1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

They Dare Call This Science!

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Against the KJV's mistranslation of ελπις as "faith" rather than "hope," the following should be considered: the Greek word for "faith" is πιστις, while the Greek word for "hope" is ελπις. If the writer of Heb. 10:23 wanted to *say* "faith" (= πιστις), he would have *written* πιστις (= "faith"). It's as simple as that.

    Perhaps that's why the English translations before the KJV correctly translated it as "hope:"

    "and hold we the confession of our hope, bowing to no side" (Wycliffe Bible, 1388)

    "and let vs kepe the profession of oure hope with oute waveringe" (Tyndale Bible, 1534)

    "Let vs holde the profession of the hope without waueryng" (Bishop's Bible, 1595)

    "let vs keepe the profession of our hope, without wauering" (Geneva Bible, 1599)

    Then along came the KJV "Bible correctors" who sought to "fix" what wasn't broken in the first place.

    Presumably the same way KJV-Onlyists know that all the differences between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV's are "corrections of printing errors." [​IMG]

    No, how to translate the word is a matter of seeing how it's used elsewhere in ancient Greek. And in all our ancient Greek sources (classical, papyri, and LXX), it means "to strain *out*," and not "to strain *at*" as the KJV falsely asserts. Perhaps this is why once again entire generations of English translators before the KJV correctly rendered it as "strain *out* (or its equivalent):"

    "Blind leaders, cleansing a gnat but swallowing a camel." (Wycliffe Bible, 1388)

    "Ye blinde gydes which strayne out a gnat and swalowe a cammyll." (Tyndale Bible, 1534)

    "Ye blynde guides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a Camel". (Bishop's Bible, 1595)

    "Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell." (Geneva Bible, 1599)

    But then along came the KJV "Bible correctors" who once again messed up what earlier translators had right all along.

    Except where it happens to be wrong. [​IMG]
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    456
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello. Arch; long time no "see".

    The Onlyists have written books trying to explain the differences between what Jesus read aloud in the synagogue in Luke 4:16-21, and what's written in the version of the Book of Isaiah used for our English translations in Isaiah 61:1-3.

    Some of what's found in Luke is also found in Isaiah 42:7. But there's still too great a difference in the wordings between Isaiah and Luke for it to be attributed to mere language differences. The Onlyists simply cannot provide a rational answer to those differences that would fit their doctrine.

    Here's one you brought up that I've never seen any Onlyist even ATTEMPT to explain: the differences between isaiah 53:7-8 and what the Ethiopian read in Acts 8:32-33. The Onlyists try to tell us that some of the differences between isaiah and Luke were caused by Jesus' "targuming" the passages as he read, but there's no such excuse available between Isaiah and Acts.

    Whether Jesus, and later the Ethiopian were reading from the LXX or some similar Greek version I don't know, but obviously each was reading from a different version than that which was translated into the KJV's Book of Isaiah. The Onlyist refuses to touch this one because it proves his/her theory wrong.

    This does NOT include all the short OT quotes, mostly from Isaiah found in the Gospels. They even call him Esaias, the Greek rendering of Isaiah.

    I give you credit for presenting this one, Arch, because you made the first comprehensive posts citing these differences that I'd seen in Yahoo or Ezboard.
     
  3. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thirdly, what is your problem with ..."there are undeniable, irreconcilable errors in the KJV. Here are two: Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1,
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------Jesus was reading from an OT scroll (scripture, the Word of God). The text tells us when He stopped reading. The portion He read from Isaiah 61 disagrees with the text used by the KJV translators. One or the other or both passages are in error in the KJV.

    quote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2 Kings 8:26 v 2 Chronicles 22:2."?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------These two passages are exact parallel accounts of Ahaziah's ascendance to the throne. One says he was 22. The other says he was 42.

    Hi Scott, I will first answer the one about Luke 4, and later the one about the age of Ahaziah. But I will ask in passing: regarding the number 42 years in 2 Chron. 22:2, I hope you are aware that this is the clear reading of the Hebrew text.

    It is also the reading of the 2 Jewish translations I have, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Geneva bible, Darby, Douay, and Youngs.

    So, is this one of the places people like you and Larry think the Hebrew text has been corrupted and it is up to you guys to correct it like the NASB, NIV and ESV do?

    Now for Luke 4

    Keep in mind that if you condemn the KJB you are also condemning the NKJV, TMB, KJV21, Green's Modern KJV, the Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's, Tyndale, Diodati, Luther, and the Geneva Bible.

    Did Jesus quote the Greek Septuagint?

    Luke 4:16-19 compared with Isaiah 61:1-2


    Luke 4:16-19

    "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.

    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,

    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."


    Isaiah 61:1-2

    "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;

    To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; "


    Some Bible critics like to tell us that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint version rather than expounding the Hebrew Scriptures. There are several problems with this view. There is no historical proof that there ever was such a thing as a widely accepted, authoritative, pre-Christian Septuagint version that Jesus could have been reading at this time. The Jews still spoke and read the Hebrew language.

    Secondly, it was the post Christian Septuagint versions that were written to bring them in line with many New Testament quotes, not the other way around.

    Thirdly, if Jesus were quoting the Septuagint, He didn't do a very good job of it, because the LXX version also differs not only from the Hebrew texts, but also from the quote as it is found in the Greek New Testament.

    In Luke 4:18 and 19, after "recovering of sight to the blind" the Greek N.T. reads "TO SET AT LIBERTY THEM THAT ARE BRUISED, To PREACH the acceptable year of the Lord." In Greek this is: "aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei, keeruxai eniauton kuriou dekton".

    However the Septuagint version reads: "to CALL FOR an acceptable year of the Lord, AND A DAY OF RECOMPENSE, to comfort all that mourn." In Greek this is: "KALESAI eniauton kuriou dekton, KAI HEMERAN ANTAPODOSEOS, parakalesai pantas tous penthountas."

    We can clearly see that the "quotes" from the so called Septuagint, do not match what is written in the New Testament. The so called Septuagint completely omits "to set at liberty them that are bruised", changes "to preach" into "to call for", and changes "day of VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD" to "and a day of recompense " This is hardly what is recorded in the gospel of Luke chapter four, nor does it match the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61.

    In addition to this, the words found in Luke 4:18 "TO HEAL THE BROKEN-HEARTED" are missing from versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, but are found in both the KJB and the Septuagint version. Those who insist on the use of the LXX have departed from it in this verse more so than the KJB.

    The words "to heal the broken-hearted" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and many uncial copies including Alexandrinus of the 5th century. The reading is also found in many ancient versions such as the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Georgian, Slavonic, and some Coptic Boharic manuscripts. It is also quoted by early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hipplytus, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hillary.

    However the usual suspects of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these precious words from Holy Writ, and so the NASB, NIV and ESV also omit them.

    Any man or author is able to freely quote HIMSELF if he
    wants to. But no one has the right to freely quote another and put words into his mouth; this is bearing false witness. God can freely-quote or explain further what He means if He wants to, but we do not have the right to change His words.


    John Gill remarks: "To set at liberty them that are bruised:
    these words are not in Isaiah 61 but...(possibly) from Isaiah 42:7,it being allowable for a reader in the prophets, to skip from place to place, which our Lord here did, in order to explain this passage more fully."

    The Lord Jesus Christ combined several Scriptural ideas and explained the sense of the passage in His own words - He was not quoting directly from a non existent Septuagint version.

    This would be in accord with the Biblical pattern recorded in the days of Nehemiah. We read in Nehemiah 8:8: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, AND GAVE THE SENSE, and caused them to understand the reading."


    From Alfred Edersheim, a converted Rabbinic scholar in the 19th century-

    "When unrolling, and holding the scroll, much more than the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah must have been within range of His eyes. On the other hand, it is quite certain that the verses quoted by the Evangelist could not have formed the Haphtarah. [Edersheim explains earlier that the Haphtarah is a normal range of verses employed according to Jewish custom]. According to traditional rule (Massech. Soph. 12.7), the Haphtarah ordinarily consisted of not less than twenty-one verses, though, if the passage was to be "targumed" [Edersheim explains this means "expounded" by the preacher, also a well-known Jewish custom], or a sermon to follow, that number might be shortened to seven, five, or even three verses. Now the passage quoted by St. Luke consists really of only one verse..." Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, 1.453.

    Jesus either added a verse from another section of Isaiah (examples above) in order to make sure that the minimum range of scripture was covered according to Jewish custom, or He merely "targumed" the passage, which, as Edersheim shows, was a common practice.

    Luke stated that Jesus FOUND the PLACE where it was written. He did NOT say that Jesus QUOTED directly from the scroll, or that Jesus explicitly READ the scroll VERBATIM.

    The Lord Jesus is merely explaining in further detail the sense of the passage as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, just like any good Jewish teacher would do for the sake of the congregation. He is not quoting from a non existent Greek Septuagint version.

    This is another example of where the so-called LXX was translated by later Christian scribes in an effort to bring it more into conformity to the New Testament references.

    There are many such examples in the gospels where God or Christ Himself refers to passages in the Old Testament and give us an explanation of the sense of the passage, rather than a literal quote.

    For example, in Matthew 12:17-21 we read: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

    The "quote" in Isaiah 42:1-4 is a quite different, but we can see the same general sense and expanded meaning given to us in Matthew's gospel.

    Isaiah 42:1-2 says: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

    Yet if we were to compare the Septuagint reading, we find that it gives a very different meaning than the one found in either the New Testament or the Hebrew text of Isaiah 42.

    In the LXX version we read: "Jacob is my servant, I will help him. Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; ...nor shall his voice be heard without....He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged..."

    It should be obvious that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is not quoting some LXX version. Rather, he is restating the same truths found in the Hebrew text by placing the same ideas in different terms. God has the right to do this, because He is refering to what He Himself has inspired. We, on the other hand, do not have the right to alter God's words or thoughts.


    Edersheim's comments on Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 and how Jesus targummed.
    http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book311.htm

    Will K
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is, therefore, imperfect according to the standards held by the KJV_only crowd. You've disproved your own position. Either your Bible is infallible or it is not.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Will, no one is "condemning" the KJB.

    Why must the KJVO constantly use this language of paranoia?

    To point out an error or to express one's opinion concerning the choice of a word in translation, especially when the word has undergone 300 plus years of language dynamics, is not to condemn the work but may even be an expression of desiring to make it better.

    As I expressed before, to the credit of the Church of England (in this case) they scrupulously ferreted out the printer and translational errors to the best of their ability for several hundred years after the original release of 1611.

    Were they condemning their own work?

    HankD
     
  6. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The Jews still spoke and read the Hebrew language."
    In the days of Jezus the Jews living in Israel spoke Aramaic. The ones living abroad spoke and read Greek.
     
  7. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Scott, I just want to clarify a couple of important points you raised in your response.

    I said: "Scott, it is readily apparent that you do not have any inspired Bible, and you have admitted such. You previously said we do not have an inspired Bible today.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------Scott-This is a lie. I have said that the words of translations are not inspired.
    I accept the Bible as my final authority for all matters of faith and practice."

    Ok, Scott. Let's look at your statements here. You do not believe the words of translations are inspired. So, we can conclude from this that neither the KJB, NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV ad infinitum, are inspired. None of them are.

    Yet your refer to "the Bible" as your final authority. I'm a bit confused by your statement. What is "the Bible" you are referring to?

    Is it something you can hold in your hands, read, and not "correct" because it is corrupted in some places?

    Does this "bible" of yours exist anywhere on this earth where we can see it? Is it a particular Hebrew and /or Greek text? If so, what is it called?

    Where is "the Bible" of which you speak in such lofty terms as being your rule for all matters of faith and practice?

    Will K

    Please try to give me a straight answer to this. I really would like to know exactly what it is your refer to as "the Bible" since you don't believe any translation is inspired. Do you have an uninspired Bible, is that it?
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    They Dare Call This The Science of Textual Criticism - Colossians through Thessalonians.

    Hey guys, which one of these is the inspired, inerrant, pure word of God? It appears your versions and noted scholars can't seem to agree among themselves and your Greek texts keep changing. Wat's up?

    Yea, hath God said...?

    Colossians 1:2 "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father,AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST." This is the majority reading as well as Sinaiticus and the Syriac Peshitta. But Vaticanus omits "and the Lord Jesus Christ" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV.

    Colossians 3:4 "When Christ, who is OUR life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."

    "OUR life" is the majority reading as well as Vaticanus and so read the NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV and the RSV. But Sinaiticus reads: "Christ, who is YOUR life" and thus read the NIV, NRSV, and the ESV. Again, the Nestle-Aland text used to read "our life" but again they later changed it to "your life".

    Colossians 3:6 "For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh ON THE CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE."

    "on the children of disobedience" is the Majority reading and that of Sinaiticus. It is found in the RV, ASV, NRSV, ISV and Holman. It is also now in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek text. However the previous Nestle texts omitted this phrase and the versions that continue to omit this phrase are the NASB, NIV, RSV, and the ESV. Consistency is not their strong point, is it?

    Colossians 4:15 "Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in HIS house."

    Some modern versions tell us Nymphas was a "she" rather than a "he". For an amusing and very well done article on this verse, I highly recommend an article done by my good friend Marty Shue. He deals with the textual issues and does it in a very interesting manner. See his article at http://www.AVDefense.com/nymphas.html

    First Thessalonians

    1 Thessalonians 1:1 "...Grace be unto you, and peace, FROM GOD OUR FATHER, AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST."

    These last nine words are found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus, A, the Old Latin, Lamsa's Syriac Peshitta, and the Coptic Boharic ancient versions. Yet in spite of all this evidence, primarily because Vaticanus lacks this phrase, the NASB, NIV, ESV, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard unite in omitting all these words. Yet it is interesting to see that the new 2003 International Standard Version, which almost always follows the same constantly changing Nestle-Aland format, has now put these words back into their text!

    2 Thessalonians 1:2 "Grace unto you, and peace, from God OUR Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." If EVERY word of God is precious to you, then this example is important. The word "our" before "our Father" is found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus. Vaticanus omits the word "our" and the NASB, NIV, RSV follow Vaticanus saying "God THE Father". The older Nestle-Aland text read this way, but then later they changed it again to now read "God OUR Father", and this is how the NRSV, ESV, ISV and Holman versions now read.

    2 Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus CHRIST."

    The word "Christ" is in the majority of texts, including Sinaiticus, Old Latin, Syriac, Gothic, and Armenian ancient versions. However Vaticanus omits "Christ" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV.

    2 Thessalonians 2:13 Another mind-blower!

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation..."

    "From the beginning" is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It also was the reading of the previous Nestle-Aland Greek editions, and is still found in the NIV, NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, and the upcoming 2003 Holman Christian Standard.

    However, the latest Nestle-Aland texts have once again changed their reading, based on Vaticanus, and now reads: "God has chosen you AS THE FIRST FRUITS to be saved" and this is how the NRSV, ESV and the 2003 ISV now read!

    Will Kinney
     
  9. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which specific version Jesus might have been using (the LXX or otherwise) is irrelevant. The fact that Jesus actually used and read from a different version of *any* kind is the significant point. If using a different version is good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me. [​IMG]

    That's not what Luke says. Luke tells us explicitly that "when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written..." Please note that it says "THE PLACE" -- the singular, one and only place -- and not "the places." So according to Luke himself, Jesus did *not* "skip from place to place."

    Again, that's not what Luke says. Luke is very explicit -- the *only* words Jesus spoke after reading the Scriptures aloud were, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Lk. 4:21 KJV). Nothing else.

    Yes it does. Read the passage *very* carefully, and not the exact *words* Luke uses to describe the exact sequence of events which took place.

    (1) "he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read" -- Jesus stood up in front of the assembled congregation for the express purpose of reading aloud to them.

    (2) "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" -- Jesus was handed a copy of the Book of Isaiah, and he opened it to *a single specific place* where the words he was about to read aloud were *written* before his eyes.

    (3) "And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." -- After Jesus finished reading aloud the exact *written* words of the one and only *place* in the copy of Isaiah right in front of him, he closed the book, returned it to the attendant, sat down as any rabbi would before teaching, and then proceeded to tell them that *this scripture* (not "these scriptures from different places I have strung together") was fulfilled *in their ears*, because Jesus had just read them aloud for all to hear.

    True; but this is the only one where Jesus is *reading* a passage aloud from an actual written copy of the Old Testament right before his eyes. Not only that, but the passage he's reading is from a different version! The example of Jesus using a different version of Isaiah should put to rest once and for all the unscriptural dogma of One-Version-Onlyism.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    456
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I see Archangel has replied to your post, but I'd like to remind you of another problem you didn't address. In Luke 4, Jesus was reading to a hostile crowd which was looking to find fault with Him. Had He not read the Scriptures exactly as written, they'd've gone ballistic at once. THEY DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS GOD! Sure, Jesus could word the Scriptures any way He chose, but His audience in Luke 4 thought He was just another man, as shown in the context of Ch.4.

    The argument has been made that any copy of Scripture found in a synagogue would be in Hebrew. All right, if the scroll from which Jesus read was indeed in Hebrew, He was still reading from another version, as is evident from the differences in the version of Isaiah translated into the KJV and the words Jesus read aloud as recorded in Luke.

    Even if the scroll were written in Slobbovian, Jesus was reading from another version.
     
  11. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got news for ya,they were hostile towards Him without quoting scripture.That argument will not hold water.....
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes. I am aware that it is a universal variant. A copyists' mistake that God Himself providentially preserved... quite possibly to steer us away from a perverted emphasis on words but that is speculation on my part. I have no problem with this fact. You do however. You say the KJV is inerrant. It cannot be inerrant if it contains an error, no matter what the source is. I respect the translators that allow this error to stand "as is, where is". It demonstrates respect for the Bible to not presume what God has not manifested.
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK Will, Let's look. I do not believe that any English version of Dante's Inferno is Dante's words. Yet I do believe that his word (the meaning of what he wrote) can be expressed in different ways by different translators without being unfaithful to his work.

    God inspired the originals. They not only communicated the exact message God wanted to reveal... they were made up of words directly chosen by God Himself. Copies and translations can communicate this same revelation without inspired words.

    The Word of God is accurately and sufficiently communicated in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, LITV, EMTV, Geneva, and various other works of men. They all teach me the same things. Even the texts of specific verses differ very little in substance and when take on whole these versions agree with each other.

    Yes it is. You assume a false dichotomy again. It is not correct vs. corrupt... it is correct in spite of minor imperfections of wording, translation, etc.

    Yes. biblegateway.com
    No. It is the sum of them.
    The users of these varied mss called them the Word of God.

    Will, I will try to make you understand this again but if you don't understand what I believe then please stop mis-stating what I believe.

    A good, faithful translation is the inspired Word of God. They express what God chose to reveal to mankind in the originals about Himself and His plan.

    No translation however is the inspired words of God. The Bible specifically tells us through whom scripture originates: prophets, holy men of old, and Apostles.
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not condemning the KJV. I am disproving KJVOnlyism. These are two distinctly different things.

    I personally doubt it in this instance. The Septuagint was however probably translated from a text very similar to the one Jesus did use. But none of that matters, all that really matters is that He used something other than what the KJV translators used.


    Again, much ado about nothing. You aren't addressing the problem but simply evading.

    Regardless of what Jesus was reading from it was different from the KJV's Isaiah 61.

    My view on scripture can easily reconcile this... yours cannot. None the less, you have not disproven the KJV error by proving an error in other versions.

    Is this a standard you are willing to live by... even if applied to the KJV?

    These things make a good case for this passage in some versions and against this passage in others. But they simply do not demonstrate that one translation is perfect and all others are imperfect.

    You cannot flip-flop between the two Will. If you are a better runner than I am that doesn't make you an Olympic sprinter. Proofs that one version is superior to another does not make that version inerrant.
    But according to Luke, this isn't what Jesus was doing. According to Luke, He was reading from the text of that Temple's scroll.


    I like John Gill but he isn't infallible nor has he taken into account that Luke tells us that Jesus started reading and stopped. It says nothing of Him quoting from another section much less turning to another section.
    Again, this is not the issue. The issue is that He was not quoting from the same text used to render the KJ version of Isaiah 61.

    Now you are reading between the lines Will. It would be much easier to simply accept the truth.

    It doesn't say He was expounding at that point. It says He was reading.
    Nice try but we see through your efforts to divert the discussion to the Septuagint.

    By the way, neither Edersheim nor Gill were KJVO. If they can understand and deal with these issues without coming to a false conclusion and you respect them enough to quote them authoritatively, why can't you?
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    456
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
    I got news for ya,they were hostile towards Him without quoting scripture.That argument will not hold water.....
    ___________________________________________
    Sorry, Sir, it holds quite a bit of water. If Jesus had misread the Scriptures, that would've given the crowd a valid excuse to have attempted to stone Him. We don't see one word indicating any of those men disagreed with what Jesus read aloud, and, seeing as how Scripture indicates their argument against Him(He's just a man like us), we must assume they found no fault with what He'd read. remember, that crowd was looking for ANYTHING they could use against Jesus, and misreading or changing the Scriptures would certainly been a grave offense to them.

    I see you don't want to touch the fact that what Jesus read aloud differs from what's written in the version of Isaiah translated into the KJV.
     
  16. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps it's time to bring it up again.

    Note the exact wording of this passage from the Book of Isaiah:

    7 he IS BROUGHT as a LAMB to the slaughter,
    and AS a SHEEP BEFORE HER SHEARERS IS DUMB,
    so HE OPENETH not his mouth.
    8 HE WAS TAKEN FROM PRISON AND FROM JUDGMENT:
    and who shall declare his generation?
    for HE WAS CUT OFF FROM THE LAND OF THE LIVING:
    (Isa. 53:7-8, KJV)

    Now, note the exact wording of the very same passage as it appeared in the copy of Isaiah from which the Ethiopian eunuch read on his way back from Jerusalem:

    27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot READ Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and HEARD HIM READ the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou READEST? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 THE PLACE OF THE SCRIPTURE WHICH HE READ was this,
    He WAS LED as a SHEEP to the slaughter;
    and LIKE a LAMB DUMB BEFORE HIS SHEARER,
    so OPENED HE not his mouth:
    33 IN HIS HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY:
    and who shall declare his generation?
    for HIS LIFE IS TAKEN FROM THE EARTH.
    34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at THE SAME SCRIPTURE, and preached unto him Jesus.
    (Ac. 8:27-35, KJV)

    The Ethiopian eunuch used a different version of Isaiah, and this fact is clearly recorded in the Scriptures. This demonstrates that any form of "One Version Onlyism" is unscriptural.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Archangel,

    Check the Acts passage in the Greek and then the LXX for the corresponding Isaiah wording.

    Except for a word or two rearrangement they are identical.

    Which is much greater cause for KJVO heartburn.

    HankD
     
  18. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott, I thank you for answering this question honestly.

    Will>>>But I will ask in passing: regarding the number 42 years in 2 Chron. 22:2, I hope you are aware that this is the clear reading of the Hebrew text.
    It is also the reading of the 2 Jewish translations I have, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Geneva bible, Darby, Douay, and Youngs.
    So, is this one of the places people like you and Larry think the Hebrew text has been corrupted and it is up to you guys to correct it like the NASB, NIV and ESV do?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scott>>>>Yes. I am aware that it is a universal variant. A copyists' mistake that God Himself providentially preserved... quite possibly to steer us away from a perverted emphasis on words but that is speculation on my part. I have no problem with this fact. You do however. You say the KJV is inerrant. It cannot be inerrant if it contains an error, no matter what the source is."

    Thanks at least for admitting that this is one of the places (and I will bet there are a whole lot more than one because the NASB departs at least 40 times from the Hebrew readings, while the NIV, ESV do so far more often) where YOU THINK the Hebrew text is in error.

    This is your mindset. If you do not understand something, and it doesn't make sense to you, then it must be an error. So, as it stands now, you do not have any inspired Bible anywhere on this earth, neither in Hebrew, Greek, English or any other language. Your "Bible" is a mystical one that exists only in your own mind, and is different from everybody else's.

    On the other hand, a King James Bible believer like myself, will come to the text, believe it is true even if I don't understand it, and ask God to open my understanding. I do not change the text in any way. I have the preserved, inerrant words of God, and you do not.

    I have seen this many times. I have an answer for this apparent contradiction. It may be correct and it may not be. (I think it is) But it provides a very possible explanation that does not change the Hebrew text. You however, will refuse to accept the possible explanation which maintains the integrity of God's inerrant word, because you are operating from a position of unbelief and have already decided that the oracles of God committed to the Jews has a universal "scribal error", and if YOU can't seem to understand something, then you conclude it must be wrong. You see, you have exalted your own mind above the word of God and you now are the final authority.
     
  19. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott, I asked: Yet your refer to "the Bible" as your final authority. I'm a bit confused by your statement. What is "the Bible" you are referring to?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------Scott>>>-The Word of God is accurately and sufficiently communicated in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, LITV, EMTV, Geneva, and various other works of men. They all teach me the same things. Even the texts of specific verses differ very little in substance and when take on whole these versions agree with each other."


    Scott, if you think all these versions "accurately" communicate the word of God and "they all teach the same things", then words have lost all sense of meaning. There are literally hundreds of verses where even when they supposedly are using the same texts, where the meaning is totally different. Let alone all the whole verses and large sections that are in one and not in the others.


    And if "they teach the same things", then why do you accuse the KJB of containing "undeniable and irreconcilable errors"?

    I pointed out to you several passages that doctrinally do not teach the same things. I guess if these things are unimportant to you, then it is little wonder you do not defend any text in any language to be the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God.

    I know I cannot convince you of the truth of my position, but I just want to clarify to others where you are coming from concerning the Bible version issue.

    Will K
     
  20. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Does this "bible" of yours exist anywhere on this earth where we can see it?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes. biblegateway.com

    quote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is it a particular Hebrew and /or Greek text?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------Scott>>>-No. It is the sum of them.

    When asked this question by a King James Bible believer, a modern version proponent answered in this way. This is an actual post at one of the Bible clubs I belong to.

    ".If only the originals were inspired and without error what was the purpose of God giving us a perfect Bible and then losing it?"

    His answer is this: "It was not lost. God simply did not preserve it in the way that you demand that He should have. Why do you question the will of God? It is preserved in 5000+ mss, 12000+ ancient versions, and 12000+ ancient witnesses."


    To which the KJB believer posted this great little song.

    Christian Universities Anthem!

    Tune: from "An American Tale"

    Dedicated to my [-- Timothy D. Fellows, Jr.] alma mater, Bob Jones University
    which inspired its writing

    Somewhere out there, the Word of God exists;
    Somewhere in those manuscripts all the words consist.
    Somewhere out there in parchments worn and rare,
    Lies a text that could be the next
    That would prove beyond compare!

    Somewhere out there, the Word of God is true;
    Somewhere in those pyramids it waits for me and you.
    Somewhere out there beneath the sands of time,
    There's a scroll that could yet unroll
    And reveal God's Word sublime!

    Somewhere out there, the Word of God is sure;
    Somewhere in old languages it rests so very pure.
    Somewhere out there in variants so vast,
    There's a reading that we're still a needing,
    So we have God's Word at last!

    Refrain:
    Oh just imagine what a wonder it would surely be
    If we could have the Word of God completely error free!
    If we believe our dreams can really come right shining through
    Then we shall ever have our wish -- the Word of God come true!

    Somewhere out there the Word of God is found;
    Somewhere in those autographs all the words are sound.
    Somewhere out there if only where we knew,
    We could cope with a ray of hope
    Out there -- where dreams come true!

    -- Timothy D. Fellows, Jr.
     
Loading...