We have often discussed the differences between Isaiah 61:1-3 & Isaiah 42:7 and Luke 4:16-21. Dr. Cassidy is of the opinion that Jesus was reading aloud from a vorlage Hebrew text in use at the time. Can anyone elaborate on this? (I believe DC is on vacation in Palm Springs, according to his posts on another board)
( I hope he returns in time to add to this discussion.)
I understand there was a vorlage Hebrew text used to make the LXX, but I don't know anything further. Any assistance will be appreciated.
"Vorlage" text...
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by robycop3, Aug 21, 2006.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
:D
ok, it's the presumed (cos ain't nobody's ever seen it) underlying text of any translation, in this case the LXX. one explanation of why Jesus' quotes fr the OT r different fr our reading of the same is that the underlying Hebrew Vorlagen[?] r different--i.e. the Masoretic Text that's most popularly used today reads differently in some places than the Hebrew text used by the LXX translators n (presumably) by Christ. it's one of a number of plausible explanations. -
Thanx for your answer!
Those who insist that God has preserved His EXACT WORDS must acknowledge that Jesus put the stamp of authenticity upon whatever version He read aloud by both reading it and calling it Scripture. Thus, we have at least two versions in use...the masoretic Text, and the version from which Jesus read.
I don't know if there's any more info about the version Jesus used, and I was wondering if anyone here knew if it was still extant, or anything else about it. Or, were parts of it preserved in the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament, & that's all we have? -
Ed -
Fact is, Jesus read SOMETHING aloud that wasn't the Masoretic Text. Wonder what it was, and if it's still extant at least as as a copy somewhere. -
here's a perfect opportunity for them to correct Jesus for taking a NON-Onlyist position in terms of texts n versions! -
VT Only???
Great question!!
:rolleyes: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ed -
And Paul certainly was quoting something other than the MT in Romans 3:10-18.
These two examples alone should be sufficient for anyone who is searching for the truth to immediately reject the MT/TR onlyism.
Where are the KJVO proponents? I would like to know how they deal with these texts.
Is it as simple as "forget the Hebrew and Greek and stick to the KJV?" -
VT-Only!
:smilewinkgrin:
Naw, wait a minute! I'm for VT Only! :laugh; :laugh:
Ed -
Once again we must be reminded folks. This will not be a KJVO discussion.
-
Why not?
This is a versions/translation forum, and the one burning issue that is dividing the church is the issue of KJVOnlyism. Now if the Vorlage Text and the LXX dispute their claim, why not discuss it.
You seem to be very concerned that these issues not be discussed. Why is that?
The Scriptures warn us to watch out for those who cause division in the church. The KJVO issue is causing much division in the church. You don't want to discuss that?
The facts are that the practice of the NT writers and Jesus himself differ radically from what proponents of the KJVO doctrince practice.
Again, I ask you why on a Baptist Forum in the translation/versions section, we aren't allowed to discuss the doctrine of KJV onlyism.
Could you elaborate for us?
Thanks and blessings! -
Yup - we are not going to let every discussion become a KJVO discussion. We have been over this ad infinitum. The topic is far too divisive and there are plenty of places to discuss this issue.
There is plenty to discuss without returning to this topic over and over again. -
Ed -
The question is legit.
Bringing KJVO into the discussion is not. -
why talk abt the theory n doctrine n avoid the major application of it simply becos it divides sheep fr goats? can't we let the chips fall? or must Christians defend an agenda of placating some aberrant but vocal minority--aberrant becos in this case the Onlyist position (be it KJBO or Vulgate-Onlyist) contravenes Jesus' own position (n Paul's n Peter's, etc.).
if we're truly concerned abt divisiveness, we shd indeed confront KJBOism with the Scriptures properly studied, interpreted, AND applied. -
Ed -
Ed,
The discussion of KJVO is a done deal. We have found it far to inflammatory and virtually impossible to police. We have tried allowing it within guidelines, but moderating that required more time and diligence than anyone can give.
KJVO will not be a topic of discussion. The only other option is to close the Versions/Translations forum completely.
Now that we are totally off topic, lets return to the topic of the OP or close the thread.
Roger -
Surely there's some extant copy of a ms from which JESUS READ ALOUD, isn't there? As I said in the OP, Doc Cassidy & a few others believe it was a vorlage Hebrew text, while others believe it was the LXX. Gawrsh, whatta mystery!
-
The inflammatory remarks are certainly there by some.
I disagree with you as well. The major application of what this thread is about pertains directly to KJVO position.
What I hear you saying is that the KJVO issue engenders so much animosity/divisivness that BB (you?) doesn't want to be a forum for the discussion of this issue. Is this correct?
There seems to be something tragic about all of this. I'm not quite sure what that is yet.
I did learn something from this thread and the other one I started about "errors in the KJV?" That one got shut down rather quickly and it was tame, IMO, too.
Nevertheless, I did learn something.
You might want to remember that though this topic has been discussed ad infinitum, some of us have just started to look into this. So for us, it isn't ad infinitum.
Blessings. -
I think the proper thing to do would be to create a KJVO subforum within BV/T. This way the people that want to discuss the issue can, and the people who don't want to even see the threads that discuss the issue can just not visit that subforum.
The discussions are valid to this forum since the doctrine of KJVO is both acceped and rejected with Baptist churches today (in other words, BB members represent believers and unbelievers of this issue). The discussions are heated, and many errors and truths are exposed without sugar coating. But personal attacks should never be acceptable.
I would volunteer as one of the moderators of this new subforum if it were considered, and I'm sure others would also volunteer in order for this issue to be discussed freely here.
Page 1 of 2