Was Jesus KJV-only?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jan 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his article entitled "Jesus was not KJV-only," Brian Tegart wrote:

    "KJV-only supporters accept only the KJV as scripture, and believe any differences in wording from the KJV is a corruption and thus not the word of God. Conversely, if someone accepts a reading as "scripture" that differs from the KJV, they are not KJV-only. Anyone who has spent more than three minutes examining the KJV-only issue knows this - but did you know it can be proven, using only the KJV, that Jesus Christ is not KJV-only?"

    To see the rest of this article, it is found at the following web address:

    www.kjv-only.com/jesusnotkjvonly.html
     
  2. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, that was eerily similar to an article that I wrote. Here it is, this is the reason I threw aside KJVOism...


    Which Version did Jesus Use?

    By Tim Barnhouse





    Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
    Luk 4:17 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 was written,

    Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
    Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

    Luk 4:20 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.
    Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

    Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
    Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;


    Compare these 2 verses with below two. Both KJV.



    Which is inspired in English?
    (changes are underlined for easy reference)


    If KJV English translators were “inspired”, wouldn’t both passages read the same, or did Jesus approve an uninspired text?








    It has been argued that Jesus either changed the words that were read, or strung together parts of Isaiah to get the reading in Luke, and that he had the right to do this since He wrote the Book. That is all OK, except for the parts that I highlighted above. Notice It says “this scripture” and “the place”, and “it was written”. It does not say “these scriptures”, “the places”, or “they were written.”

    It also says that He stood to “read.” It doesn’t say he paraphrased, but He “read.” Also, because the Jews held scripture to such a high place of honor, if anyone would have “cut and pasted” Isaiah together to get a reading, they would have not sat there with their eyes “fastened “ to him, they would have ran him out of the temple immediately.
    The reading in Luke matches other Manuscripts better than the Masoretic text that is the underlying text of the KJV. Therefore, I believe that Jesus used and read a different version than the Hebrew text we have underlying the KJV. And if Jesus used a version that differs from the KJV, then what is wrong with us using one. After all the KJV translators said themselves that the “meanest” (poorest) version of the scriptures is still the word of God.
    Also for further study compare Acts 8:32-33 with Isaiah 53:7-8. Again the KJV in Acts matches other manuscripts better than the Masoretic.
     
  3. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the sake of slinging mud, (as is your guys' M.O.)


    YES...JESUS WAS KJVO! AND SO WERE ALL THE 12 AND ALL THE EARLY CHURCH AND SO WERE ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS AND PAUL AND BARNABAS AND SILAS AND APOLLO AND PRISCILLA AND EUGENE AND BUBBA AND RAMBO AND FRED AND BARNEY!!!!!
     
  4. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pointing out the fact that Jesus was not KJVO and showing the errors of the KJVO belief are not slinging mud, Jim. But refusal to accept God's word in any version but the KJV is based in deep error and denial. The belittling of all versions except the KJV could definitely be considered slinging mud. And making the comment you made is way out of line. But then you folks who follow the errors of onlyism have a really hard time accepting the truth and you resort to the use of all kinds of tactics to try to take the focus of discussion off the truth. The truth is that the belief that any single English Bible version is the only valid word of God is wrong. No matter how onlyists try to deny the truth, it cannot be changed into what they want it to be. Truth is truth, and it remains truth. Truth does not change every time someone comes up with a new man-made idea, and that is exactly what the KJVO myth is - a man-made idea.
     
    #4 Keith M, Jan 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2007
  5. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know Jesus was KJVO?
    Obviously, the KJV wasn't written then, so you must be referring to the use of underlying documents....

    Please show from the KJV where Jesus used these.

    I have shown from the KJV where what Jesus read does not match the KJV in Isaiah.

    Please explain the differences.
    But keep in mind, the KJVO mantra.... "two things that differ cannot be the same"
    So with that in mind, you cannot say, "well, they may differ in wording, but the meaning is the same" Remember you are KJVO, and must play by KJVO rules.

    Please show me why they differ.
     
    #5 tinytim, Jan 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2007
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    One indisputable, undeniable fact the KJVOs CANNOT get around...

    In Luke 4, Jesus DID NOT READ ALOUD FROM THE BEN CHAYYIM MASORETIC TEXT that was used to make the KJV's Old Testament.
     
  7. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fred and Barney are lodge members...doesn't that make them cultists?
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Fred & Saddam could both look out their back doors & see RUBBLE....
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Dr. Thomas Cassidy is of the opinion that Jesus read from a vorlage Hebrew version in Luke 4.

    Remember awhile back we had a thread about which version Jesus read from, & whether or not it exists today. We had no absolute answer. But we could conclude it was NOT the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text.

    Speakin' of Doc Cas, has anyone heard from him lately?
     
  10. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Tim, I think you know that I am not KJVO, but the differences brought forward in your article may not be as many as it appears. Mostly what you are actually observing is the difference in the English translation. The AV men essentially stated in their preface that they were inclined to use various synonyms wherever possible. The translators easily could have synchronized these passages. I compared the Greek words with the Hebrew words underlined (Luke first/then Isaiah) and without becoming overly technical with all the nuisances of ancient languages, I have concluded the following--

    1. Lord/LORD God = virtually synonymous, two words in Hebrew but expressed as only one in Greek (essentially both mean the 'Spirit of God')
    2. he/the LORD = inconclusive; impersonal pronoun "he" merely implied in Greek (this "LORD" is the very same Hebrew word translated as "God" in the same verse!)
    3. gospel/good tidings = both virtually synonymous with 'good news'
    4. poor/meek = virtually synonymous, both can mean 'lowly'
    5. heal/bind up = apparent variance; Greek apparently means 'to heal or make whole', while the Hebrew seems to indicate 'to tie, restrain, or govern'.
    6. deliverance/liberty = virtually synonymous, as in the 'release from bondage'
    7. recovery of sight/opening...bound = inconclusive; these are the only occurrences of both the Greek and the Hebrew word in the Bible; the Hebrew word may actually refer to the 'opening of eyes'.
    8. bruised/bound = apparent variance; Greek means 'to break' or 'shatter', while the Hebrew means 'tie, bind' or 'imprison'
    9. preach/proclaim = virtually synonymous, which should be obvious

    I gotta say, I was surprised by how very, very similar the rendering results from two different languages were in English (by different committees). The difference between the Greek "heal" against the Hebrew "bind up" might be explained by a 'bandage' or an immobilizing 'sling'. At the end of Isaiah 61:1, there is the confluence of two phrases (as found in the last of Luke 4:18) into just one expression. It seems probable that there is a relationship bewteen "bruised" and "bound" (as shackles can cause contusions, and bindings can be broken) but it is not clearly received by us. The fact that these two passages are not word-for-word the same may be somewhat problematic against the KJVO dogma, but not nearly enough evidence to prove that Jesus was reading a text substantially at variance from the AV's underlying Hebrew text.
     
    #10 franklinmonroe, Jan 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2007
  11. hawg_427

    hawg_427
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Jesus was not KJV only. He was Jewish and did not speak with a British accent. LOL The KJV Bible was translated in England so what language do you think it would be? We have to open out eyes and our hearts to the different Bibles out there. If you like the KJ fine if ya don't then that's fine also. I prefer the NASB first then the NKJV. I don't read the KJ because it hinders my reading style. :jesus:
     
  12. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's good. At least you accept the FACT that the word of God is found in various English Bible translations. The members of the KJVO sect would have us believe that God preserved His word in only one single English Bible version that didn't appear until 1611. Yet many of them believe in a "good" line of Bibles in which God preserved His word - but it just wasn't completely right until the KJV came along. What a hoot!

    :rolleyes: :BangHead: :tonofbricks:
     
  13. ~serapha~

    ~serapha~
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0


    HI there...

    :wavey:

    Ya know... I'm thinking of first-century Nazareth... they believe that the dominant religious school there was Hasidim... a first cousin to the Essenes... and therefore the text would/should have been in Hebrew as in the great Isaiah scroll....

    But Luke would have had a different translation... probably Greek... and that could explain the difference without a conflict.


    You might in interested in taking a look at this...


    http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-49.htm

    Line 26-28...

    ~serapha~
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm thinking that Luke was either present at the time, or , more likely, had the event told to him by Jesus Himself. And it's very likely that the events of Acts 8 with Philip & the Ethiopian were told to Luke by Philip himself. We will note that the quotes from Isaiah in Acts 8:32-33 do not match the Masoretic Text, either.

    The New Testament is replete with other quotes from the OT whose translations don't match the OT translations. Thus, the evidence is very heavily in favor of another version or versions of the OT in use in the days of Jesus & His disciples.
     
  15. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then if Jesus Himself didn't practice onlyism of any kind, why should anyone today practice this man-made error?
     
  16. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought of that also when I was struggling with KJVO, but then came to the point that even if that is the case, then the HOly Spirit inspired Luke to use another version than what the OTKJV used or that Christ used.. That would then make 3 different versions.

    Which didn't support my KJVOism, or any Oism.
    So the results were the same.
     
  17. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus could not have been a KJVO supporter since english was not his language. Manuscript schools developed long after Jesus' earthly ministry ended, so that is not a issue either. Sorry.
     
  18. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    The King James wasn't published until 1611, so I doubt that Jesus cared one way or the other. I prefer the King James, but I wouldn't say it's the best or the only right one. It's just my oreference. I don't like the way others have changed the meaning by changing or eliminating key words--like "begotten" in John 3:16. Removing that word changes Jesus from God's only BEGOTTEN Son to His ONLY son, and where does that leave us when we are told that we are His sons and daughters if we know Him?
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    This is an old issue here. The NT-OT quotes generally (and in most cases exactly) follow the the LXX (Septuagint) which hard-core KJVO teachers claim is a fraud.

    HankD
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    If it's a fraud, the AV translators were among those fooled, as they cite the LXX in their preface to the AV.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...