is \u0718\u0722\u0726\u072a\u0718\u0729 (wnprwq<\/a>) and it has two completely different meanings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It can indeed mean to abstain<\/em>, or to leave off<\/em> and abandon<\/em> something. However, it can also mean to be rescued,<\/em> saved<\/em>, or most interestingly of all: to be ransomed<\/em>. The correct meaning is deduced from the context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once you realize this fact, you can see how an ancient Greek translator (who turned the original Aramaic letter of Paul into Greek) could make a simple mistake \u2013 he could simply chose the wrong meaning. Once you change the word from abstains<\/em> to saves<\/em>, it becomes very obvious what Paul was quoting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Literally, in Aramaic, it says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0710\u0736\u0722\u073d\u0718\u0722 \u0718\u0722\u0736\u0726\u0742\u072a\u073d\u0718\u0729 \u0721\u0736\u0722 \u0725\u0730\u0718\u0720\u0733\u0710 \u071f\u0741\u073d\u0720 \u0715\u0741\u0729\u0733\u072a\u0736\u0710 \u0720\u0730\u072b\u0721\u0736\u0717 \u0715\u0741\u0721\u0733\u072a\u071d\u0733\u0710 Or:<\/p>\n\n\n\n He saves all who call on the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ancient Greek translation, therefore, has two errors. It says \u2018abstain from evil\u2019 instead of \u2018saves from evil,\u2019 and it says \u2018Christ\u2019 instead of \u2018the Lord\u2019. If we fix both<\/em> errors, then the Greek text would say something like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Everyone calling on the name of the Lord<\/strong> will be saved<\/strong> from evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Any experienced Bible reader can immediately identify this quote. It\u2019s not hard. It\u2019s obviously a paraphrase of Joel 2:32<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018…all who call on the name of the Lord will be the ones who are saved\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n This verse is also quoted by Peter in Acts 2:21<\/a> and by Paul again in Romans 10:13<\/a>. Here in 2 Timothy, Paul simply adds that we\u2019re being saved from evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The only English Bibles to fix this error is ours and the 1933\u00a0Lamsa Bible<\/a>. For everyone else, this quote is a mystery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/2001translation.org\/notes\/2timothy2-19<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n You may notice that the list (in our translation) of David\u2019s \u2018mighty men\u2019 in 2 Samuel 23:24-39<\/a> only contains 25 names, and the entire chapter only lists 30 names of mighty men. We can assume these are the original members of the group of \u201830\u2019 that\u2019s mentioned several times. \u2018The 30\u2019 probably became a name itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So why does it then say \u2018In all, they numbered 37\u2019 at the end?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Could our manuscript, the Greek Septuagint, have it wrong here? Perhaps. The Hebrew Masoretic text contains a longer list of names, and parts of the list itself are quite different. Clearly at least one version is corrupted, maybe both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also, some have been able to make the list in the Hebrew add up to 37… although you need to jump through some mental hoops to get there! They say that if you use the slightly longer list in the Hebrew text, and if you make an assumption that there are actually two groups of \u2018three mighty men\u2019 (which has one unnamed member), and then if you also assume that JoAb was over them all (even if he wasn\u2019t listed in the chapter)… Then (finally) you reach 37.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, it seems like a bit of a coincidence that the chapter overall mentions \u2018the 30\u2019 men several times, and exactly 30 names are listed in the Septuagint text. That part seems to add up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also, remember that our Greek Septuagint manuscript is centuries<\/em> older than the oldest Hebrew manuscript, and the Hebrew was certainly revised (or censored and \u2018corrected\u2019) in the late 1st century CE. In other words, we generally trust our Septuagint manuscript over the Hebrew. Or to put it more plainly: someone may have tried to \u2018correct\u2019 the Hebrew text by adding more names to reach 37.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So what\u2019s the truth?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, we don\u2019t know. Perhaps the number 37 is an earlier corruption which now appears in both texts, and should actually read \u201830.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Or could the number 37 be referring to other (unnamed) men who replaced members of \u2018the 30\u2019 as they died? Indeed, there\u2018s another list of \u2018David\u2019s mighty men\u2019 in 1 Chronicles 11<\/a>, but the Septuagint text lists even more men there \u2013 51! So it may be that the number 37 includes some of the men who replaced those who died, but perhaps there was a difference of opinion over who was really good enough to be counted among the \u201830.\u2019 Perhaps the author of the later list in 1 Chronicles 11<\/a> was a bit more generous and included far more men among the \u2018mighty ones.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n So it\u2019s not very clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The simplest explanation for the number 37 in 2 Samuel, may be that the number should read \u201830,\u2019 not \u201837,\u2019 and it was simply an earlier scribal error. Then, later on, editors of the Hebrew Masoretic text tried adding to the list to \u2018correct\u2019 the discrepancy by taking names from the longer list in 1 Chronicles 11<\/a>. That longer list of names probably included various men who replaced the ones who died.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Note also that the number 7 in Hebrew is figuratively used to mean completion. Could the original Hebrew text have meant \u2018a complete 30\u2019? But it was later corrupted into \u201837?\u2019 Maybe, but if that\u2019s what happened, all manuscript evidence for this is lost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alternatively, the Hebrew text has it right, and with a little work (and adding in JoAb) you can get to 37, and the Greek Septuagint translators really messed up their translation and missed out lots of names by accident. However, that goes against all our experience with the Greek text. We just don\u2019t think they could have messed up that badly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whatever the truth, David certainly had a group of mighty men known as \u2018the 30,\u2019 and some who died were likely replaced by others, perhaps totalling 51. Where the number 37 fits in to all this is unclear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also see these translator notes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022\u00a0Lost text in 1 Chronicles 11<\/a>.2 Corinthians 2:17 \u2013 Peddlers of God\u2019s word?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
2 Samuel 21:19 \u2013 Who killed GoliAth?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
2 Samuel 6:14 \u2013 David dancing naked?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
2 Thessalonians 1:9 \u2013 \u2018with age-long ruin\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
2 Timothy 2:19 \u2013 The mystery quote<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
he-them saves from evil all who-call-to his-name of-the-lord<\/p>\n\n\n\n37 mighty men?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\u2022\u00a0The confusing lists of David\u2019s mighty men<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n