FORGOTTEN OR PRAISED?
“And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 8:10)
The NIV, ESV, and RSV are among those that produced versions that speak of praise instead of being forgotten.
NIV: Then too, I saw the wicked buried–those who used to come and go from the holy place and receive praise in the city where they did this. This too is meaningless.
RSV Then I saw the wicked buried; they used to go in and out of the holy place, and were praised in the city where they had done such things. This also is vanity.
The so-called NKJV even cast doubt upon the sensible reading via a footnote, as is often the way that the deceptive snakes on that committee attacked the Bible.
This exceedingly stupid error on behalf of these committees is a puzzling one at first. It should be obvious that the intent of the verse is to express the pointlessness of the lives of the wicked whose acts in life gained them nothing in the long term scheme of things.
They were simply forgotten and all of their scheming, deceit and treachery came to naught. Why did the creators of these modern versions think that the wicked were being praised? Yes, I understand that the wicked are praised for their wickedness at times.
The NIV and RSV “translators” have been praised for their vile and loathsome deeds, but is this what is intended? It requires a very low level of reading comprehension skills to think that it is.
The verb in question is shakax. Unlike the verb is the last article (xul, xyl) this verb is a very easy one and is completely straightforward. It means to forget, as the KJV translators, as well as most others, indicate. How then did the degenerates on the NIV committee come up with “received praise”?
They found the variant in the frequently errant LXX of Origen, and in Aquila, which was followed by Jerome’s Vulgate. I thought about it briefly and theorize that Aquila and Origen, or whoever else was behind the writing of the LXX, must have read it as samax (to be joyous, causative to bring or cause joy) instead of shakax. The s and sh are only distinguished by the location of a dot, which is left out of unpointed texts, but the ‘m’ and ‘k’ are quite a bit harder to explain. It is possible that a poorly written ‘k’ could be mistaken for a ‘m’ if the letter were to have been written hastily.1
We know by looking at Alexandrian New Testament Greek texts, that the Alexandrian scribes were sloppy and incompetent. It still would not bring about the meaning of to be praised, but by a stretch of the imagination, it is possible that such an extended meaning may have been inferred from the context, if this was indeed the erroneous reading.
Maybe someone has a better guess, but however it came about, it was a clear error, since, as the NIV itself points out in a footnote, most Hebrew manuscripts (an understatement) have “forgotten” as does the Masoretic Text. So why then did the NIV and RSV committees choose such a contradictory and silly reading? The answer is simple.
It was opposed to God’s word, and they wanted to contradict it the Authorized Version in order to sew division and cast doubt upon the veracity of the Bible. Some may ask why they would this.
To such people I answer: Look at the schools and denominations that produced the NIV committee members. Examine what they stand for and what they teach in regard to Christianity and the Bible.
Try using your brain and thinking for a change. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
1 The printed version of this article shows the Hebrew letters. Interested readers without knowledge of Hebrew should look at a Hebrew alphabet chart and compare mem with kaph.
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent
Bibles in all the languages of the world.