Page archived courtesy of the Geocities Archive Project

The Book of Daniel - a Comparative Study

The purpose of this study is to show that not all "bibles" teach the same things. Those that promote the multiple modern versions like to say that all Bibles have the same "message". This simply is not true. Even when the same texts are being used, the resultant English translations often differ radically one from another. Sometimes the exact opposite meaning is found in one when compared to the other.

I firmly believe God has been faithful to His promises to preserve His pure words, both as to text and meaning, and He has done this in the King James Bible. The versions like the New KJV, the NASB and the NIV often do not agree with the King James Bible, nor even among themselves. The result of having upwards of 200 different English "bibles", with different texts and different meanings in hundreds of verses, is that many Christians find themselves asking the first question recorded in the Holy Scriptures - "Yeah, hath God said....?"

Another King James Bible believer recently wrote: "Using more than one version, thinking neither is perfect, does nothing but convince men that their minds are their final authority as to what God has said."

Daniel 2:5,8 "The thing is gone from me"

Daniel 2:4-5 "Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation. The king answered and said to the Chadeans, THE THING IS GONE FROM ME: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.

2:7-8 "They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it. The king answered and said, I know of a certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see THE THING IS GONE FROM ME."

"The thing is gone from me", meaning that he had forgotten the dream, is the reading of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Douay, Young's, Spanish, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's, World English Bible, and the Hebrew Names Version.

However instead of the meaning of "I have forgotten the dream", beginning with the liberal RSV, the NKJV, NIV, and NASB have changed the meaning to: "the command from me is firm" (NASB), "this is what I have firmly decided" (NIV), "my decision is firm" (NKJV). According to these versions, Nebuchadnezzar had not forgotten the dream, but had only made a firm decision to punish them if they could not make the dream known. The meaning is not at all the same as that of the King James Bible and all the others, including the previous Revised Version and American Standard Versions.

John Gill remarks: "The subject of this chapter is a dream which Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed, but had forgot; upon which he calls his magicians and astrologers together, to tell him it, and the interpretation of it."

Jamieson, Faussett & Brown: "The thing--that is, The dream, "is gone from me." GESENIUS translates, "The decree is gone forth from me," namely, that you shall be executed, if you do not tell both the dream and the interpretation. English Version is simpler, which supposes the king himself to have forgotten the dream.

Matthew Henry: " The trial that he made of his magicians and astrologers whether they could tell him what his dream was, which he had forgotten. They were immediately sent for, to show the king his dreams, v. 2. There are many things which we retain the impressions of, and yet have lost the images of the things; though we cannot tell what the matter was, we know how we were affected with it; so it was with this king. His dream had slipped out of his mind, and he could not possibly recollect it, but he was confident he should know it if he heard it again."

John Wesley: "In this chapter we have, The perplexity of Nebuchadnezzar through his dream which he had forgotten, and which the magicians could not tell him."

Daniel 2:13 "And the decree went forth that the wise men SHOULD BE SLAIN; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain." None had been slain yet, since verse 24 tells us: "Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon; he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation."

The reading found in the KJB that a decree had gone forth to slay the wise men, but they had not yet begun killing them is found in the Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and others. However the NKJV says: "So the decree went out,AND THEY BEGAN KILLING the wise men."

Daniel 3:16 "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar,WE ARE NOT CAREFUL to answer thee in this matter."

To be careful is to be full of care or concern. This is the reading of the KJB, Geneva bible, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, and Webster's 1833 translation. The Third Millenium Bible, and the KJV 21 say: "We have no fear to answer thee in this matter".

John Gill - "O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter; about worshipping the image; we are not solicitous about a choice of words, or in what manner to draw up our answer, it is ready in our mouths; we have no need to take time and consider of this matter, and think what to say, we are at a point about it: as thou art peremptory in thy will to have thine image worshipped, we are as resolute, as determined, never to worship it; so that there is no need to spend time in a debate about it; thou art come to a conclusion, and so are we: or in this matter, about the power of our God to deliver, we are not solicitous about an answer to that; we leave him to defend himself, and his own power, against such insults upon him."

Matthew Henry - "O Nebuchadnezzar! we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. They do not in sullenness deny him an answer, nor stand mute; but they tell him that they are in no care about it."

C. H. Spurgeon - " "O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter." Read it, "We are not full of care as to how to answer thee." They did answer very carefully; but they were not anxious about the answer. It was not a thing that troubled them in the least. They knew what they were going to say. They did not deliberate. They did not hesitate. They said, "Nebuchadnezzar, we can answer you at once on that point."

However again the NKJV joins the NASB, and NIV in changing the meaning of the verse and has the three Hebrew children saying: "O Nebuchadnezzar, WE HAVE NO NEED TO ANSWER you in this matter."

Daniel 3:25 "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

John Gill - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God; many of the ancient Christian writers interpret it of Christ the Son of God, whom Nebuchadnezzar, though a Heathen prince, might have some knowledge of from Daniel and other Jews in his court, of whom he had heard them speak as a glorious Person; and this being such an one, he might conclude it was he, or one like to him; and it is highly probable it was he, since it was not unusual for him to appear in a human form, and to be present with his people, as he often is with them, and even in the furnace of affliction;to sympathize with them; to revive and comfort them; to bear them up and support them; to teach and instruct them, and at last to deliver them out of their afflictions."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "like the Son of God--Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas, and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.

Matthew Henry - "Some think it was the eternal Son of God, the angel of the covenant, and not a created angel. He appeared often in our nature before he assumed it in his incarnation, and never more seasonable, nor to give a more proper indication and presage of his great errand into the world in the fulness of time, than now, when, to deliver his chosen out of the fire, he came and walked with them in the fire."

John Wesley - " The Son of God - Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, did sometimes appear before his incarnation."

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of the King James Bible, Geneva Bible, Webster's, Douay, Green's interlinear, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Third Millenium Bible and the NKJV.

However the NKJV also has a footnote that reads" "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace. "A son of the gods" is the reading of the NASB, NIV, RSV and many other modern versions. You cannot believe nor teach the same truth using these conflicting versions.

Daniel 4:8, 9 and 18 "the spirit of the holy gods" or "the Spirit of the Holy God"?

In chapter 4 of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar gives his testimony of how, as a proud, multiple gods worshipping heathen, was greatly humbled and converted into a worshipper of the one, true, living God of heaven and earth.

He has a dream and calls for the wise men of Babylon, the magicians, and the astrologers, who cannot reveal the meaning to him. Then he calls for Daniel. "But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and before him I told the dream."

Notice that Nebuchadnezzar is speaking as a heathen king at this point and he mentions the name of HIS god Bel. The reading of "in whom is the spirit of the holy gods", plural and all in small letters, refers to a multiplicity of gods, some of whom are holy in his opinion, and some of whom are not. This reading is shared by the Hebrew translations of 1917, 1936, the Geneva Bible, Revised Version, ASV, NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Young's, Darby, and Douay.

However ONLY the NKJV has changed the meaning of which gods are being referred to in all three of these passages - verses 8, 9 and 18. The NKJV says: "according to the name of my god; in him is the Spirit of the Holy God". This of course, would refer to the one true God instead of the multiple false gods, as all the other versions teach. The point is, not all bibles say the same thing, so which one is right? Or doesn't it matter?

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "spirit of the holy gods--Nebuchadnezzar speaks as a heathen. Hence he speaks of "gods" in the plural."

Notice particularly what Matthew Henry says: " "His name was Belteshazzar, from Bel, the name of my god." He applauds his rare endowments: He has the spirit of the holy gods, so he tells him to his face with which we may suppose that Daniel was so far from being puffed up that he was rather very much grieved to hear that which he had by gift from the God of Israel, the true and living God, ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar's god, a dunghill deity. He retains the language and dialect of his idolatry, and therefore, it is to be feared, is no convert to the faith and worship of the living God. He is an idolater, and his speech betrayeth him. For he speaks of many gods, and some think, when he speaks of the spirit of the holy gods, that he supposes there are some evil malignant deities, whom men are concerned to worship, only to prevent their doing them a mischief, and some who are good beneficent deities, and that by the spirit of the latter Daniel was animated. He also owns that Bel was his god still. He also applauds Daniel, not as a servant of God, but as master of the magicians (v. 9), supposing his knowledge to differ from theirs, not in kind, but only in degree; and he consulted him not as a prophet, but as a celebrated magician, so endeavouring to save the credit of the art when those blundered and were nonplussed who were masters of the art. See how close his idolatry sat to him. He has got a notion of many gods, and has chosen Bel for his god, and he cannot persuade himself to quit either his notion or his choice, though the absurdity of both had been evidenced to him, more than once, beyond contradiction. He, like other heathens, would not change his gods, though they were no gods, Jer. 2:11."

This distinction, however, can no longer be found in the NKJV, because of its contradictory rendering.

Daniel 7:9 "I beheld till the thrones were CAST DOWN, and the Ancient of days did sit..."

This is the reading of the KJB, the 1936 Jewish translation of Hebrew Publishing Comany, Young's, Websters 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium bible.

However the NKJV, NIV, NASB,and RSV say: "I beheld till the thrones were SET UP (NASB) or PUT IN PLACE (NKJV, NIV)", the very opposite. Both readings cannot be correct at the same time. Not all "bibles" teach the same thing.

John Gill remarks in his commentary: "Verse 9. I beheld till the thrones were cast down,.... On which the governors of the above monarchies sat; and those of the ten kings, signified by the ten horns; and also that of the little horn. The prophet kept looking on the objects before him, till he in his dream, and the visions of the night, saw all those empires and kingdoms demolished, and all rule, power, and authority, put down, and way made for the glorious kingdom of the Messiah, and his saints with him; to this sense Aben Ezra, Saadiah, and Jacchiades, interpret the word used; but the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, render it, "until the thrones were set up" {q}; for the judges to sit upon to try, judge, and condemn the four beasts or monarchies; in order to make way for the kingdom of the Son of man to take place in the spirituality and glory of it."

John Wesley notes: "Verse 9.   The thrones - The kingdoms of this world were destroyed by God the king, and judge of all, called the Ancient of days, because of his eternal deity.

The word for cast down is # 7412 and is used in Daniel 3:6, 11, 15, and 24 in the phrase "were cast into the fiery oven", and in Daniel 6:7, 12, 16, and 24 where people were cast into the lion's den.

There are many prophetic views of both the Messiah and the Antichrist presented in the book of Daniel. However many of these prophecies have been totally confused by the renderings found in the modern versions. We will consider a few of these and I hope you see the differences and their importance.

In chapter 7, Daniel sees a vision of four great world powers arise in the form of beasts, and out of the final beast he sees a little horn arise, which most commentators consider to be a type of the future Antichrist.

Certain characteristics of this man are described. There appears to be something peculiar about his eyes and his look or glance toward others. 7:9 tells us "in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking GREAT THINGS." 8:23 "And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transressors are come to the full, a king of FIERCE COUNTENANCE, and understanding DARK SENTENCES, shall stand up."

7:20 "even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very GREAT THINGS, WHOSE LOOK WAS MORE STOUT than his fellows."

All of the words in capital letters have been changed in the NKJV, NIV and NASB.

The "great things" that he speaks could be telling mankind of its great potential to establish a world of peace and unity, all without the cross and redemption of the Son of God. He could also be telling man how great he is and that his destiny is to become godlike. This was the first lie and God will send strong delusion that they shall believe the lie -"ye shall be as gods" Genesis 3:5. The "great things" also directly ties into the vision of the Antichrist given in Revelation 13:5 where we read of the beast unto whom was given "a mouth speaking GREAT THINGS and blasphemies."

The "great things" in verses 7:8 and 20 is the same in the KJB, RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby, Douay, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible, but the NKJV says he will speak "pompous words", while the NIV, NASB say he will speak "boastfully". This reading would imply that he is only speaking of himself and not flattering mankind in general. Isn't it better to just translate what it says, rather than to force an interpretation on the verse? Also, the cross reference to Revelation 13:5 is lost in the new versios.

7:20 "whose LOOK was more stout than his fellows". This is the reading of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Webster's, TMB and others. This expresses Antichrists piercing eyes and his stare or glance at others. But the NKJV changes this from his look to his appearance and says: "whose APPEARANCE was greater than his fellows", the NASB has "which was larger in appearance than its associates", while the NIV says: "he looked more imposing than the others." All of these redirect our attention from his peculiar look to his general appearance.

7:21 - 22 "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN TO THE SAINTS."

We are told in Scripture that "the saints shall judge the world" 1 Cor. 6:2, and Psalms 149:5-9 tells us the saints will "execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written; this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD." See also Jude 14, 15 and Rev. 2:26,27.

"Judgment was GIVEN TO THE SAINTS" is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby and others, but the NKJV says: "a judgment IS MADE IN FAVOR OF the saints" (not that the saints themselves would be taking part in this judgment), the NASB has: "judgment WAS PASSED IN FAVOR OF the saints", while the NIV reads: "pronounced judgment in favor of the saints." Do you see the difference?

Daniel 8:25 continues with the description of Antichrist with: "and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and BY PEACE shall destroy many; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

This verse again ties into chapter 11:21 and 24 where we read: "but HE SHALL COME IN PEACEABLY, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries...HE SHALL ENTER PEACEABLY even upon the fattest places of the province."

Many commentators have traditionally said that Antichrist will come upon the world scene as a "man of peace", supposedly bringing solutions to a world torn apart with international strife, conflict and war. This is why so many will be eager to accept him as their leader.

"By peace" he shall destroy many, and "he shall come in peaceably" is the reading of the KJB, Geneva Bible, Webster's, TMB, Spanish 1909 Reina Valera "con paz destruirá a muchos", and the KJV 21.

The NKJV splits itself by changing the meaning here in 8:25 but following the KJB in 11:21, 24. Here the NKJV says: "he shall destroy many IN THEIR PROSPERITY", the NASB has: " WHILE THEY ARE AT EASE he will destroy" and the NIV reads: "WHEN THEY FEEL SECURE, he will destroy". This is the opposite of the KJB. According to the new versions, when the world is in peace, at ease and secure, then Antichrist comes on the scene.

In 11:21, 24 instead of "he shall come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom", which is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Spanish, TMB and Webster's, the NASB says: "he will come in a time of tranquility" and the NIV likewise has: "he will come when its people feel secure." So, will men be waiting for a time of tranquility and ease before Antichrist arises, or will there be conflict and wars and then he comes as a man of peace?

Do angels fly? Not according to the NASB.

Daniel 9:21 "Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, BEING CAUSED TO FLY SWIFTLY, touched me about the time of the evening oblation."

"Being caused to fly swiftly" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Geneva, Young's and many others. However the NASB says: Gabriel "came to me in my extreme weariness" - nothing about being caused to fly. Not quite the same, is it?

Daniel 9:26 Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was killed and died, not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.

There is no verb in the Hebrew here, and it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's, TMB and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the KJB, but not the text of the NIV.

Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse 24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: " In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, but not for himself —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."

The NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASB and Darby read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood!

Instead of "but not for himself" the New English bible says: "without anyone to take his part", Young's has "cut off is Messiah and the city and the holy place are not", 1917 Jewish translation has "shall an anointed one be cut off and be no more" (again not true), New American Bible has: " an anointed one shall be cut off when he does not possess the city", Douay - "Christ shall be slain and the people who deny Him shall not be His", Lamsa - "Messiah shall be slain and the city shall be without a ruler", and the LXX reads: "and there is no judgment in him". Aren't you glad that is all cleared up for us?

Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. This is total nonsense. God has preserved His words, and for those who have eyes to see, it is obvious that they are found in the Authorized 1611 King James Bible.

Much of the remainder of this study will simply point out the differences of meaning in the conflicting bible versions, without much in the way of commentary.

Daniel 9:27 KJB "and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and FOR THE OVERSPREADING OF abominations, HE shall make IT desolate, even until the consummatiion, AND THAT determined shall be poured upon THE DESOLATE."

NKJV "but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And ON THE WING of abominations SHALL BE ONE who makes desolate, even until the consummation, WHICH IS determined, is poured out on the desolate."

NIV "In the middle of THE SEVEN he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on A WING OF THE TEMPLE, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out ON HIM."

NASB "but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering, and on the WING of abominations will COME ONE who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on THE ONE WHO MAKES DESOLATE."

Daniel 10:1 "In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, BUT THE TIME APPOINTED WAS LONG."

This is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Geneva, Spanish, Websters, and TMB. It also agrees with verse 14 where the angel tells Daniel he came to make him "understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days; for yet the vision is for many days."

Instead of "but the time appointed was long" the NASB says: "the message was true AND ONE OF GREAT CONFLICT"; the NIV says: "its message was true AND IT CONCERNED A GREAT CONFLICT."

11:8 KJB "And shall carry captives into Egypt their gods, with THEIR PRINCES, and with their precious vessels..."

"Their princes" is the reading of 1936 Jewish translation, Young's, Websters, Darby, Spanish 1909, NKJV, Diodati, and the Third Millenium bible.

However instead of 'the princes' the NASB, RSV, NIV, ASV say "into Egypt their gods, THEIR METAL IMAGES, and their valuable articles..."

11:9 KJB "So the king of the SOUTH shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land." So also Geneva, Young's, Douay, 1936, Green's interlinear, KJV 21, TMB, and Websters.

The NKJV says: "Then the king of the NORTH (not south) shall come to the kingdom of the king OF THE SOUTH, but shall return to his own land."

11:17 "He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, AND UPRIGHT ONES WITH HIM; THUS SHALL HE DO." So the NKJV, 1936, Young's, Green, TMB, and Webster's.

The NASB says: "He will set his face to come with the power of his whole kingdom, BRINGING WITH HIM A PROPOSAL OF PEACE WHICH HE WILL PUT INTO EFFECT."


11:26 "Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and HIS ARMY SHALL OVERFLOW: and many shall fall down slain."

John Gill and other commentators say this speaks of the army of Antiochus as a type of Antichrist, whose army overflows and conquers others. "His army shall overflow" is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, Young's, Hebrew Names Version and others. However the NKJV and NIV give the opposite meaning with: "HIS ARMY SHALL BE SWEPT AWAY".

Finally two more verses which speak of Antichrist have been mixed up and changed as to the meaning.

Daniel 11:37 "Neither shall he regard the God (with a capital G, indicating the true God) of his fathers, nor THE DESIRE OF WOMEN, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

With a capital G in "God of his fathers" we can safely assume this speaks of a Jew as the Antichrist, or at least, it admits of the possibility of his being a Jew. Jesus said: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another come in his own name, him ye will receive." John 5:43.

"the God of his fathers" is the reading of the KJB, Young's, Geneva, Darby, Douay, Lamsa, Webster, TMB and the Spanish versions. The NKJV also says God of his fathers, but then has a footnote that says: "or gods of his fathers", and so too read the NASB, NIV, and RSV. The reading of "gods of his fathers" eliminates the idea of his being a Jew.

11:37 "Neither shall he regard THE DESIRE OF WOMEN". This is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, and the NASB. Some have suggested this may be a reference to his being a homosexual, and his unnatural lust (Matthew Henry). However the NIV, RSV, NRSV and ESV alter the reading to say: "He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for THE ONE DESIRED by women", (or "the one beloved by women") as though there is some special god desired by women!

11:38 "But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour." Again the God of forces, with a capital G indicates this is the true God.

The word for "forces" is # 4581 mah-gohz and is found 36 times, variously translated as "rock, strength, strong hold, fortress, fort and forces". It is frequently used of the true God as in "the LORD is the STRENGH of my life", "the joy of the Lord is your STRENGTH" and "The LORD is good, A STRONG HOLD in the day of trouble".

"The God of forces" is the reading of Webster's translation; the 1936 Jewish translation says: "the God of strongholds" and Lamsa's says: "the mighty God", all of which indicate the true God.

However all this is mixed up in a multitude of conflicting versions. The NKJV, NIV and NASB unite in "a god of fortresses", BBE "the god of armed places", Geneva and Douay "the god Mauzzim", while the Good News Translation has "the god who protects fortresses".

Antichrist will combine all religions into an amalgamation of false unity. He will give lip service to JEHOVAH as well as another god - the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). This is the direction the world is now headed pell-mell, and the multitude of conflicting bible versions are being used to undermine and confuse the truth of God and to destroy and weaken the faith of God's people. If Satan can get God's people to say all bibles have the same message, even when they clearly do not, then the next step is to say all religions have the same message. This very thing is happening right now before our eyes.

God has preserved His pure and inerrant words for us. They are found in the King James Bible in all their perfection. God, by His sovereign grace, has a remnant today who will hear His voice. "But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth." Daniel 10:21

Will Kinney

Daniel - A Comparative Study

return to articles