Change for the Sake of Change: Isaiah 32:17

Besides evidence for the use of corrupted Greek texts in the modern Bible versions starting with Westcott and Hort's, I also want to give examples from time to time of the changes in the English that demonstrate what can only be called a destructive attitude toward the Bible, changes that serve no purpose other than change.

In the newest versions this is probably the result of the need to make a certain number of changes in order to qualify for copyright. That's bad enough. However, Westcott and Hort made over 36,000 changes against their commitment to do the most minimal possible revision of the Authorized Version or King James.

As I discovered some time ago from comparing the differences between different versions on the first three verses of Psalm 91 all the changes from version to version seem to have no purpose except to creat a confusion of tongues Babel-style in the Christian churches, making it impossible for Christians to quote consistently or read in unison, destroying the unity of the church in a diabolically subtle way, so subtle that some of the very best preachers have completely overlooked the deceit.

Here is another example, Isaiah 32:17: (Differences from the KJV in red and lt. blue. I bold the main words where they are the same as the KJV's.)

KJV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.

RV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence for ever.

I ask you, was there a COMPELLING NEED to change "assurance" into "confidence?" Is there some problem with the word "assurance" that escapes me? Is it an archaic word or a difficult word to understand? Or isn't this obviously change for change's sake?

ESV: And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever.

Footnote:
* Or security

Now we've got "effect" where "work" is in the KJV, and "result" for "effect." I checked: the Hebrew does not have the same word in those places. And now "trust" replaces "confidence" which replaces the KJV's "assurance." Is there any explanation for this except change for change's sake? AND we've got a footnote too, giving us yet another synonym, just what we need.

RSV: And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever. (Identical to the ESV)

ASV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and confidence for ever. (Same as the RV)

NASB: And the work of righteousness will be peace, And the service of righteousness, quietness and *confidence forever.

A real original there, in "service."

NIV: The fruit of righteousness will be peace; the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever.

Another original, that "fruit."

Webster's and Darby's are identical to the KJV

I know we usually say "will" for "shall" but "shall" is correct and it isn't a strange-sounding word to us either, so why should it be changed? The RV and the ASV retain it, why shouldn't it be regarded as the standard reading?

The RV, ASV and NASB also retain the KJV's "work," adding to the impression that there is no good reason to change THAT word either. The only change they all agree on is "assurance" and that just seems silly.

Come on, you CAN see that all this is nothing but Babel, can't you?

=====

Apparently my Anonymous commenter to this post can't see it. He's at pains to convince me that these choices were all made by scholars for scholarly reasons. If so, that's a pretty sad comment on scholarship. What could be more revealing of the uselessness of scholarly work than the results shown above?