Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

After Jesus finished reading and handed back the scroll, He said this scripture is fulfilled in you ears. Note, Jesus said this (singular) scripture (again singular) is fulfilled. It's no trick, just a plain and literal reading of what Luke wrote.

 

Peace and love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Yes indeed. The Scripture (this scripture) concerning the coming Messiah! Amen! Are you limiting what Jesus was saying to those in the synagogue? Do you believe that that verse of scripture was the only scripture prophesying the coming of Messiah?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Not at all -- but that's beside the point. The point is that when Luke says "this scripture" in the context of his account of Jesus in the Nazareth synagogue, he's clearly referring to the fulfillment of the specific passage from the specific "place" in Isaiah Jesus had just read aloud to the assembled congregation.

 

The rule being applied here is that if one account of an event in the gospels contains certain details, all others must as well, right?

Let me ask you a question Will, are you willing to apply this rule uniformly to all Bible versions or are you using two standards in violation of scripture?

 

So the rule being applied here is that if the three versions contain a phrase any Bible that does not contain that phrase has an error, right?

Are you willing to apply this rule uniformly?

 

Michelle,
Nobody said you were stupid, but you are misunderstanding the actual Biblical Text that CLEARLY, CLEARLY refers that Jesus read a single scripture, based not only on the multiple use of "singular words", but also, as Archangel7 is quite clear about---we know not only that it is singlular, but we also know specifically WHAT HE DID READ.

Nobody here is trying to indicate or even imply that you are stupid and personally I think that is a fairly harsh, accusation to make just because people do not agree with you.

There is really no game-playing here. We are quoting directly from the KJV and it is very CLEAR.

If you wish to believe the KJV is "inspired" down to the last word, that is fine; we just disagree with you due to the lack of both Biblical and/or theological foundation. Nobody, but nobody, here has "added" scripture, that too, is somewhat of a harsh accusation to make about someone who is simply quoting the scripture in Luke and only pointing out that the words used are "singular", or in clearer English, refer to only one location in scripture quoted by Jesus. This is NOT adding or taking away from the scripture, plus we have even used the KJV as the only reference.

 

Ahhh Scott. You're just fishing for fodder for Ed's double standards thread, now aren't you?

 

Will
"Those who are not King James Holy Bible onlyists do not have any bible or texts they believe ARE right now, today, the complete, infallible, pure words of God."
There are Dutch AV only-ists you know, folks who believe that the Staten Bijbel is the complete, infallible, pure words of God, even better than the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaïc texts it was translated from.

 

Yes... and the fishing seems to be pretty good around here most of the time. Almost like the trout farms back home... they'll jump out of the water to grab an empty hook.

 

Because that would be a foolish declaration.... accepting your narrow, vain opinions as the frame work for our beliefs... ultimately making YOU the final authority rather than what God said.

OK. We do not have in one document that single set of words that God inspired. He inspired the originals and no copyists nor translators since then have been qualified to receive direct inspiration. Those 40 or so men were hand picked by God Himself... there is no indication that any of them held false beliefs like infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, or the CoE church structure.

The blessing is that we don't have to have the exact wording of the originals to have the exact message of the originals. As I have told you many times before, we have the "Word" of God, not the "words" of God.

The evidence is that everything that God revealed in the originals has been preserved to us... but it is not valid to arbitrarily limit this revelation to one version. To date, this is all you have done. You have arbitrarily, without one shred of legitimate proof, declared that only the KJV is God's Word. Worse, you have arbitrarily declared that the KJV is His words... This is nothing less than the sin of speaking for God presumptively.

 

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

Archangel,

What Jesus read, and what Isaiah reads, is the same thing. It is not different, except for a few word changes anyway. The point is in this case, is that you do not know two things. First, you do not know what the scriptures were written in. You assume they were another version in Greek. There is no where in scriptures to remotely indicate that Jesus would be reading from anything other than the Hebrew. Secondly, you do not know what language he was speaking to the congregation in. Do ya? It is again, an assumption. You are assuming Jesus was reading directly from a greek version of the Hebrew, with absolutely no proof whatsoever to indicate such a thing. Secondly, you do not know absolutly that he was speaking Aramaic or greek as he read the Hebrew scripture. I know that the Bible was written in two languages inspired by God, Hebrew for the Old, Greek for the New. I will not assume that Jesus Christ read from anything other than the Hebrew scriptures, as it was God breathed to the prophets. Did he speak in greek/aramaic to the people from the Hebrew scriptures? This seems more biblically accurate, than to believe the fantasy that there were other versions of God's pure word other than Hebrew at this time and by his people who took extreme care and sacredness with God's pure word. The Jewish people today, do not even include the "o" when writing the word God, out of reverence for God's holiness. Why would they then at that time have, or Jesus Christ Himself for that matter, used anything other than the Hebrew scriptures - and that's only if you believe (unwarranted)that the Hebrew was actually translated in the greek - which there is no proof of such a thing. I think you are going beyond the knowns in this case to prove an unknown thing, to prove your authority based on it. You see the cycle you've put yourself in just to win the debate?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Maybe here is where the confusion is. Nobody is limiting anything. They are simply pointing out that when Jesus read from the Bible at that one particular time and place, he did read from a "different" translation; thus indicating that obviously even Christ had no problems with the fact that more than one translation could carry the word of God. Nobody is trying to limit Jesus' preaching or teaching AT ALL. Simply comparing the old testament documents with what Jesus actually read from. They are different indicating that different translations were obviously acceptable even during Jesus' time.

Does that help?

 

Apparently, our messages crossed. Okay, let us assume that he read from the Hebrew and translated it into Aramaic (by the way, certain parts of the Bible, including Job were written in Aramaic). If Jesus translated it, then it would have translated into exactly the same words if your theory of "pure words" is true. This is exactly our point. When it is translated, it will change and there can be more than one translations of the same language into another language, but they can be different--just as in the KJV. It does not matter what Jesus was reading from or translating to (if he was even translating--there IS a difference in the wording when your argument is that the "words should remain pure and exactly the same".

 

This is the same argument we have been using about the different Bible versions for some time... they say the same thing when taken on the whole... with a few word changes.

 

This also fits with other parts of the New Testament where the Old Testament is quoted. Indeed many quotes are very close to copies we have remaining of the Septuagint. It is almost certain that certain quotes by certain people were taken from a current Greek text (of the OLD TESTAMENT). While it is also certain that other quotes more closely match those of the Messoretic Text. The whole point is, different translations of the Old Testament were used in the writing of the New Testament. This SHOULD eliminate any argument that only one translation can contain the Word of God.

By the way, how do you have a translation in (say) Spanish or Japanese? Do we have to put a team of "inspired" translators together? Do we translate it from the King James or are the older documents more accurate? If this is the case, then the only true Bible is in English? or Greek, or Hebrew, or what?

Besides, Please answer what was used for a Bible between 100 AD and 1600 AD?

Also, what version of the KJV is inspired? The one translated in 1611 or the revised versions. Who were inspired the translators or the revisionists. Certainly the one in 1611 was not inspired, because I can't see God inspiring something that admittedly had to be modified many times. Just questions............

 

This is the same argument we have been using about the different Bible versions for some time... they say the same thing when taken on the whole... with a few word changes. </font>[/QUOTE]AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

 

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

This is not the same thing that is being done with the modern versions that is being brought out. There is a major difference between the two and THIS is what we are trying to relay. It is one thing to change a word from one language to another language, but changing a word from the same language to another word with a similar meaning in the same language can cause problems. It waters down the intensity of the origional word used. But this is not the major problem many have with the modern versions, and that is of delieberately changing the words that affect the meaning of the context (such as deceived, and morning star, etc.). Now if the word used fits the context, it really isn't a concern. However when complete verses, and phrases are omitted out of the text, THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. This is what the problems are, and it does not seem to bother you all one bit, that these things have been done to God's holy and pure word of truth. This is when you start refering back to the origional greek, and act like we are stupid and don't know what the word of God says, and has said for the past 400 years and longer. All of a sudden in this modern day, to make the bible easier reading, we find that they do not say the same things anymore. They say alot of it, but it is those things that are missing, or words that have changed the meaning of the context by usage of that word choice that is the problem and reason for rejection of them.

I just pray that someday you will all come to understand this.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

I understand where you are coming from and actually went through a period of it for a while, but more intense study of Biblical history changed my views.

It is a well known fact that certain verses, phrases and words have been added to many manuscripts by well-meaning scribes who were trying to strengthen the message or they felt it should be said in a different way to explain it better. This is all fine and dandy, but it is corruption of the "inspired" originals.

How do we know this? Because many of the OLDER manuscripts--and I am talking about manuscripts that come much closer to the age of Christ on Earth, simply do not have a few particular verses, phrases or words. Reverse logic is used by the KJVO crowd that if it is in the KJVO then it MUST have been removed to "dumb down" the readers of the NIV and other such translations. This is not the case. The NIV is full of footnotes describing that certain manuscripts contain or do not contain certain passages. You may say a footnote is not part of the Bible, but when you are looking at a "translation" it is a translators notation to a limitation.

The case is that older texts found (and not only in Alexandria) are simply devoid of certain words and phrases.

It is the truth that the received text was not placed together until much later than many of these ancient documents. In fact, the received text may have not even been completed until four or five hundred years after the death of Christ.

Bad things are often said about the Alexandrian documents, when in fact, they were kept by Christian (mostly Jewish) who (referred to as diaspora) were groups that left the Israel/Judea area due to oppression by the Romans and/or other groups. Just because they lived in Alexandria and Alexandria was a wicked town in no way makes the documents less accurate when you consider the groups of Christians who were so very concerned about the accuracy of passing along the originals. Original documents which came up through the Catholic route are much more suspect in my book than others. It is easily proven that the Vulgate was used in the translation of the KJV. This is the Catholic's Latin Bible. I am not saying the Vulgate is not a decent translation, but as you can see the trail of documents leading to the KJV is no better, if not worse than the trail leading from much older manuscripts now used in the Modern Versions.

STILL, The bottom line is that I can read (and have read) many versions and upon completing one and moving to the next, find NO DIFFERENCE in doctrine, theology nor do I find a "dumbing down" of the scriptures.

You keep rambling with non-specific answers, if you wish to debate this issue at a level that makes it worth the time, then PLEASE, answer specifically the following quesions:

1) What was the Inspired Bible between 100 AD and 1611 AD? Obviously, the Bible indicates that the Word will always be kept--where was it kept during this time?

2) When was the KJV inspired and by who, the translators of 1611 or the revisionists who made corrections on numerous later dates?

3) Where is ANY Biblical or doctrinal evidence that the KJV is inspired to any higher level than any modern mainstream translation? (Please don't quote the old KJVO mis-used verses "Words like silver, purified etc., etc." because those scriptures can be found in all of the translations.) I want to know where there is any reference to a Bible translated by an Anglican King and Anglican translators who themselves are not even doctrinally close to Baptist?

4) If I were going to translate a new and accurate Spanish Bible, how would I go about it, a)translate a King James Version b) translate from old texts c) which texts?

5) Please explain the fact that thirteen different manuscripts were used by the KJV translators to come up with the Revelation of Jesus Christ and what is different about the way the translators formed a committee to use "textual criticism" (much like today, only more archaic) to determine which parts of which manuscripts they chose to use?

If you will start by answering these real questions with some real detail, then we can have an intelligent discussion of KJVO vs. non-KJVO. If you don't know an answer, that is okay, just say so, I will not hold it against you because I don't know every answer to every question you could throw at me--at least without research. But, we have to start on some type of basis rather than just "faith in the AV--from where?" or "we just haven't seen the light yet?--what light", etc. Do you see what I mean, we must have grounds for discussion beyond just broad strokes saying that the KJV is inspired and that's it. I can tell you specifically where my faith in Jesus Christ comes from, and you probably can to, but can you tell me specifically where your faith in the inspiration of a non-errant KJV comes from? I am honestly not trying to trick you, I would really like to know your answers to understand why you believe the way you do. Otherwise, we will never get to a credible conversation regarding our positions.

 

Russell55:

I like you Sister. You have now eductaed us in a new method to make "the place" become "one specific place". Can we also PRESUME "the place" is also "one specific, solitary, individual, mononuclear,single,lone,sole, undivided, unbroken, place"?

The context proves what Jesus read is NOT from "one specific place' any less than Isaiah.

Yall keep running round and round the mulberry bush and the weasel is back at his den sipping mint juleps watching "Here Comes the Brides" in his lounge chair with his little bitty legs crossed. Have fun!

 

Yes, you can and you should, if you care about words, grammar, and the rules of language. "The" is a definite article. It is used as a function word to indicate that the following noun is a unique or particular member of it's class.

So, "the place" means a unique or particular place among all places. One specific, solitary, individual, all-by-itself, single, lone, sole, undivided, unbroken, unique, distinct, particular, separate place out of all the places.

(I have a thesaurus, too.)

In conclusion, the grammar queen has ruled, and her ruling is final: "The" means "the".