Luke 4:16-21

Ralph, the KJV can be anyone's final authority, just as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc. can be.

AVL1984

 

Go through the entire passage slowly and carefully.

(1) "He went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and *STOOD UP* for *TO READ*." (v. 16). Jesus was "to read," on the Sabbath day, in public worship, out loud, verbatim, the scripture lesson.

(2) "And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had *OPENED THE BOOK*, he found *THE PLACE* where *IT IS WRITTEN* " (v. 17). Jesus opened the book and found "the place" (not "the places") *IN* the book where "it *IS* written," referring to the actual *WORDS* he was "to read."

(3) "And he *CLOSED THE BOOK*, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is *THIS SCRIPTURE* fulfilled in your *EARS*." (v. 20-21). Jesus finished reading, closed the book, sat down to teach (as teachers in sysagogues did in those days), and then declared that "this scripture" (not "these scriptures") was fulfilled in their "ears," i.e., in their *HEARING*, because He had just *READ* it to them aloud verbatim.

How much clearer can it be?

[ September 16, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

No, I didn't accuse mj of adding to scripture. But you have falsely accused me. I simply pointed out where mj interjects his own opinions into the interpretation of the passage. He said Jesus didn't read verbatim and added words in between. However, Luke wrote that: Jesus stood up to read, was handed the scroll, found the place in the scroll where it was written, quoted what was written, Jesus handed back the scroll, Jesus sat down, Jesus commented on the scripture he just read.

Wrong! Even though the words between Luke's quote of Isaiah and the book of Isaiah are different, it doesn't matter to me. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all differ from each other, and it doesn't matter to me. I believe each one just as written. I use more than one English Bible version for other reasons.

No, I am not. I simply believe what is written - whether in Luke or Isaiah or Matthew or Mark. You have judged me with unrighteous judgement.

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
Bottom line is that either JESUS read from a different version of Isaiah, or the later translators used a different version of Isaiah.

POR:Nope, you're only presuming that because you weren't there and even possibly don't believe the passage.

I didn't hafta be there to read the account. Since that account is in Scripture, I believe it.

Luke never said Jesus read verbtim, and you're adding that by your opinion.

If you read the passages carefully, you'll see He DID. If He hadn't read verbatim, the crowd woulda gone ballistic, & woulda accused Jesus of ALTERING THE SCRIPTURES.

"The place" can refer to the "place" being Isaiah as in the entirity of the Book of Isaiah, and you know that, too.

Oh, COME OFF IT, RALPH! You know FULL WELL that a "place" is a SPECIFIC LOCATION! You KJVOs will try ANYTHING to try to support your myth! This is outright SILLY! I expected something better from you, but you're posting codwallop, same as most other KJVOs. Being clueless in defense of your myth, you try to scarf up something from nothing.

I STAND BY MY "BOTTOM LINE".

 

I just ask this out of curiosity, how were the scriptures written on the scrolls? Does anyone know? How much scripture/words could have been on a given page of a scroll? Considering they didn't have chapter or verse divisions, or the same alphabet, seems to me that much more scripture would have been available on a given scroll. I am just curious, and if anyone knows, I would be interested in it. I do not care at all to discuss/argue it. I am just curious.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Thanks Hank!


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I can't answer your question exactly, Michelle. I don't know enough. I do know that this scroll contained only Isaiah because it tells us that in the text: it was "the book of the prophet Esaias."

From the photos of old Hebrew manuscripts I've seen, it appears that the writing is quite large compared to the sort of text we use, but it's hard to judge, really, because I suppose the photos could be enlarged.

 

The problem with that, friend,is the multiple omissions and contradictions infused within their pages, excluding the KJB in that statement. Then the subject must be introduced: MSS.

I suppose then we must conclude to having a Complete Final Authority w/o man's tampering with proven false MSS?

Yes.

 

Careful, "robycop" some thinkest thou art mad by thy much speaking, you appear as one that beateth the air.

And until some one comes up with authenticated MSS to support your premise it is become NOTHING but conjecture and has no objective worth, neither can conjecture without infallable proof be considered subjective..

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

 

Michelle: “I just ask this out of curiosity, how were the scriptures written on the scrolls? Does anyone know? How much scripture/words could have been on a given page of a scroll? Considering they didn't have chapter or verse divisions, or the same alphabet, seems to me that much more scripture would have been available on a given scroll. I am just curious, and if anyone knows, I would be interested in it. I do not care at all to discuss/argue it. I am just curious.”

Excellent question, Michelle!

From a small photo of the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah-A manuscript (1qisa-a) which is on the cover of a book that I have:

approximately 29 lines per column, 3 cols. per page, with about 33 letters per line maximum (many lines are shorter). Since the Hebrew text does not contain vowels, a larger portion of text is present than would be the case in Greek.

The entire text of Isaiah is contained on 54 columns.

As for how much biblical text is contained within a single column or page, here is the beginning of an index arranged by page and column:

Page 1: cols 1-3

1QIsa\a col 1 = Isa 1.1-26
1QIsa\a col 2 = Isa 1.26-2.21
1QIsa\a col 3 = Isa 2.21-3.23

Page 2: cols. 4-6

1QIsa\a col 4 = Isa 3.24-5.14
1QIsa\a col 5 = Isa 5.14-6.7
1QIsa\a col 6 = Isa 6.7-7.14

Page 3: cols 7-9

1QIsa\a col 7 = Isa 7.15-8.8
1QIsa\a col 8 = Isa 8.8-9.11
1QIsa\a col 9 = Isa 9.11-10.14

And, in case anyone is interested in the relevant passage paralleled in Lk 4,

1QIsa\a col 49 = Isa 59.17-61.4
1QIsa\a col 50 = Isa 61.4-63.4

 

Thank you all very much for the information!


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Addendum (after making a quick check at the local library):

The total number of pages (sewn together) in the Dead Sea Isaiah-A scroll is 17.

The number of columns per page fluctuates between 2 and 4, but 3 columns is the most common, affecting 10 out of the 17 pages.

The number of lines per page ranges from 28-32.
The final page, being only partially covered with text, has 18 lines.

 

So by Ziggy's example, everything Jesus said in Luke 4 was open to Him for to have read?

This was a "hot topic" for the modern version crowd until....

 

POR: "So by Ziggy's example, everything Jesus said in Luke 4 was open to Him for to have read?"

The portion that was directly from Isa 61 clearly would have been before him. However, if the issue of the phrase regarding opening the eyes of the blind was brought in from Isa 42:7, that passage could not have been visible at the same time Isa 61 was being read.

Regardless of Greek texttype in Lk 4, it remains open for discussion whether Jesus embellished the Isa 61 prophecy from the Isa 42:7 parallel, or whether the Nazareth synagogue's copy of Isaiah had the Isa 42:7 phrase present in that Isa 61 passage (whether by scribal harmonization or for other reasons), or whether there might be some other explanation. For me, I don't need to presume anything on that point, since Lk's text remains authoritative as it stands.

On the other hand, the NA27/UBS4 text differs from the TR/Byzantine/Majority text regarding the inclusion of the phrase "to bind up the broken hearted" -- now *that* is a more serious issue to my mind than endlessly debating the parallels between Lk 4 and Isa 61 (42:7).

 

The problem with that, friend,is the multiple omissions and contradictions infused within their pages, excluding the KJB in that statement. Then the subject must be introduced: MSS.

I suppose then we must conclude to having a Complete Final Authority w/o man's tampering with proven false MSS?

Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see where any of the manuscripts have been proven false, POR. The KJV is not a perfect version, and that IS fact. So, if you believe it is, please tell me which version of the KJV is perfect...and also which of the two types is perfect, the Cambridge? The Oxford? The 1611? The 1762 (1769), or the one from the 1800's? Which? And, if this is the perfect Word of God and the only one, where was the perfect Word of God before 1610? Eh?

Also, care to prove what you're saying about omissions and deletions, etc? They are true to their underlying texts, and all the same doctrines and fundamentals are taught in the MV's as in the KJV.

AVL1984

 

You know guys, what I've notice MULTIPLE times is how those negate the FACT that Jesus is God and that no matter how you slice it, Jesus had every right to say anything and everything He wanted too at that time, and whether or not all of Luke 4:16-21 reflects ONLY what he read is totally irrelevant and the same old "straw-man" the mv advo's love to dance around as if they really have something, AGAIN.

Your premise is presumptuous at best, no matter how many angles you try to justify your reasoning. That is what really amazes me. I see yall spening precious time lolly-dollying around for hours and hours as if you're doing God this great big favor by attempting to sway others into what you belive, meanwhile, back at the farm, it'sbeen raining cats and dogs and people are stumbling over you and into hell's flames.

So what do you think the Lord will have to say how you have redeemed the time?

Think about, reasoning it out including the Lord.

I've seen where yall think it's your Christian duty to refute what yall deem as a false theology/docytrine, but the weightier matters of the Law say otherwise.

 

The problem with that, friend,is the multiple omissions and contradictions infused within their pages, excluding the KJB in that statement. Then the subject must be introduced: MSS.

I suppose then we must conclude to having a Complete Final Authority w/o man's tampering with proven false MSS?

Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see where any of the manuscripts have been proven false, POR. The KJV is not a perfect version, and that IS fact. So, if you believe it is, please tell me which version of the KJV is perfect...and also which of the two types is perfect, the Cambridge? The Oxford? The 1611? The 1762 (1769), or the one from the 1800's? Which? And, if this is the perfect Word of God and the only one, where was the perfect Word of God before 1610? Eh?

Also, care to prove what you're saying about omissions and deletions, etc? They are true to their underlying texts, and all the same doctrines and fundamentals are taught in the MV's as in the KJV.

AVL1984 </font>[/QUOTE]When you allow the evil influences of the powers of darkness to provide you with facts, I could almost agree &lt; NOT1

 

Plain ol' Ralph said "the FACT that Jesus is God and that no matter how you slice it, Jesus had every right to say anything and everything He wanted too at that time"

I agree Jesus is God and could have said whatever he wanted to. However, if you actually read the passage, Luke said it the words that Luke records were "written". Maybe Jesus did say other stuff. But the words in Luke were "written". Jesus called those written words "scripture" - if Jesus had just spoken them without them being "written", it would not be "scripture" for "scripture", by definition, is written. This written scripture is different than what the KJV has. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

 

Plain ol'Ralph:You know guys, what I've notice MULTIPLE times is how those negate the FACT that Jesus is God

And in Luke 4 he was speaking to a crowd that DIDN'T believe He was God. The ONLY way he was gonna convince the hometwon crowd He was God was to have done a miracle in their midst."Familiarity breeds contempt".


and that no matter how you slice it, Jesus had every right to say anything and everything He wanted too at that time,

And He ALWAYS had that right. In fact, it was HE, rather than His father, who presented most of the Scriptures to men. BUT...Did he exercise this right in Luke 4? Newp! He read from the scroll handed to him.


and whether or not all of Luke 4:16-21 reflects ONLY what he read is totally irrelevant and the same old "straw-man" the mv advo's love to dance around as if they really have something, AGAIN.

No, it's NOT. The KJVOs' steady stream of excuses trying to justify the differences in Luke and Isaiah is the "straw man". The fact remains that isaiah says one thing and Luke another.

Your premise is presumptuous at best, no matter how many angles you try to justify your reasoning.

That's what I say against the KJVOs' trying to make excuses trying to defend against the obvious facts. Those obvious facts are that isaiah says one thing & Luke says another. This threatens their KJVO myth, which, according to their own actions, matters more to them than the TRUTH.


That is what really amazes me. I see yall spening precious time lolly-dollying around for hours and hours as if you're doing God this great big favor by attempting to sway others into what you belive, meanwhile, back at the farm, it'sbeen raining cats and dogs and people are stumbling over you and into hell's flames.

As a Christian, do you simply ignore an obvious false doctrine which has definitely led people astray?

So what do you think the Lord will have to say how you have redeemed the time?

"Well Done", if we have done what He's called us to do.

Think about, reasoning it out including the Lord.

I've seen where yall think it's your Christian duty to refute what yall deem as a false theology/docytrine, but the weightier matters of the Law say otherwise.

There's no simply "deeming" KJVO as a false doctrine...it's been PROVEN.

What will YOU say to Jesus if He asks you, "Why did you attack versions of My word that YOU believed corrupt because of a theory made by men? Am I not able to present MY word AS I CHOOSE?"

Think He'll buy any of the KJVO excuses?