Luke 4:14-21: A whole 'nuther question....

If God wrote Isaiah 61, God can, in Jesus Christ, amend, add to, or take away as He sees fit to do at His Sovereign Pleasure; there is no contradiction when God does as He will!

 

If what you say is true, then we have 2 different versions of Isaiah 61 out there, which I do not think to be the case; remember this is Jesus the Christ we are talking about! He did not NEED the scroll He read from! He could recite every jot and tittle of the Law and the Prophets by heart if need be! He did this for the benefit of those that were there as well as us! Because He spake it, we can now safely add it to the text of Isaiah 61 with confidence! Did He not open the eyes of those that were blind both physically as well as spiritually? Because He amended Isaiah 61, it is now a part of Isaiah 61! AMEN and AMEN!

 

So, your saying that Luke lied when he said that Jesus read from the scroll? When you read from something, you don't add to it. If Jesus would have added to Isaiah, then surely Luke would have said something to that affect.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

TC,

You have never embelished upon something you already had to make an important statement? You are limiting what Jesus could and did do by your assumption of another version. Luke simply recorded what Jesus said as he read from the book of Isaiah.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I wonder, did this same Person, Jesus, read about in Luke 4, (supposed by mv advocates to be "ONLY" Isaiah 61 proving His approval of mv's), did this "Person" EVER ACTUALLY give sight to the blind? Duh!

It now has become, instead of "proof" that Jesus approved of other versions, to it's a matter of what "I" believe regardless.

Were these born blind because of sin? Or their parents did sin? Nay, that the works of God be manifest and that ye might believe the works are of the Father, or something like that.

Now, did Jesus lie? Did Luke lie? Get real! this is just another tangent to invent reason for the multitudes of mv's.

Hoenstly, I believe that anyione who would call in question whether Jesus lied or not is sinning. So to be perfectly clear in this matter, I NEVER call Jesus in question, neither do I invent things to try to justify the means.

 

Sister Russell, Anything posted in this forum eventually becomes an mv's world against KJVO. You know that. It has been this way since creation. Some have even said God called them to this "ministry" .

 

Not when reading something. The text says Jesus read and then sat down to talk after handing back the scroll. Simple

 

Evidence is mounting that Jesus did indeed speak more than one language - as did many people in Judea at that time. So it could simply be a variation caused by translating from one language to another.

Here is an interesting Website that covers the language aspect.

www.interlog.com/~dlim/Aramaic.html

 

It's funny how it always seems to turn into a KJB vs MV thing! There have been several explanations put forth for the addition. Bo Reicke (Hey Precepts - is this guy a gobstopper? ) suggested that Jesus was adding something to it by His prerogative. Others have suggested that Luke added it to make Jesus seem more the healer, but this is unlikely.

It seems to me that Jesus is basically saying (duh!) that this prophecy is being fulfilled in HIM - notice how Luke mentions that He sits back down with everyone watching - He's assuming the teacher's position as I. H. Marshall points out. I wouldn't say that He is emending Isaiah - rather He may be expounding a little - He does seem to be making a rather authoritative statement here!

Anyway the point is not that He quoted the scripture correctly according to our word order - He authored it didn't He? If He were not making an authoritative staement about Himself and were just reading the daily haftorah then He might have gotten reprimanded if He used the wrong word or certainly if He added something. The point is He is claiming fulfillment of this prophecy! Remember our language is self-limited and constantly in flux. The important things in God's word are not governed by the literal word order but rather what is converyed in the words! I see no contradiction or problem here.

 

I find it very difficult to believe that this is even something worth debating! It is obvious what text our Lord was reading; do not read anything into this that is not there! He prophesied that He would give sight to the blind; He gave sight to the blind!


15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

Matthew 20:15

All of Scripture belongs to Jesus Christ; He owns it, not us!

 

Let's look at the phrase,"... and recovering sight to the blind,.."

What is it that Jesus implicitly sayd here? What is "recovering one's sight?"
Is it not bringing one out of darkness into light? Yes, it is. So let's look to Isaiah for our answer why Jesus said the phrase:

Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.


Wouldn't the prisoners here mentioned be in darkness? Yes. The prisons of old time were not lit at all and were very dark. Bringing any one out of the prison would be bringing them to light, sight, recovering them from blindness.

Let's also look to verse 16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.


Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the Light of men. Men are in the prison of sin awaiting the penalty of death for sin, they are in darkness, blind. Jesus came to set the captive free, and to recover sight to the blind.

Let's look also to Isaiah 49:9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.

For them to show themsleves, they would have to come out of darkness abd into the light, here they would recover their sight.

Is the recovering of sight to the blind ONLY physical? No, of course not. Jesus came to give light to the blind eyes spiritually. He did recover sight to the physically blind eyes to prove His works miraculous, something that no one had ever done before. It is one of the most undeniable miracles He performed. But now all men aren't physically blind, are they? No, but all men are spiritually blind until they receive sight from the Saviour, else they would never be saved they would remain in darkness, sins cold dark prison.

I'm afraid yall are trying to force Luke 4 :18 to be a word for word quotation and denying Jesus His Divine Right to expound even a little, or allow Him to just simply summarize the evidences given in Isaiah 42:7,16 and 49:9. Yall seem to hung up here and try to make Jesus quote said scripture when He is God, you're not.

I know what I am saying in conclusion has been said in this thread alone, and in others, I have even said it before. Come to the knowledge of the Truth and stop forcing this passage to be evidence of His approval of other versions, it's just NOT there.

Time to stop seeing men as trees walking and get your eyes touched again concerning this passage, and please don't mishandle the Word of God for filthy lucre.

Look up "anablepsis" then look into the word from which it came; "anablepo" which means to lift up the eyes, to look up, to recover sight.

 

O.K., I agree with you, you're "mad" and defintiely "frustrated". I showed you where the phrase came from, you just want to live in denial. Bye! Be not soon angry, and sin not.

 

Russell55,

I'd agree with your not wanting this to be a KJB/MV thread but the issue of the extra phrase is tough to limit to simply whether or Luke recorded exactly what Jesus read. Multiple possibilities:

1. Luke added something himself to make Jesus look better.
2. Jesus added something pertinent since He was the fulfillment of the prophecy.
3. Jesus was quoting the scroll exactly and our LXX and BHS manuscripts have lost the phrase somewhere along the line.
4. Copyists added something later to make Jesus look better.

I personally find both 2 or 3 to be possible - with 3 perhaps a little more likely. It is tough to speak about whether Luke "got it right" without discussing all possibilities for the discrepancy.

 

#2 would would do away with any discrepencies if only everyone would believe Jesus has the Divine right to summarize the enirety of the passages in just one short phrase. I do. Now if that is "KJVO" turning this into anothe mv/kjvo debate, then why do you keep doing that? Just believe the KJB is the Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible, Preserved, Word of God and we'll move on to a more pleasant and blissful existence.

 

I believe it.
So shut up already

BTW, you never did tell me which of
my about a dozen KJVs are KJB.
Or if you have a "test" to tell which
is which, that would be nice (cause
i could use it before i buy another KJV.

BTW, my Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
is on order, when it is comple i'll have
a HCSB. I'll have to move something from
the hutch and shelves over my computer
desk to make room from it. I guess
I can stick NEW AGE VERSIONS back in
my library. Come to think of it, i've got
a leany desk ....