Isaiah 53: and Acts 8:30-33

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Sep 11, 2004.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Our brother Archangel 7 has posted the differences between Luke and Isaiah several times in other boards, and so have I and many others, and he's posted the differences between Acts 8 & Isaiah 53 many times also, so I give credit to him for calling it to my attention first.

    Since we have a topic about Luke and Isaiah, why not have one about Isaiah and Acts?


    Acts 8:30 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.

    Isaiah 53: 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.

    Now, let's compare:

    Isaiah 53: 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth:

    Acts 8: not found. Could be, however, that philip didn't hear the Ethiopian read that sentence.


    Isaiah:he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,

    Acts:He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;

    Jesus is the Lamb of God. Yeah, I know the critics will say, "Technically, a sheep and a lamb are the same" but remember, in Isaiah's day, lambs weren't killed too often except at PASSOVER...And paul reminds us Jesus is OUR passover.

    At any rate, the passages are different.

    Isaiah:and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.


    Acts:and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth

    Once again, we have sheep vs lamb, and also "her" vs "his". BIG difference!

    Isaiah:He was taken from prison and from judgment:

    Acts: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away:

    Nothing in Isaiah about his HUMILIATION! Nothing in Acts about PRISON! And Isaiah says He was taken FROM judgment while Acts says His judgment is taken away!

    BIG DIFFERENCES!


    and who shall declare his generation?


    Both Isaiah and Acts say pretty much the same thing here.


    Isaiah:for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

    Acts:for his life is taken from the earth.

    It's a stretch, but I reckon we COULD attribute the differences here to differences in languages. And maybe the Ethiopian quit reading before he got to the "transgression" sentence.


    Evidently the Ethiopian and Philip shared a common spoken and written language, perhaps Aramaic, the international business language for that part of the world for centuries. Perhaps it was possibly Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic(the international merchants' language of the time) as the Ethiopian had come to Jerusalem TO WORSHIP...and therefore had to have known at least one local language.


    At any rate, there's quite a difference in the passages between Isaiah and Acts. This is proof positive that there was more than one version ot OT Scripture in use AMONG THE JEWS, the people to whom God entrusted the scriptures! Coupled with JESUS' reading aloud from another version, this PROVES God is NOT limited to just one version per language or per distinct nation.

    YOUR thoughts??
     
  2. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right on, brother. But, then, I already know that God has provided us His word in many different translations.

    Now, if we could just get a few certain people to actually read this through...but, then, would we really believe that they would?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  3. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point [​IMG]

    1cross+3nails=4given [​IMG]
     
  4. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roby,

    First off great presentation. You did a good job not tramping on poeple's beleif! I give you credit there, and thanks! But you make a wrong point in your summary. You stated more than one version "AMONG THE JEWS." I beleive were talking about an Ethiopian here, not a Jew! I beleive you can see the mistake you summary causes. At any rate this verse proves only that Philip followed the leading of the Holy Spirit. This is a stance I take also. I am KJV (without the O). The KJV is the only bible a beleiver should use. But given the opportunity to witness or lead to salvation - Use anything available!!!! Remember if you memeorize a verse and then mis-quote it during witnessing, is the verse wrong? No, because you can go back the the KJV and correct it!
     
  5. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42, verse 28 says he read Isaiah the prophet. Not a misquote of Isaiah the prophet. Verses 32 and 35 say the reading in verses 32 and 33 is "scripture" (which by definition is the written word of God), not a misquote of scripture.
     
  6. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters,

    Do all manuscripts match? Are they all written in the same language? I am not claiming the Ethiopian was using the Masoretic text? This scripture was written to give us the example of Philip following the will of the Holy Ghost! To pull out this garbage about text is to miss the point! Thus causing confusion, hmm.. maybe it was put there to show you the trouble in MV's. To show you that you miss the point by trying to create a problem that is not there. I will finish with this. Nowhere does it tell us the language Philip and the Ethipion were speaking, and it does not tell us the text they used. Therefore you are inacurratly stating it was the Hebrew Jewish text!
     
  7. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42 said "Therefore you are inacurratly stating it was the Hebrew Jewish text!"

    I have said nothing about texts or language, Hebrew or otherwise.

    Verses 32 and 35 say the reading given in verses 32 and 33 is "scripture". I believe that. Do you?
     
  8. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm... looks like a dodge! Instead of saying "yes" we have no idea of the text the Ethiopian was reading. You still insist your right. Think translation! If the KJV interpreted this verse correctly (which it did). You still have no ground to stand on here. Anyone in the world, educated in the Bible or not can say the Ethiopian was not quoting Masoretic text. He was using something else. Is that so hard to comprehend.
     
  9. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42 said "Hmm... looks like a dodge! Instead of saying "yes" we have no idea of the text the Ethiopian was reading. You still insist your right."

    No, you misunderstand. I don't care one whit about which text or translation the Ethopian was reading. It is completely irrelevant. The point it, no matter what he was reading, the KJV calls it "scripture". Its presentation of Isaiah's passage is different than the KJV's presentation of that same passage, yet it is "scripture".

    Do you believe it was "scripture"? Simple question.
     
  10. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters,

    No way to resolve this one if you wont read the whole passage. Your saying that you can use multi-version just because of ONE single word in the Bible. That is not logical. I thought we were debating "scripture" not the defenition.
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42 said "No way to resolve this one if you wont read the whole passage."

    I've read the whole passage.

    mjwegs42 said "Saying that you can use multi-version just because of ONE single word in the Bible is wrong."

    I am not using this one single word so I can use multiple versions. I am pointing out that even the KJV calls something "scripture" that differs from the KJV itself. Onlyism fall down go boom.
     
  12. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters,

    No-one here is debating Onlyism. Did you miss someting! Are you sure your in the right Topic. Were debating a false claim by robycop that this scripture is proof against the KJV. I have complety and truthfully show how he was wrong. Your debating one word. The word scripture. Your really reaching here. And again, missing the point about using whatever God puts in your path as a tool to witness and lead souls to him.
     
  13. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42, perhaps you do not understand. No matter what the Ethiopian read, it is different from the KJV and the Masoretic. Yet it is called "scripture".

    Do you believe it was "scripture" he was reading? Simple question, yet you refuse to answer it! Why?

    I know why you do not answer it: If you believe it was "scripture", Robycop is correct about there being more than one accepted OT in use. If not, you disbelieve verses 32 and 35. Either way, your view is shown to be incorrect.

    you said "And again, missing the point about using whatever God puts in your path as a tool to witness and lead souls to him."

    No, I'm not missing the point. I'm pointing out that that "tool" in this case was "scripture". The KJV says so.
     
  14. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters,

    Yes it was scripture. But pay a little attention if you could. As I stated earlier and as you should already know. Masoretic is accepted scripture, but yes of course there is other scripture. But NO-ONE, I repeat NO-ONE said the text the Ethipion had was "accepted" text. Not me, not Philip, not the KJV, not God. I think you need to start from the beginning. Do some research on the ancient text. There are alot out there. But the KJV doesn't use them, the MV's do. So what point have you made with this long speal about it being scripture?
     
  15. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters,

    I am signing off now. I will leave the last response to you.
     
  16. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42, it is good to hear that you believe it was scripture. I have paid attention, perhaps it is you that is missing the point. How could it be "scripture" if its different?
     
  17. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ed, an explicit double that summarizes what a number of people keep saying even while refusing to admit they are really KJVO and not KJV-preferred:

    mjwegs: "I am KJV (without the O). The KJV is the only bible a beleiver should use."

    Unless I am wrong, I thought "only" and "O" meant the same thing.... :cool:
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    mjwegs42: But you make a wrong point in your summary. You stated more than one version "AMONG THE JEWS."

    The Ethiopian had come TO JERUSALEM to worship. And Philip was almost certainly a Jew as he was born in Bethsaida. And it's obvious from Scripture that both the Ethiopian and Philip read whatever version of Scripture they were using without missing a beat.


    I beleive were talking about an Ethiopian here, not a Jew! I beleive you can see the mistake you summary causes.

    Please read up about the history of judaism among the Ethiopians.


    At any rate this verse proves only that Philip followed the leading of the Holy Spirit. This is a stance I take also.

    And I ask: Is the HOLY SPIRIT limited to just one version of Scripture?


    I am KJV (without the O).

    What other version(s) do you use?


    The KJV is the only bible a beleiver should use.

    IMO, you're absolutely wrong here. Why shuld one use ONLY a 400-yr-old version that's nor even in the language style of the reader? Do you believe God retired in 1611 & no longer updates His word?


    But given the opportunity to witness or lead to salvation - Use anything available!!!!

    I DO.


    Remember if you memeorize a verse and then mis-quote it during witnessing, is the verse wrong? No, because you can go back the the KJV and correct it!

    I can go back to the NIV and correct it...or the NKJV...or the KJV...or the NASB...or to the Geneva Bible...or to any of several others.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    mjwegs42:No-one here is debating Onlyism.

    Yes, you ARE. You said, "I am KJV(w/o the O)"


    Did you miss someting! Are you sure your in the right Topic.

    Sure looks like it.


    Were debating a false claim by robycop that this scripture is proof against the KJV.

    [snip]Please paste/post where I said the Scriptures being discussed in this topic are against the KJV! Either paste it or admit you were wrong. [snip]


    I have complety and truthfully show how he was wrong.

    No, you haven't. You haven't even touched upon the differences between Isaiah and Acts.


    Your debating one word. The word scripture. Your really reaching here. And again, missing the point about using whatever God puts in your path as a tool to witness and lead souls to him.

    How can you say the above, right after saying you're KJV(w/o the O) without contradicting yourself?

    Please post some Scripture supporting your KJV(w/o the O) position.

    By definition of your stance, you're a KJVO whether you'll admit it or not. And like many other KJVOs, you start telling fairy tales when confronted with FACTS that prove the KJVO myth wrong. Then, like John Kerry, you switch positions & say it's OK to witness with whatever God puts in your path, which, I assume, can mean the NIV or any other version your audience may be using. I sincerely hope you preach THE GOSPEL to a lost person seeking more knowledge of Jesus than to rant about what BV this person has.

    Once again, please paste any post of mine where I said the Scriptures of this topic are against the KJV...or be man enough to admit you goofed.

    [ September 13, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]
     
  20. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    IMO, you're absolutely wrong here. Why shuld one use ONLY a 400-yr-old version that's nor even in the language style of the reader? Do you believe God retired in 1611 & no longer updates His word?
    --------------------------------------------------


    Because the mv's show corruptions to the words of God, the scriptures. That is why.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     

Share This Page

Loading...