The topic started by Will Kinney-"why not admit"-seems to have become focused upon the differences between Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 and Luke 4:16-21. I don't believe we could discuss this further proof of differing versions of the OT being used, in that thread, without it's becoming too unwieldy-so let's discuss it here. Here's Isaiah 53:7-8 from the KJV: 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And here's Acts 8:27-35 from the KJV: 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. Now, let's see the differences between Acts 8:32-33 and the verses in Isaiah: Isaiah:He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth Acts: Not found. But that doesn't mean it wasn't in the scroll they read in Acts. Maybe this was not where the Ethiopian indicated to Philip he'd begun to read. Isaiah:he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Acts:He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: Just as a boy is not a man, a lamb is not a sheep. But Jesus is the LAMB OF GOD. He called Himself that! Maybe the version they had was in past tense because it was written by a Christian after Jesus' resurrection. And besides the difference in tenses, there's a plain wording difference. Isaiah:He was taken from prison and from judgment: Acts:In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: Quite a bit of difference here! Isaiah says NOTHING about His humiliation, and there's a HUGE difference in taking Him FROM judgment & in taking His judgment away!!!And Acts says nothing about PRISON! Isaiah:and who shall declare his generation? Acts:and who shall declare his generation? An exact duplicate, showing exactly which verses were being read from Isaiah in Acts, also throwing water upon any language-differences arguments the KJVOs may have. Isaiah:for he was cut off out of the land of the living: Acts:for his life is taken from the earth. same thought; BI-I-G difference in WORDSSS... Isaiah:for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Acts:Not found. But again, maybe they quit reading before they reached this passage. However, this passage in Isaiah is VERY important, as it declares one of Jesus' reasons for becoming a man and suffering. There can be no sensible denying the fact that the Ethiopian had READ, and possibly read it aloud to Philip, as Philip plainly knew what Scriptures the Ethiopian had read-or Philip could have read it also at the time. The Ethiopian clearly had just read them, but didn't know their meaning, or to whom they referred, until Philip had preached about Jesus to him. Remember, V.32 says, "the place of the Scripture which he READ was this:..." The clear, logical explanation for the differences, taking the Scriptures at face value, as written, is that Philip & the Ethiopian were using another version of Isaiah besides the Masoretic version. Once again, this is Scriptural proof that the Apostles weren't limited to just one version of the OT, which they recognized as "the" Scriptures. Thoughts, anyone?