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!

Jesus wasn't KJV-Only :)

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by BrianT, Jul 11, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 6
  1. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I came across a good post in another forum. I though I'd repost it here and see what kind of discussion it generates. [​IMG] BTW, this is not an attack on the KJV, or anyone here. [​IMG] 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 ]
     
    #1 BrianT, Jul 11, 2002
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, not only was Jesus not KJV-only, he wasn't English-only either [​IMG]
     
    #2 Johnv, Jul 11, 2002
  3. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
    #3 Forever settled in heaven, Jul 11, 2002
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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 ]
     
    #4 HankD, Jul 11, 2002
  5. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    no .. what Jesus was doing was speaking Scripture, which demands it be translated into English formally! :eek: :D
     
    #5 Chris Temple, Jul 12, 2002
  6. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #6 BrianT, Jul 12, 2002
  7. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    &lt;&lt; Jesus wasn't KJV-Only &gt;&gt;

    '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.
     
    #7 ChristianCynic, Jul 12, 2002
  8. Ernie Brazee

    Ernie Brazee <img src ="/ernie.JPG">

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
    #8 Ernie Brazee, Jul 12, 2002
  9. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #9 GrannyGumbo, Jul 12, 2002
  10. Ernie Brazee

    Ernie Brazee <img src ="/ernie.JPG">

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    0
    {attack deleted}

    [ July 12, 2002, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
    #10 Ernie Brazee, Jul 12, 2002
  11. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    May God forever more bless you and protect you, Bro.Ernie.
     
    #11 GrannyGumbo, Jul 12, 2002
  12. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    SO modern version users:
    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
     
    #12 Chris Temple, Jul 12, 2002
  13. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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? [​IMG]

    HankD

    [ July 12, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
    #13 HankD, Jul 12, 2002
  14. Ernie Brazee

    Ernie Brazee <img src ="/ernie.JPG">

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Granny, the fact that my post was deleted makes my point.
     
    #14 Ernie Brazee, Jul 12, 2002
  15. Ernie Brazee

    Ernie Brazee <img src ="/ernie.JPG">

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #15 Ernie Brazee, Jul 12, 2002
  16. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, he wasn't. W/H is NT. This is OT. And the OT he did read was some form of the LXX, which is MUCH more different from the KJV than W/H is. And yet Christ STILL called it scripture? How dare you then call God's word "trash" and "heresey"?

    You need to carefully read Luke 4:17 says that what he read was written in Isaiah. Yet it is different from the KJV's rendering. How do you explain that, if KJV-onlyism is true? Was Christ lying about the passage he read being "scripture"?

    Again, we are NOT against you standing for the word of God. We are NOT against the KJV, we are against KJV-Onlyism. Don't you understand the difference? It appears to me that KJV-Onlyists are the ones attacking "the word of God", by limiting it to one single 17th century translation, instead of the range of good Bibles throughout history. *We* are standing for the "word of God" - throughout history - and by standing for KJV-onlyism, you stand against this.

    "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
     
    #16 BrianT, Jul 12, 2002
  17. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #17 GrannyGumbo, Jul 12, 2002
  18. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    It may be an error of application to attempt to make the above quoted statement parallel the English version controversy. Having read some of the notes taken by the KJV committee I have come to the conclusion the translators were refering to the textual issue when they said the meanest English translation was the word of God. I believe they were drawing a dichotomy between the traditional texts and the Latin Vulgate texts, and explaining that the textual basis had more impact on the translations than other issues being raised at that time. It is vitally important to put such quotes in the historic context of the time they were written and not attempt to make them fit our favorite hobby horse. [​IMG]
     
    #18 DocCas, Jul 12, 2002
  19. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #19 BrianT, Jul 12, 2002
  20. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    "speaking Scripture" whatever.

    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 ]
     
    #20 Forever settled in heaven, Jul 12, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 6
Loading...