Hosea 10:1
 
Hosea 10:1
(KJV) Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly images.
(1611 KJV) Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruite vnto himselfe: according to the multitude of his fruite, he hath increased the altars, according to the goodnesse of his land, they haue made goodly images.
(1587 Geneva Bible) Israel is a emptie vine, yet hath it brought foorth fruite vnto it selfe, and according to the multitude of the fruite thereof he hath increased the altars: according to the goodnesse of their lande they haue made faire images.
(1568 Bishops Bible) Israel is a emptie vine, yet hath it brought foorth fruite vnto it selfe, and according to the multitude of the fruite thereof he hath increased the altars: according to the goodnesse of their lande they haue made faire images.
 
Counterfeit Versions
(NIV) Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased, the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars.
(NASV) Israel is a luxuriant vine; He produces fruit for himself The more his fruit, The more altars he made; The richer his land, The better he made the sacred pillars.
(NLT) How prosperous Israel is--a luxuriant vine loaded with fruit! But the more wealth the people got, the more they poured it on the altars of their foreign gods. The richer the harvests they brought in, the more beautiful the statues and idols they built.
(ESV) Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased, the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars.
(1901 ASV) Israel is a luxuriant vine, that putteth forth his fruit: according to the abundance of his fruit he hath multiplied his altars; according to the goodness of their land they have made goodly pillars.
(HCSB) Israel is a lush vine; it yields fruit for itself. The more his fruit increased, the more he increased the altars. The better his land produced, the better they made the sacred pillars.
(RSV) Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased the more altars he built; as his country improved he improved his pillars.
(NAB-Roman Catholic) Israel is a luxuriant vine whose fruit matches its growth. The more abundant his fruit, the more altars he built; The more productive his land, the more sacred pillars he set up.
 
Affected Teaching
This is one of those verses which is reversed in meaning in the modern versions. In the King James Version and the 1611 King James Version, the word “empty” is translated properly. The word for “empty” in the Hebrew is “baqaq” which means “to empty or lay waste.” (Strong’s #1238) The word in no way can be translated “luxuriant or lush. God was chiding Israel for their idolatry and this verse is no way a positive reassuring verse that God is favoring what they are doing. The word “baqaq” is translated elsewhere in the following manner:
 
(Isa 24:1 KJV) Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
 
(Jer 19:7 KJV) And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
 
(Nahum 2:2 KJV) For the LORD hath turned away the excellency of Jacob, as the excellency of Israel: for the emptiers have emptied them out, and marred their vine branches.
 
These verses contain the word “baqaq” exactly as it is used in Hosea 10:1. So we see that this word is never used in a positive light concerning the prophecies about Judah and Israel. Once again the modern versions reverse the meaning of a verse by using the wrong English words or we are seeing inept translators at work. I think it is quite funny that the modern translators tend to believe they have more insight than the KJV translators had. I think we are seeing just the opposite.

Back