KJV OT vs. NT?

Some of the quotations in the NT are not from the Hebrew OT but rather are from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT).

Whether or not that "proves" anything, I couldn't say.

 

It's more than theoretical. It is conclusive proof that those who believe only one translation is the word of God are unbiblical.

 

The differences are in GREEK OR HEBREW versions.

Dr. Thomas Cassidy believes JESUS read from a vorlage HEBREW version of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21. Whatever He read from does NOT match the text used to make the KJV's Isaiah 42:7-8 or 61:1-3.

If Dr. Cassidy is correct, which he usually is about texts, this makes the KJVOs' case for ONE VERSION even tougher, as they cannot claim different readings because of the language differences between Greek & Hebrew.

 

Since Christ recognized various Scripture translations, we should do likewise. To hold a view that only one translation is valid is to hold a view contrary to that of Christ.

 

Christ is the word, he can say it however he wants. The further fact is, all the OT quotes were Holy Spirit inspired, as well as the NT reference to those quotes. If the Lord wants someone to say "the cat is black" in a different way ("that is one black cat"), then the Lord has the right to do however he so pleases. Limiting him by saying he must repeat himself word for word is ludicrous and beyond ignorant.

 

Tremendous post! Exactly why no language today can be bound by one particular translation. God is not limited by one group of translators, but His word can be effectively preserved with either "the cat is black" or "that is one black cat."

 

I actually knew when I posted that, that you would take it that way and run with it.

I am sure you know I completely disagree and know that the issue with the Bible version plunges far deeper than our two posts go at the moment. I also have little interest in going around the same mulberry bush again and again.

 

BTW, thanks for the compliment on the excellent post.

 

And...

Then why post your opinion if you're have little interest in discussing it?

Actually, limiting God by saying His printed word must be limited to only one particular set of English words is "ludicrous and beyond ignorant" as you put it, Bro Williams. Your two points of view are highly inconsistent.

 

Perhaps God put that mulberry bush there for a reason. He certainly isn't limited by any man-made theory.

 

I posted because sometimes we are all as Jeremiah and can't keep our mouths shut, even if we know it will not do any good.

I never said His words are limited to one particular set of English words. I am sure the originals were fine. I am sure there is a sufficient version in many other languages as well.

 

Apparently this mulberry bush is just too tempting

 

Since we no longer have the originals, what criteria do you use to determine which versions are "sufficient," Bro. Williams?

 

First off, Welcome to the BB. Hope you brought your asbestos suit, and are wearing a 'hardhat'. Sometimes it gets a bit warm in here, and one needs to watch for falling objects, as well. :laugh: :laugh:

Actually, there is no need to chase around any mulberry bush, at all, here, in response both to your post and the dozen or so replies. For there are actually two or three questions that can be asked and/or answered from this post of Ivan Denosovich.

BTW, I have no "axe to grind" in my response, FTR.

In my own opinion, while more than one English translation of Scripture is, or at least may be "acceptable", that has nothing to do with the real question involved, regardless of the question you are asking. For it, in fact, does not theoretically "prove" what you asked, at all. It does "prove" something else entirely, however, which I will address, at the end of this post.

The first question is whether or not, not only the KJV, but any other translation, accurately translates the Hebrew and Chaldee/Aramaic of the OT and the Greek of the NT. Do they? While I do not know, without knowing the specific verses and words involved one is referring to in the NT, and do not know any Hebrew or Aramaic, so cannot really 'rule' on this, I will assume that they are in fact 'acceptable' translations in each and every case, from the original languages of the texts.

Second question is tangential, but has to so with what constitutes an 'acceptable' English translation. Is there a particular set of standards there? If so, what are they? Are they written down, anywhere? Or are they merely assumed, as they are by some who fairly regularly post on this forum, and applied retroactively, or to suit personal preference?

Let me give you an example, here. C4K recently asked a question about one particular verse, where two different editions of the KJV rendered it in a different manner, and subtly directed it at those holding an "Only-est" postition. The question was entirely legitimate, but never received anywhere near an acceptable answer from these "Only-est" advocates, for to answer it honestly would have required them to admit their presuppositions were, in fact, only 'preferences', hence requiring them to admit their inconsistency, in this regard.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42271&page=18

But I have to admit, some of the responders would have done well on the TV program, "Dancing With The Stars", or would have been medal winners in gymnastics in the Olympics, for the gyrations and moves I saw employed...

But I digress.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that there are exactly two versions, the KJV and the HCSB, which I choose entirely arbitrarily, that I find to be acceptable versions by the way they render the texts.
Are they identical? No.
Are they fairly adn accurately rendering the texts? Yes.
Are the OT and NT readings identical, in either version? No.
Then what does this prove, if both render the texts accurately? (BTW, we are not getting into the TR, MT, or other NT text, in this question, so no one even bother to go there.)

Since there are differences, what it does 'prove'? I'll answer that. The only thing this does actually 'prove', is that the OT and NT texts we have, do not say the exact same words. I'll expand on this at the end of the post.

Bro. Williams is actually correct, when he says,

but, unfortunately, he is here begging the question. (See my above comments about "Only-ests" and 'presuppositions'.) For that was not the question, at all, so his answer is to a theological question not asked, here.

That brings us to the last and real question(s) and answer(s). There are actually only two real possibilities. The first is that, in some cases at least, the Lord Jesus Christ and/or NT writers did not always directly 'quote' from an existing text, but rather, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, employed an 'interpretative' concept, similar to "Dynamic Equivalence", when they referred to, and cited the OT. I strongly suspect this is the case in some places. 'Perfect' translation, whatever that means, of the extant text, could not make the words to be identical in the OT and NT, in such an instance, which covers Possibility #1. Hence, when translating the OT and NT, the translators have, in fact, accurately translated the words, but they do not agree in every detail, because the authors were not quoting verbatim, to start with.

The second, and the one, I think that is evidenced, in some other cases, is that the words were quoted from a text (or translation of the OT) extant at that time, which is no longer extant, today, to our apparent knowledge. The words found in the NT (texts) are not, or at least do not seem to be, exactly identical with the LXX, the Masoretic text, the Qumran Scrolls, or any other known OT text, from that time. Hence we have somewhat the case made by Dr. Cassidy, that in some instances, an Hebrew 'vorlage' text (or another, undoubtedly Aramaic or Greek version) was quoted from. In which case, the translators, again, accurately translated the words, but they do not agree with what we have, because the text spoken from is not the exact same as that which is translated from, be it the LXX, Masorectic, Qumran [or other (maybe) extant] OT texts or versions. Possibility #2.

If anything, what your post "proves", is that there were other OT texts (or versions) around in those days, that we do not know of, today.

Here is a site I just found where an essay touches on this, which I add in this edit.

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm

Hope all this post actually helps a bit. :thumbs:

Ed

 

Ahh, a tree with tempting fruit... likely. We al lhave our sins which so easily beset us, and temptations (that may not be sin) that so easily beset us as well.

I notice you have a hard time as well keeping out of the KJV thread comments, but seem to state at times your desire to do so.

Gluttons we are.

 

Could you please explain how this is unbiblical ? I do not think this is fact but simply opinion on your part. I would never say that you were unbiblical for reading more than one version of the Bible. I would say that may not be my personal conviction but I would never say it was unbiblical. I think you would need to show that in greater detail before that is said because that is a weighty statement to make.

Why is it more acceptable to say that someone who believes in one translation is unbiblical than the other way around ?

 

No problem, we stir it up ourselves usually.

 

OK Bro. Williams, I have a KJV translation question. First a little background and a disclamer: I'm not a KJB basher though I don't subscribe to the KJVO doctrine.

Now, in doing some research on the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT, I ran into several areas where the KJV uses the indefinate article "an" instead of "a". This would be in violation of English grammar as I understand it: that is the indefinate article "an" is used most of the time when the word that follows begins with a vowel sound, the indefinate article "an" is used mainly when the word that follows begins consonant sound. Note it is a vowel and consonant sound, not necessaraly an actual consonant or vowel.

The two examples I give are Ps 27:3 and Hebrews 9:11

Any idea why it is translated this way?