Recently (August 2010) a man named Jonathan Sarfati challenged a rather long list I posted about how versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, etc. so often reject the Hebrew readings, and he responded in this fashion.  He got a little testy about it too, and deliberately called me Miss Kinney for the second time in our exchanges.  Then I answered him.  Here is part of our interchange.

Jonathan Sarfati posts: Who would trust anything from an anti-scholar like Miss Kinney on what the Hebrew says or doesn't say? The KJV departed from the extant Hebrew manuscripts ...when it inserted "the brother of" Goliath into their text. But rightly so, because they recognized that there was a copying mistake, as shown by the uncorrupted parallel passage. The NIV, like Luther, also removes a contradiction in 2 Sam 21:8 by going against the Masoretic and using two Hebrew MSS and the LXX to have the sons of *Merab* rather than the childless Michal."

Hi Mr. Sarfati. A Christian does not have to be a renowned scholar to be able to read the Bible, but he should have a spirit of humility to believe it. On the one hand you mention the "brother of Goliath" and tell us the KJB did correctly for inserting the word in the passage because it is found in the other, and I agree. But this was using the Hebrew.

The case with the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, etc. is that they so often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and either make up their own numbers out of thin air, and STILL don't agree with each other (See 1 Samuel 13:1), or as in 2 Samuel 21:8 you ASSUME the Hebrew text is wrong by having Michal instead of Merab. You ASSUME that there is no possible way to explain this apparent contradiction, and so you defend your false NIV reading and call it "scholarship" when in fact it is nothing more than unbelief tampering with the pure words of God.

You start off with TWO false statements as well. You tell us that Luther changed Michal and put in Merab on the basis of 2 Hebrew mss. and 'THE LXX'.

Well sir, The Luther German Bible of 1545 which he translated does NOT say MERAB, but the Hebrew reading of MICHAL.

dazu die fünf Söhne Michals. Look it up please. Now some other guy came along in 1912 (no doubt some other bible corrector like you) and he changed Michal to Merab - dazu die fünf Söhne Merabs, - and labeled the translation Luther's German bible of 1912. Sorry, Mr. Scholar, but it wasn't ol' Martin himself that did this. The German Elberfelder of 1905 still agrees with the Hebrew text and has Michal, not Merab - it reads -die fünf Söhne Michals. 

Your second piece of unbridled scholarship is when you tell us that "the LXX" also has Merab and not the correct Hebrew Michal. Wrong again, Sir. I have a copy of the most common edition of the so called Greek Septuagint or LXX that is used by almost anyone who thinks thing is worth studying for any number of reasons. It is called the Septuagint Version put out by Zondervan, and published "by special arrangement with Samuel Bagster & Sons, LTD. London, 4th printing 1977.

My copy of the LXX clearly says both in the Greek and in the accompanying English translation - "the five sons of MICHAL". So, your advanced scholarship to this point is not faring too well. That is two strikes right off the bat. Strike three is coming up.

Now, to look at the passage and WHY the Hebrew reading is correct. Of course, I fully expect you to simply brush aside the massive evidence that the traditional Hebrew text is correct and that there is a very reasonable way to explain this apparent contradiction. Rather than believe God may have in fact preserved His words in a real book, you prefer to adjust, change, modify and correct your as yet unsettled and ever changing bible texts at will, and call it "scholarship".

I then sent him this full article on 2 Samuel 21:8 and why the Hebrew reading is correct.

2 Samuel 21:8 Michal or Merab?

In 2 Samuel 21:8 we read: "and the five sons of MICHAL the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel..." Since Michal was childless until her death, it was asked how could she have five sons. The NASB and NIV have changed this to MERAB, the sister of Michal.

First of all, the Hebrew Masoretic text clearly says: "and the five sons of MICHAL the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel..." Notice it says "brought up FOR Ariel".

The first English version to change the Hebrew text was the liberal Revised Standard Version. Since then others like the NASB, RSV, NRSV, Holman Standard, and NIV editors have followed suit. They do not believe God has preserved His words, look at this verse and think the Hebrew texts must be wrong. So they correct it, supposedly on the basis of a couple of Hebrew mss (but not the Masoretic) and SOME LXX. The NIV footnote says most Hebrew manuscripts and most LXX read Michal. My copy of the LXX says Michal, which agrees with the KJB.

The 2001 English Standard Version also changes the Hebrew text from Michal to Merab and then footnotes: "Two Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint; most Hebrew manuscripts Michal" Why didn't they mention the Syriac? Well, most likely because the Syriac reads: "NADAB the daughter of Saul".

Not at all surprisingly, Daniel "scribal error" Wallace's NET version also adopts the phony reading of Merab instead of the correct Michal.

I believe God puts many things like this in His word to cause unbelievers to stumble. The perverted bible versions that read MERAB instead of MICHAL are the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, and the New English bible among other modern pretenders.

The Hebrew-English translations of both 1917 and 1936, Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Italian Diodati, the French Martin 1744, and Ostervald 1996, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909-1995, Luther German 1545, Webster's 1833, Young's, Darby, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Green's interlinear, the Third Millenium Bible, 21st Century KJV, as well as the NKJV correctly read Michal- which is what God's preserved Hebrew masoretic text says.

Now for the explanation. Merab was the sister of Michal, and she was the wife of Adriel. See I Samuel 18:19. Michal was childless till the day of her death, as is seen in 2 Samuel 6:23. What must have happened is that Merab died, and Michal took her place in the nuclear family and brought up these 5 children

Jamieson, Fauccett and Brown comment: "the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel--Merab, Michal's sister, was the wife of Adriel; but Michal adopted and brought up the boys under her care."

John Gill comments: "Michal had no children to the day of her death, nor was she the wife of Adriel, but Merab her sister, (1 Samuel 18:19); wherefore these sons were not whom she "bare", as the word used signifies, but, as we rightly render it, whom she "brought up" or educated, so the Targum, her sister being dead; and so the Jews say Merab brought them forth, and Michal brought them up, therefore they were called by her name."

I was looking at some more commentaries on this verse and Matthew Poole (as well as Matthew Henry) adopt the same view that Merab had died and Michal, who herself had no children, took upon herself to raise up these 5 kids after the death of Merab.

Matthew Poole Commentary on the whole Bible says: “The five sons of Michal, or, of Michal's sister, to wit, Merab; for Michal had no children, 2 Sam. vi. 23, nor was she married to this Adriel, but to Phalli, or Phaltiel, the son of Laish, 1 Sam. xxv. 44; 2 Sam. iii. 15; and Merab her sister was married to this very Adriel the Meholatlute, 1 Sam. xviii. 19. ... the sons of Merab are called the sons of Michal, to wit, by adoption; or, the near kindred and next heirs of Michal, and brought up by her; for upon that and such-like accounts the title of son is oft given in Scripture, as Gen. xlviii. 5; Exod. ii. 10; Deut. xxv. 5, 6; Ruth i. 11, 12; iv. 17. Question: But why then are not these called the sons of Merab?  Because they were better known by their relation to Michal, who was David's wife, and, it may be, alive at this time, and haying no children of her own, took these, and bred them up as her own; when Merab was now a more obscure person, and possibly dead many years before this. Whom she brought up; for so this Hebrew verb, which primarily and properly signifies to bear, is sometimes used, as Gen. 1. 23 ; Ruth iv. 17, because the education of children is a kind of bearing of them, as requiring frequently no less care and pains than the bearing doth.”

Even if you translate the word as "born to", which the KJB rightly did not, you need to use some close scrutiny to see how this word is sometimes used. In Ruth 4:17 the exact same word is used in the phrase "There is a son BORN TO Naomi." Now Naomi was not the biological mother of this child, but Ruth was. Even here in this same chapter of 2 Samuel 21 in verse 22 we read of the brothers of the Giant Goliath, and it says "these four were BORN to the giant". God sometimes uses this word to mean "born in relation to a family member". The KJB is correct, and the NASB and NIV are false perversions written by "good, godly, pious" unbelievers. That is the unvarnished truth.

Will Kinney