Welcome to the BB.
Ed
Missing Verses in the KJV
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Deacon, Jun 13, 2007.
Page 2 of 4
-
Ed -
Ed -
What exactly is "11QPs"?
Ed -
Likewise the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle fo Barnabas, the Epistle to the Laodecians, and the Epistles of Clement were considered inspired by some of the early Christians. Again, what does that prove? That did not "Make it so!"
And the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox churches also have books 'they' consider inspired. For the third time, what exactly does that prove?
Ed -
Should I write bigger too, Ed? :laugh:
No Hebrew required.
The colors were just part of my Sunday School lesson.
They help to tease out some of the Hebrew language in the hymn without actually making it part of the lesson.
I figured you might read it in your own version if you desired.
11QPs(a) is the name of the Qumran cave (#11) where a number of books of psalms were discovered, it’s been dated to around 25-50 AD.
The small letter ‘a’ denotes which particular book; eight individual books of psalms were found in this cave, most of them preserving only a few psalms each.
I wrote: "Whether this verse belongs in this text or not, it was considered inspired by the early Christians who primarily used the Septuagint (LXX) AND the verse does not contain any errant doctrine (wouldn't you agree?)."
You responded "…what exactly does that prove?"
So it becomes a question of versions, Ed.
Are we MVO (Masoretic version only - which as strange as it sounds is really quite prevalent) or do we examine the early texts and include portions of them in the mix?
Who decides? In the past it was “the church”, which concluded (by it’s use of the Septuagint), that Psalm 145:13b was canonical.
The later church decided that those other books were not canonical by examining their content.
Those books are no longer in the cannon...but this verse remains there.
What exactly is wrong with the verse as it is found in the Septuagint?
Is there any errant doctrine expressed?
Augustine (354-430 A.D.) in his exposition on Psalm 145 writes:
"Faithful is the Lord in His words, and holy in all His works." "Faithful is the Lord in His words:" for what has He promised that He has not given? "Faithful is the Lord in His words." Hereto there are certain things which He has promised, and has not given; but let Him be believed from the things which He has given. We might well believe Him, if He only spoke: He willed not that we should believe Him speaking, but that we should have His Scriptures in our hands:…as though a kind of bond of God's, which all who pass by might read, and might keep to the path of its promise. And how great things has He already paid in accordance with that bond! Do men hesitate to believe Him concerning the Resurrection of the dead and the Life to come, which alone now remains to be paid, when, if He come to reckon with the unbelievers, the unbelievers must blush? If God say to you, "You have My bond: I have promised judgment, the separation of good and bad, everlasting life for the faithful, and will you not believe? There in My bond read all that I have promised, reckon with me: verily even by counting up what I have paid, you can believe that I shall pay what still I owe. In that bond you have My only-begotten Son promised, "Whom I spared not, but gave Him up for you all:" reckon this then among what is paid. Read the bond: I promised therein that I would give by My Son the earnest of the Holy Spirit: reckon that as paid. … He sets before the eyes of all His payment of His debts: some He has paid in the time of our ancestors, which we saw not: some He has paid in our times, which they saw not; throughout all generations He has paid what was written. And what remains? Do men not believe Him, when He has paid all this? What remains? Behold you have reckoned: all this He has paid: is He become unfaithful for the few things which remain? God forbid! Wherefore? Because "the Lord is faithful in His words, and holy in all His works."
It preaches.
Rob -
Ed -
Ed -
This will be out there for some of you Im sure, but hopefully you are learning to expect that...
I would argue that the Lord left out that letter on purpose, just to mess iwth textual critics. The problem is, no one would think the Lord would do a thing like that... but why wouldn't he?
His ways/thoughts are not our ways.thoughts, and I wouldn't put it past him. -
Why blame the Lord for it.
It's right there in the version the early church used.
Rob -
From a critical point of view, it is possible the composer began with an acrostic poem of David and intentionally left out the NUN strophe. Not only the NUN strophe, but much of the poem is edited to achieve a certain aim. It is uncertain why the composer added many non-poetic, i.e., "narrative" articles, like ET, HA, etc., to the poem, especially to the second half of the it.
The omission is hardly explainable unless the composer did it intentionally. Doing something like this could be considered compositional genius. It causes the reader to pause and consider the words before the omission. Faithful scribes dared not add what appear to be the intentionally missing words, which must have been well-known, back into the canonical text, but the temptation to "correct" the apparently mutilated acrostic was too great for some, and the NUN strophe found its way back into the text fairly early on.
So if the above scenario is correct, an interesting dilemma arises. Should we follow the compositional source (i.e., David's words, written ca. 1000 B.C.), or should we follow the completed compositional or canonical product, which was no doubt composed and arranged many hundreds of years later, as our inspired text? Of course Wellhausen went after the sources. I think such a direction is woefully misguided. -
-
It is not neccessarily true that the LXX was the ONLY text used by the early church.
Funny (to me) that many will decry KJVo yet will claim LXXo.
ha ha ha
Sorry Roger. I really could not and did not want to resist that one. My apologies in advance. -
Is something left out in the following?
"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?" (Acts 4:25 KJV)
"Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?" (Acts 4:25 NASB)
Here's the cross-reference verse:
-
-
-
Mt. 7:15-23, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "So then, you will know them by their fruits. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven [will enter]. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.' -
-
used by the KJV -- The 'Holy Spirit' is in the earlier manuscripts
available to the Translators of the NASB but not
available to the Translators of the KJV.
The NASB is the better translation
(not to mention better theology). -
Ed Edwards:
Proverbs 30:6 (KJV1611 Edition):
Adde thou not vnto his words,
lest he reproue thee,
and thou be found a lyar.
Thou hast blasphemed mine Bible by
taking away an 'e', the blessed first letter of
both my first and last names.
Further thou hast taken a blessed
'y' in 'lyar' and, Lo, thou hast changed it into
a self-centered 'i'
Correct me if I'm wrong Ed, but the verse is talking about adding words, is it not? As you correctly pointed out, 'e' and 'i' are letters. You don't believe in divinely preserved spelling do you?
Page 2 of 4