Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

But you still can't understand the meaning of "place" can you? I gave you the definition from the Greek lexicon, the Merriam Webster Dictionary coupled all together with common sense. "place" is too broad of a word and the article" the" is a definitive, but in this case in point it will need the help of another "specific' definitive to distinguish the place as solitary in meaning.

I live on the Earth, you live on the Earth. How specific is the "place' where we live? On the Earth. BUT, I see you are not here in the same "place" as I am. You need to be more specific. Oh, you live in Canada on the Earth. You need to be more specific. Canada is a big place, Isaiah is a big Book. See Spot run. See the grammar queen get red with frustration. See her take her scepter and throw it at Precepts. See Precepts run around in the "place" and you cannot find him, though he is in the "place', but the "place" is so large that you cannot determine exactly where Precepts is. Precepts is not hiding in one specific "place", but he is in the "place" all the same. See Spot scratch his fleas. See the grammar queen go for the flea powder. See Spot run to the same "place" as Precepts is in. See Precepts pet Spot. See Spot wag his tail. The grammar queen is in the same "place" as Precepts and Spot but she can't tell exactly where they are.

Seems you would force Jesus into one specific place. Au Contraire! He's everywhere!

 

Yes, but the place the place where it is written, 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, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.is only a couple of verses long. It has a start and a finish and an in-between. The boundaries of the place are defined for you right there in God's preserved word. You are not questioning the preserved word of God, are you?

Well, if the place is only two verses long, the fleas are the only ones I might not be able to find.

Please take this objection up with someone other than me. I'm not the author of the inspired text.

 

The monkey is on your back Precepts
to show anywhere where Jesus
read other than that shown above.
If it was multiple places in Isaiah,
show us the places.
In Luke 4:16-21 Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61:1-3

Let us read from the real KJV, the
1611 edition:

S.Luke IIII:18 (KJV1611):

18 * The Spirit of the Lord is vpon
mee, because hee hath anointed mee, to
preach presach the Gospel to the poore, he hath
sent mee to heale the groken hearted, to
preach deliuerance to the captiues, and
recouering of sight to the bline, to set
at libertie them that are bruised,

Sidenote: * Esay 61:1

Please don't deny that the 47 or so
translators of the KJV1611 knew that
Luke 4:18 was similar to Ifaiah LXI:1

Ifaiah LXI:1 (KJV1611):

The * Spirit of the Lord
God is vpon me,because
the Lord hath annointed me, to preach
good tidings vnto the meeke, hee hath sent
me to binde vp the broken
hearted, to proclaime libertie to the
captiues, and the opending of the prison to
them that are bound :

Sidenote: * Luk. 4:18

The translators of the KJV did NOT
make these two passages WORD FOR WORD
alike. They apparently knew that
the source drives the translation
and the two sources are different.
The Esay (Ifaiah) we have is
NOT the Esay (IFaiah) that Jesus Read.

WORD FOR WORD is not important
in God's economy, the meaning of the
words are important.
Try catching up with God's economy.

In God's economy the blind see,
the lame walk, the deaf hear,
the captives are at liberty,
the brokenhearted are bound up,
the prisioners are freed,
ed is skinny and good lookin'.
Amen, Sweet Jesus, we are on shouting
ground here

 

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

Phillip,

You asked me quite a few questions, and it is very late right now, as I just read your post. I will try to answer your questions as much as I can, but I am not a scholar, and I may not be able to answer your questions in full depth. Like you, I must rely upon the research done by others in this area. I will have to think about those questions specifically before I answer, and possibly when I am not so tired. But I rely more upon my faith in God and what he has promised and how God has preserved his word for us today. I have all of God's word that he has spoken and preserved for those who love him, and I can hold it in my very hands. This brings me to tears, just thinking about this, because it is so precious to me, the most precious thing God has given me, besides salvation in his only begotten Son Jesus Christ. I know and trust, that every single word in my Bible I can trust and rely in and live my life by, and know that it will lead me to all truth, and all the things I need for my walk with my Saviour, and my understanding of him and his will for me in my life. It is the place where he shows me himself, and what he did and what he will do for me, and not just me, but others. If, I saw footnotes in my Bible, of those very things that have been long understood, and long known to be God's very words, that would put doubt in my heart, which I know is not possible when it comes to God and his word. Like Precepts said, it is God's very words to us, from the very beginning to the very end. God said that a man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. There is no room for doubt. The devil makes one doubt what God has said, and if he has really said it. I do not have doubts when I read my KJV. Reading God's word in a footnote, or not finding what has been long understood to be God's word, not there, is good indication to me, that it is not something that I can trust, nor rely upon. It has holes, and those wholes will not keep me safe from the enemy.

Anyway, it is getting late, and I have to go now. I will try to answer your questions as best as I can sometime soon.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Where did you get this kind of information?

Remember there was more than one LXX around at the time.

Will K

 

Yes, we could consider that alternative. We could accept Gill's speculative explanation. Or, we could consider another alternative. We could be "Bible believers" and actually *believe* the words we find in Luke, where it clearly tells us that Jesus read a single passage from a single place in the copy of Isaiah he was given to read.

But that's not what Luke says! Luke explicitly tells us that Jesus READ (not "expounded," or "targummed," or "explained," or "gave the sense") from THE PLACE (not "the places").

Luke tells us precisely what Jesus did, step by step.

(1) Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath ("he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day")

(2) He stood up before the assembled congregation to read aloud in public ("and stood up FOR TO READ")

(3) He was handed an actual written copy of Isaiah ("And there was delivered unto him THE BOOK of the prophet Esaias")

(4) He opened that copy of Isaiah to one specific written passage ("And when he had OPENED THE BOOK, he found THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN)

(5) Luke records the exact words of that one specific written passage ("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, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord")

(6) Jesus closed the copy of Isaiah and handed it back ("And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister")

(7) He sat down, and the assembled congregation gave him its complete attention ("and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him")

(8) He taught them that the words of the one specific Isaiah passage he had just read aloud had been fulfilled in their hearing because those words applied to Him ("And he began to say unto them, This day is THIS SCRIPTURE fulfilled IN YOUR EARS")

 

Will: "PEE WEE GIANT!

* 1 Sam 17:4 LXX = FOUR cubits, instead of SIX, making Goliath only about 6' 6", hardly a frightful giant to the seven foot plus King Saul and the armies of Israel."

Your statement doesn't jive with what
i've heard. I heard the average warrier
in King David's time was 4'10". Saul
then would be head and shoulders above
the average would be maybe 5'5".
Yes, a 6'6" fellow would have been
a gaint. His four giant brothers could
well have been abou 6' tall.

Interesting avocation: BIBLE BUSTING
Do you ever get tired of smashing other
people's Bibles?

As for: Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?
Actually, i've got on my comptuer
desk alone 4 KJVs (3 different ones)
and 12 modern versions. I.e. sixteen
inspired Bibles, inerrant and preserved
(well, at least the MVs) for the 21st
century English reader.

Ain't God won'erful!

 

Yes, but the place the place where it is written, 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, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.is only a couple of verses long. It has a start and a finish and an in-between. The boundaries of the place are defined for you right there in God's preserved word. You are not questioning the preserved word of God, are you?

Well, if the place is only two verses long, the fleas are the only ones I might not be able to find.

Please take this objection up with someone other than me. I'm not the author of the inspired text. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't be so vain. Sister, I am dealing with everyone of you that believes this passage as proof Jesus approves of other versions. Yall take this too far and can't understand what Luke says. You have to add something to the text to make it say what yall believe. I only responded to your reply to me. I can't help it if I gave you something you have to try and deny in this manner as you have tried to do. I know you're not the inspired author or the Inspiree.


We know by what Jesus read that it can't possibly be from just Isaiah 61:1,2. Their are other verses in Isaiah that have these other phrases in them.

When we open a scroll, it has no chapters and verses numbered, only text, handwritten text. Jesus when He opened the scroll had no telling how much of Isaih open before His eyes. The "place" He read from can be an innumerable different areas of the "place" from which He read. Yall are trying to force the verses to read what yall want them too. Notice I didn't say "you" I said YALL.

God Bless, Peace, Love and Joy unspeakable and full of Glory.

 

I have not read all the posts in this thread, but are you saying that the King James Bible is not inspired?

I would venture to guess that everyone on this Board owns and reads a King James Version Bible.

 

Should we say the same thing about the RC Apocrypha which somehow found it's way into the 1611 AV First Edition which BTW gives us instructions for prayers for the dead that God might remit their sins.

HankD

 

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

If the apocrypha was still included in the KJV, I might agree with ya, but it is NOT and it was taken OUT. Hope ya now understand.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Precepts:Your are adding to the Word of God and in violation of Revelation 22:18,19. Luke NEVER said Jesus read from "one specific place".

Luke 4:17, KJV-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,

Precepts, what part of "the place" don't you understand?

 

Michelle:Hiya Bro. Ricky! I am so glad that you posted this, because I said (outload) just about this very same thing - they are adding to the scriptures! No, this passage definately does not indicate a "specific" place as they like to claim, and as I have pointed out, as well as you have, why this is not so. Why are so many here blind to the truth?

Michelle, please read Luke 4:17, KJV, and tell us what you don't understand about its phrase, "the place".

 

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

robycop,

I have read it over and over again, and to see it also repeatedly shown on these posts, and it still does not say what you assume it to say. You come to this debate with the assumption of a different version being read from, rather than reading the text as it plainly says, and leaving it at that. You all are the ones adding to what is given, because of your biased assumption. You keep running around in circles to prove something based only on a presumption. That is not the way to interpret the scriptures. I can read it fine, and understand it fine also. I can also see the references to this passage in the Old testament and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ included in the reading something that was in another part of the book of Isaiah. I am not adding any assumptions, only taking it for what it actually says, without bias to prove any point.

The same cannot be said of others here on this thread, and it borders limiting what Jesus Christ actually did.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I don't have to TRY to deny what you're saying. It comes automatically to me because I hold the text in high regard.

I also believe that words have accepted meanings and God inspired words in the text that conveyed the meaning He intended.

If Jesus had read from Isaiah 61 for a bit and then skipped thousands of words over to Isaiah 42, the text would have read "the places".

It's simple. It's common sense. It's Bible believing. I'm sorry it escapes you....

 

Michelle:You are clearly assuming, that it was a specific place. All the text tells us is that where Jesus was reading was in the place where it was written.

Michelle, in order to paste this portion of your post, I had to look at the place where it was written, which is this "why not admit" thread. To read and respond to your post I had to look at the exact place where the server wrote it. I thought you were smart enough not to make such a silly statement trying to defend the KJVO myth or some KJVO who makes a false accusation.

Jesus read specific words aloud. The context of the chapter shows He was reading to a skeptical audience who would've gone ballistic had He not read it verbatim, ot "targumed", fitting several passages together to make a point. They would've immediately accused Him of "Scripture-twisting". And jesus Himself said SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN.


It does not say in the exact place where it was written.

Then, please tell us from where He read it!

It takes more assumption for your view than what the plain text says, and you must add to what the text is plainly saying, in order to come to your conclusion - false one at that.
It is what I like to call - stretching it -to prove one's point, or win the debate. Sorry, I am not stupid and do not fall for this kind of trick.

What could be more straightforward than what Luke says Jesus did? He says:

1. He stood up TO READ.(V.16)

2. He was given a scroll of the book of Esaias(Isaiah, V.17).

3.HE FOUND THE PLACE in that book where it was written...

He COULD have recited from memory, of course, but were it not verbatim with the scroll given to Him, the crowd would've reacted instantly.

4.He read it aloud. This is very clear, as in V.21, He says, "THIS SCRIPTURE is fulfilled". Where? "IN YOUR EARS." The audience wouldn'tve known WHICH Scripture if He hadn't read it aloud, nor would it have been fulfilled in their ears.

5. He closed the book, handed it to the attendant, & sat down. He then said, "...this Scripture...YOUR EARS" which indicates He read aloud the Scriptures cited in verses 17-18 of the KJV.

Jesus' actions could not have been more plainly described in the English of 1611. There's no trickery. He was handed a scroll, from which He read aloud, and what he read was recorded by Luke. Bottom line-unless you believe Luke was wrong.