I came across a good post in another forum. I though I'd repost it here and see what kind of discussion it generates. BTW, this is not an attack on the KJV, or anyone here. Here is the post:
------
Interestingly, there is Scriptural evidence to support the use of different versions. Consider this passage from Isa. 61:1-2, KJV:
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; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.
Now look at the same passage as it is found in the Bible which Jesus used when he read aloud to the assembled congregation in the Nazareth synagogue (Lk. 4:18-19, KJV):
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, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
If Jesus had no difficulty using a different version, why should we? O:)
------
[ July 11, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
Jesus wasn't KJV-Only :)
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by BrianT, Jul 11, 2002.
Page 1 of 6
-
Hey, not only was Jesus not KJV-only, he wasn't English-only either
-
wld any FE advocate like to jump up right now n accuse Jesus of giving the Sense rather than the Form of the original?
;)
[ July 11, 2002, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ] -
Hmm, Jesus is quoting the Septuagint (LXX) version of Isaiah 61:1-2!
LXX Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;
2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;
HankD
[ July 11, 2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: HankD ] -
-
Hi Hank,
The reading in Luke, although following one of the phrases from the LXX (as we have it today), is in general still quite different from the LXX when comparing the entire passage. The OT that Jesus read from in this passage (and called "scripture") is different from the KJV's OT, the Masoretic and the LXX (as we have them today).
So, I wonder which reading is the "only" word of God for Isa 61:1-2? ;) Any KJVOs care to provide some input?
Brian -
<< Jesus wasn't KJV-Only >>
'Only?' Jesus wasn't even KJV a la carte. KJV was not even a side for Him. He didn't even season with KJV. KJV was no flavor to and no preservative for His words. -
Jesus wasn't reading from the Wescott-Hort text either.
Also anything Jesus said is quoted in present texts he wasn't reading from any of them.
DUH!
[ July 12, 2002, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ] -
To Chris Temple and Forever settled in heaven-"Having been reprimanded/admonished by the moderator for my "outbursts" in defense of God's Word, I have pm'd both of you the answers to your questions asked of me". Thanks.
-
{attack deleted}
[ July 12, 2002, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ] -
May God forever more bless you and protect you, Bro.Ernie.
-
1. are heretics
2. stand against the word of God
3. do not accept the word of God.
Your pathetic position, that of KJV onlyism, is the true the heresy.
Heresy — from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1). - Easton's -
Hi Brian,
Yes I noticed the variations from the LXX but there are even greater variations from the Masora.
"sight to the blind" is the LXX signature phrase though. It is simply not there in the Hebrew.
I really appreciate your bringing this to our attention.
Uh, brethren, can we all get along?
HankD
[ July 12, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: HankD ] -
Well, Granny, the fact that my post was deleted makes my point.
-
-
Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Jesus wasn't reading from the Wescott-Hort text either.Click to expand...
Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Also anything Jesus said is quoted in present texts he wasn't reading from any of them.Click to expand...
Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
while those who militatnly stand for the word of God are admonished.Click to expand...
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." - The KJV translators
Ernie, the bottom line is this: by saying the KJV is the "only" word of God, you must deny God's word does not exist outside (before or beside) it.
Again Ernie, think carefully about this: which is the "word of God" in Isa 61:1-2: the KJV or what Jesus read? If you stand for "only" one, it cannot be both.
Brian -
I am sorry & shocked, to say the least, Bro.Ernie, and rather scared, too. It's not only on this issue, but others as well, that persecution is taking place & satan is running full strength!
"EVEN SO, COME, LORD JESUS!"
To anyone who may or may not be interested, I found this 'tidbit' awhile ago while 'searching'-
http://www.av1611.org/jmelton/fight.html
In case you can't get it to work, the title of
the article is "Fighting Back! A Handy Reference
For King James Bible Believers" by James L. Melton -
Originally posted by BrianT:
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." - The KJV translatorsClick to expand... -
Granny,
Just because others disagree with your view on KJV-onlyism, doesn't mean they are persecuting your or doing Satan's bidding.
Do you truly believe your KJV? The KJV says in Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." If one reads another version, and comes to saving faith because of it, even the KJV says it is the "word of God". Do you believe it?
Do you truly believe your KJV? The KJV says in 1 Pet 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." If one is born again before 1611, or after 1611 but because of a different Bible version, even the KJV says it is because of "the word of God". Do you believe it?
Do you truly believe your KJV? The KJV says in Luke 4:17-20 that a *different* rendering of Isa 61:1-2 than what the KJV has is "scripture". Do you believe it?
I believe the KJV in these verses. Yet you imply I am doing Satan's bidding for doing so. I simply cannot understand this!
Brian -
Originally posted by Chris Temple:
no .. what Jesus was doing was speaking Scripture, which demands it be translated into English formally!Click to expand...
we know in Luke 4 that He was READING the Scripture:
16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down.
the FE has a number of choices:
1. Jesus misread the OT (perhaps the lighting indoors was bad).
2. His reading was correct but misrecorded by Luke.
3. Jesus' OT was a more-accurate copy than the Masoretic Text n shd be used to correct the MT. (apparently nobody tried to correct Him, nor did Jesus seem troubled about pehaps reading an "inferior" text)
4. Paraphrase/DE is a legitimate means of translation.
[ July 12, 2002, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]
Page 1 of 6