Luke 4:16-21

mjwegs42:I you feel authoritative enough to tell us all what Jesus was doing here fine.

I'm sure Natters feels that authoritative for the same reason I do...the Scriptures TELL what Jesus was doing there! From your fave version:

Luke 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
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.


That is part of your personal walk with the Lord. But as for me, I am not going to tell Jesus what he was or wasn't doing here.

ya don't hafta...SCRIPTURE does it for ya!


I am just going to see the prophecy fulfilled without any error to the prophecy. It is clear, pure, Holy and unchanged!

If ya read the further adventures of Jesus, you DO see the prophecy fulfilled.

But here the topic is...the differences between Luke and Isaiah. The Scriptures make it clear that Jesus went into the synagogue in Nazareth, & that the Nazarenes were skeptical about that they'd heard about Him since He'd grown up among them...and in the synagogue, He was handed the scroll of Isaiah to read from...and He read aloud from it...and no one present disputed what He'd read. To say that MAYBE the crowd was hostile because He'd changed the Scripture is a wild guess, not supported by Scripture or history whatsoever.

You seem to wanna take ONLY those Scriptures at face value that you think supports your position. This is a common KJVO habit, and it's just as wrong as the KJVO myth itself. plainly those Scriptures in Luke tell what Jesus did, and what He read. Trying to add or subtract from what He did, just to support some man-made false doctrine is very wrong.You're batting ZERO in trying to justify your position.

 

roby, (and all others on BB)

You try so hard to prove the KJV wrong. In trying to disprove it you miss so many fundamentals. This scripture can be translated in a million defenses for and a million defenses against. In the book of Jonah God says (audible voice) that he will destroy Nineva in 40 days. But Ninevah is never destroyed (as Gods "written word" the Bible tells us later in Jonah). So the point is, Gods written word takes authority over his spoken word. Do you see the point here. As much as we argue about what Jesus read, how he read it, it doesn't matter. The written word is the authority not the spoken word. God knows this, thats why we cannot use Gods spoken word as defense. We must use the written word. So no matter what Jesus said or how Luke translated, the fact remains the scripture is enerrant. This will be a reach for you to understand. But you must apply a litle sytematic theology to the scripture when reading and trying to interpet it.

 

Gods written word takes authority over his spoken word.

--- The most bizarre thing I've ever read on the board.

 

Nobody (at least on this thread) is trying to prove the KJV wrong. This whole converstation rests on the notion that the KJV is absolutely right! And what it's telling us is that Jesus didn't see small textual differences that don't effect the meaning as a big problem. Texts that have small differences that don't affect the meaning can both be rightly considered scripture.

I'll tell you what I get when I apply a little systematic theology to this. I get a God whose spoken word might (or might not) be truth. Please be careful....

Remember, our God IS truth. Truth is one of his unchanging attributes. This means that it is impossible for him to be other than truthful. He is a God whose spoken word brings things in to being. This makes every single word that proceeds from him--either spoken or written--absolutely authoritative, and if you see a contradiction between his written word and his spoken word then you are understanding one or the other wrongly.

However you work out whatever problem you think you see here in Luke 4, don't do it by making God less than the immutably truthful God that he is. Don't let your presupposition that there can be only one acceptable version of God's word--only one version rightly called scripture--lead you into heresy in your attempts to protect it.

 

mjwegs42 said "So the point is, Gods written word takes authority over his spoken word. Do you see the point here. As much as we argue about what Jesus read, how he read it, it doesn't matter. The written word is the authority not the spoken word."

As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, Luke 4:17 says "it was written". Verse 21 says it was "scripture" (the written word, not the spoken word). Yet that which was "written" and was "scripture" is different than what the KJV has. This does not prove the KJV wrong, this proves KJV-onlyism wrong.

I believe the words were "written". Do you?

 

mjwegs42:You try so hard to prove the KJV wrong.

Not so...we have proven the KJVO myth wrong, and must continue to post those proofs because some people keep spouting, "The KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation, and anyone using anything else don't got no REAL Bible." And when someone says, "The KJV is PERFECT", we remind'em it aint, strictly speaking. However, the KJV IS perfect for the purposes for which God caused it to be made, as is every other BV which He thus had made.

The written word is the authority not the spoken word. God knows this, thats why we cannot use Gods spoken word as defense.

Not hardly. How did God's penmen know what to write if He hadn't TOLD them? Is your KJV not filled with "THUS SAITH THE LORD"s(NOT, "thus writeth")?

 

The bottom line here is that there are only *two* places in the entire New Testament where someone picks up an actual written copy of the Scriptures and reads aloud the exact words written in front of him -- Jesus in Luke 4 and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 -- and on *both* instances a different version is used. That alone sounds the death-knell for any form of "One Version Onlyism."

 

That's the whole point, Arch. We've had some KJVOs refuse to believe the verses as written in their own KJVs, saying, "That's just a loose quote of the OT Scriptures", etc. as well as the one's you've seen in this topic. That's just a part of the great KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD. (Take note, Ed Edwards...OK to NOT take KJV verses as written when against the KJVO myth, but MUST be taken as written any other time.)

 

As was written above, mjwegs, no one is trying to prove the KJV wrong. The only thing wrong is the lie of King James Version Onlyism.

What has been proven is that both Jesus and the eunich read from a different version of Scripture, one not used for the KJV. But the KJVO must deny this, as it shows that the bible itself calls something other than the texts used to translate the KJV Scripture.

KJVO is nothing but legalism made by man. There is no Scriptural backing for it, and it was organized and promoted by a SDA official (later to be taken up and plagerized by various other fruitcakes).

The KJV stands, KJVO falls flat as a man-made myth.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

--------------------------------------------------
He simply pointed out what the Bible says. Luke writes that Jesus stood up to read, found where it was written, quotes what was written, hands back the scroll, sits back down and then speaks to the people. Why do you try to add things to what Luke stated plainly and clearly?
--------------------------------------------------

You are accusing him of adding to the scriptures, to which he is not. It is you all who are adding to the scriptures, something that is not there, based upon your presumptions, and in order to prove them. You are the one in error.
You are reading something in scripture that is not there, nor even hinted at, nor even relating to the context of this passage, because you all are trying so hard to prove something that may, or may not be true. You are approaching the scriptures with the wrong reason and heart. I think the scriptures talk about this:

2 Peter 3

14. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.


I would tread lightly, if I were you.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "You are accusing him of adding to the scriptures"

NO, we are not. Do you not understand?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Remember, our God IS truth. Truth is one of his unchanging attributes. This means that it is impossible for him to be other than truthful. He is a God whose spoken word brings things in to being. This makes every single word that proceeds from him--either spoken or written--absolutely authoritative, and if you see a contradiction between his written word and his spoken word then you are understanding one or the other wrongly.
--------------------------------------------------

God's spoken word, is meaningless to us, unless He has also provided His spoken word in the written form. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing what it is God has spoken, unless He speaks audibly to each individual person. God does, but He has so chosen to do this through HIS written words, to which are our final authority.


Please remember this:

Deut. 26

16. This day the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
17. Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice:
18. And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments;
19. And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken.


Psalms 138

1. I Will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
2. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
3. In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul.
4. All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O Lord, when they hear the words of thy mouth.
5. Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the Lord: for great is the glory of the Lord.
6. Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.
7. Though I walk in the midst of trouble, thou wilt revive me: thou shalt stretch forth thine hand against the wrath of mine enemies, and thy right hand shall save me.
8. The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "You are accusing him of adding to the scriptures"

NO, we are not. Do you not understand?
--------------------------------------------------


I was referring to Mike, not God.

God can and did add to his written words through Holy men of God and Jesus Christ himself.


Here is what I was referring to:

--------------------------------------------------
He simply pointed out what the Bible says. Luke writes that Jesus stood up to read, found where it was written, quotes what was written, hands back the scroll, sits back down and then speaks to the people. Why do you try to add things to what Luke stated plainly and clearly?
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "God can and did add to his written words through Holy men of God and Jesus Christ himself."

Yes, he can. But if he did so, it wouldn't have been "written" or "scripture" at that time. Yet the Bible says it was written and scripture when he spoke it - thus he was reading, and not adding to what he was reading, by definition.

 

I absolutely agree with you. My response was to Mike, who seems to be saying that Jesus' own spoken words as recorded for us in Luke 4 are somehow less authorative than the written words of OT scripture. Any word Jesus actually spoke would have been just as authoritative as scripture--although of course, we would only know of those that are recorded for us. Those who lived back in those times could have banked on anything Jesus said in exactly the same way as they could bank on the OT scriptures that were recorded for them.

 

Dr. you got proof that the Hebrews was done away and that Luke HAD to have the Septuagint?

I believe you are just presuming here due to the MSS available today w/o any regard of those MSS that have perished in the years gone by.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Plain ol' Ralph said "Luke never said Jesus read verbtim"

If it wasn't verbatim, it wasn't "written". Luke said it was "written". Jesus said it was "scripture" (word of God in written form, as opposed to spoken form). I believe that. Do you?

 

I think you're presuming too much in the futile effort to justify versions that don't line up, get this now, your ideal of a bible that DOESN'T exist.

The same question is NEVER answered, "If the KJB isn't our Final Authority, why is it you don't have one?"