Satan Misquotes Scripture

< All translators of modern versions that take the liberty to add and delete God's words are under a curse >

Is the writer of Hebrews, and/or the KJV translators under a curse because of their citation in Hebrews 9:20?...

"Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you."

The closest quote to be found for their citation is Exodus 24:8--

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words."

There are many spots in Hebrews where the OT quotation is incomplete or altered. Your wishful curse upon the writer(s) or the translators (KJV and others) is itself accursed.

 

Was Christ of Satan when he "misquoted" Scripture?

Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men (KJV)

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me (KJV)

Or

John 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

There is no OT passage that reads like this.

How about Luke?

Luke 2:23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"),

There is not OT passage that corresponds exactly to this.

I could go on and on giving similar examples. Very rarely, if ever, does the NT translation or citation perfectly match the OT source. It just isn't so no matter who quotes it.

You see, what you accuse Satan of doing is the same thing that Christ did, Luke did, Peter did, Paul did, James did, John did. Your position is simply untenable in light of Scripture.

Do you really think that those two "changes" of Satan's quotation of the OT somehow was the difference between him being right and wrong. Satan's problem was his intent to misapply those passages. Christ did not address his "miscitation;" Christ addressed his wrong theology.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Satan's problem was his intent to misapply those passages. Christ did not address his "miscitation;" Christ addressed his wrong theology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOU MEAN LIKE THE WAY THE MODERN VERSIONS MISAPPLY THE SCRIPTURES? SUCH AS TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST BEING WATERED DOWN. THE VIRGIN BIRTH BEING WATERED DOWN, REPENTANCE BEING WATERED DOWN, THE TRINITY BEING WATERED DOWN, THE BLOOD BEING WATERED DOWN, AND THE SIMULATION OF SOME OF THE OT SCIPTURES WHICH TYPIFIED CHRIST, BEING CHANGED AROUND IN WORDING SO THAT NO CORRELATION CAN BE SEEN.

 

Joey,

I applaud your fervent defense of what you feel is the truth. I wish more people were like that.

There is something you need to consider about the KJV, however. They did not have access to some of the earlier manuscripts that were available in the twentieth century. Nor did they have access, I don't think, to the LXX, translated from paleo-Hebrew to classical Greek by Jewish scholars somewhere around a hundred years before Christ. A lot of people don't like the LXX (Septuagint), but the fact is that the quotes we read in the Bible in the New Testament which refer to the Old match the Septuagint exactly.

Does that mean the KJV is wrong in places? Yes, actually, it does. Was it their fault? I don't know. Only God knows. However they were subject to some of the copying errors that were probably started, and certainly perpetuated, during the Middle Ages when the Bible was copied by hand by the monks. For instance, 1 John 5:6-7 is probably incorporating some marginal notes found sometime during the Middle Ages. This addition (the part about two or three witnesses) is not found in any Greek manuscript or any New Testament before the 16th century. John 8:1-11 is not found in the earliest mss. Mark 16:9-20 is not in the early documents which are considered reliable. The commandment which in the KJV is translated "Thou shalt not kill." is definitely a mistranslation, as God is not the author of confusion and He commands both capital punishment for the murder of humans and wars in which no prisoners are taken, but all are killed, including women and children. The correct translation of the commandment, then, is "Thou shalt not murder." This is well explained in the rest of Hebrew law as excepting accidental manslaughter, defense, and the like.

The NASB, the NIV, and other conservative modern translations all depend on the earliest texts available, as well as upon the early letters quoting Scripture as well. If these sources are correct, then what evidently happened is not that the modern versions have watered down anything or that they have deleted anything, but that the KJV has material added and emphasized which is not in the original.

Translators work for their own ages and cultures, to try to get the meaning across. If you prefer the KJV, that's great. You can't miss God's meaning no matter what. But that also goes for the NIV and NASB and the others.

In the meantime, Paul's words to Timothy should be a rebuke to you and others who are so willing to fight regarding which of the basic translations (excluding New World and cult material, etc.) is 'best':

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
KJV, 2 Timothy 2:14-15

NIV: Keep reminding them of these things. Warm them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

NASB: Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.

 

Joey,

This may be off thread just a little bit, but let me give you a quote about how the AV Bible came to be and exactly WHAT documents were used. This quote is made by one of the head translators and is included in a book dated: 1899 and written by J Paterson/ Smyth called "How we got our Bible". This is not the only place where this information can be found so it is not a made up story, but it does shed light that the AV uses many texts and the same type of textual criticism that was utilized by new translations--although the science has improved greatly since the 17th century.

Quote describing AV translation and sources:

"The revisers were divided into six companies, each of which took its own portion, and every aid accessible was used to make their work a thorough sucess. They carefully studied Greek and Hebrew; they used the best commentaries of European scholars; the Bibles, in Spanish, Italian, French and german were examined for any help they might afford in arriving at the exact sense of each passage; and when the sense was found, no pains were spared to express it in clear, vigorous idiomatic English. All the excellences of the PREVIOUS verions were noted, for the purpose of INCORPORATING THEM IN THE WORK, and even the Rhemish (Roman Catholic) translation was laid under contribution for some expressive phrases which it contained. "Neither, did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered, fearing no reproach for slowness nor coveting praise for expedition;" and the result was the production of this splended authorized Version of which Englishmen today are so justly proud."

It goes on and on about how the Bible was intended as a translation and would be modified as language changed because they realized that older documents may be found and expected it to be updated as both English was changed as it had since the Tyndale Bible and also they were very aware that older documents might be found and the translators commented that they expected that "even though their Bible was a great translation (they felt)" it would be revised as time went on. They admit errancy in the translation of phrases from Greek and Hebrew since neither language were well studied at the time and it was a new science to translate these two ancient languages--plus there was a lot of discussion as to which manuscripts to utilize and it was noted that the BASIS was the Bishop's Bible with changes made as they attempted to make accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek.

These are statements and descriptions made by the translators themselves who were well aware that it was just exactly what they described: "A great translation--with translational errors which would be changed with time as the science of translation grew (especially relating to Greek and Ancient Hebrew), as our language changed (as it already had in the last 200 years before) and as older documents were located. (Even then the translators were aware that their documents would most likely be replaced as older and more accurate documents were located.

The translators of the AV themselves admitted that errors had occurred during the copy process from many, many copies made between original to the hand-written copies they worked from. But, they were extremely clear that they used many, many Bibles already in place that were printed on the Gutenburg press which was built in the 15th century. Therefore, there were many German (especially) Bibles available during this time to use as a basis. This Bible was simply what they considered as the FIRST mass produced Englishman's Bible -- translational/copy errors and all.

 

I do not claim the kJV to be without clerical error, just that the more modern versions come out the more the deity of Christ and the other things I've mentioned get watered down. I see it in all the moderen versions. None of them can stack up to the KJV though alot of it's words may not be used in everyday language today we can know what they are talking about. Shakesphere's language is outdated but if we were to modernize it it would be an awful play. If I found a version that showed the deity of Christ, the virgin birth and corralation of OT sciptures to Christ which they typified, stronger than that of the KJV maybe I would use it. But there is not one out there. The NAS comes the closest but falls way short of the KJV, the NIV is an awful translation, falling real short in the areas I pointed out above, the RSV is not a good translation either, the living bible is not even in a class with Bibles. Mr. Taylor and his work is blasphemy. The NKJV also falls short. I think the biggest problem with the modern versions is that they are writen from corrupt texts. And should be translated from the texts found in Antioch. And yes I know the NKJV was taken MOSTLY from the Antioch texts, but Mostly is the key word, and it still fell short of the KJV even in he translational wording of the antioch texts.
I know I'm nobody and no Greek scholar, but I do know that I have tried studying from these other versions and I don't get what I get from my KJV. I had some ask me on this board where I got that Abraham was a type of the Father, Issac a type of the Son, and what Abraham said to Issac about "God will prepare Himself a lamb" That to me is the Father saying HE would ultimatly become that lamb. also the ark typifing salvation in Christ, Eygpt typifying sin, and on and on. If a man can't see that in his Bible then I believe he's got the wrong Bible. And I have read many of them, some you can't see the correlation at all, others are dilluted and it is hard to see.

And if you are about to post the question " Where do I see these typifications in my Bible?", Don't bother. Your problem goes much deeper than needing an answer from me. And I would pray that you search your hearts, because it's only the Spirit that reveals the Word to a man. 1 cor. 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
I'm afraid that many in this day spend to much time studying the texts and not the "Words of God". Theology is ok, but when it takes the place of the Spirit of God reveal things unto you then we become as the Bible says "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." YES I KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONTEXT OF THAT CHAPTER IS ABOUT. Though it still stands true.

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
I do not claim the kJV to be without clerical error, just that the more modern versions come out the more the deity of Christ and the other things I've mentioned get watered down.
I know I'm nobody and no Greek scholar, but I do know that I have tried studying from these other versions and I don't get what I get from my KJV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Repeat after me, Joey: "I am somebody--I am somebody" Don't put yourself down. You have legitimate arguments and we can disagree on a few issues and still be brothers in Christ. I think we are closer in agreement than you think. You first line that you realize there are clerical errors is the key. You are not ******. Many people think it is the Word of God--completely errorless without copy errors. My belief is that ONLY the originals are without error. AND I think the message of God is in all the conservative mainstream Bibles. I too like them in the order you said. KJV, NASB and last the NIV. I think the NASB is closest to a good translation, but some people claim it is a "dull" reading. I don't see that. I also agree with the "Living Bible" because it is a paraphrase and DANGEROUS -- not a translation and the man has some wrong doctrines. I would like to discuss a little of the history of the documents used in the translations though, but I'm just too tired tonight and getting ready to hit the sack. Hang in there, I want to hear your arguments and I will give you mine and we can still agree to disagree. Is that a deal? Who knows, you might show me the light. I've often been wrong before. God bless you, you are a humble person and that is what God wants. Plus, you do not make personal attacks like some on these threads and I do appreciate that greatly. We can discuss our beliefs without spite toward each other as people. Have a good evening or Monday--whenever you read this.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:


YOU MEAN LIKE THE WAY THE MODERN VERSIONS MISAPPLY THE SCRIPTURES? SUCH AS TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST BEING WATERED DOWN. THE VIRGIN BIRTH BEING WATERED DOWN, REPENTANCE BEING WATERED DOWN, THE TRINITY BEING WATERED DOWN, THE BLOOD BEING WATERED DOWN, AND THE SIMULATION OF SOME OF THE OT SCIPTURES WHICH TYPIFIED CHRIST, BEING CHANGED AROUND IN WORDING SO THAT NO CORRELATION CAN BE SEEN.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This was a very convenient way of avoiding the issue about quotations. You have attributed sin to Satan in misquoting. Are you willing to attribute that same sin to Christ because he did the same thing???

These issues you address here as far as "watering things down" have been addressed elsewhere. It has been demonstrated that the MVs do no such thing. If you want to discuss individual issues with a heart to learn then feel free to start a thread discussing them individually.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This was a very convenient way of avoiding the issue about quotations. You have attributed sin to Satan in misquoting. Are you willing to attribute that same sin to Christ because he did the same thing???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I was not avoiding anything, I never said that Jesus quoted OT scriptures to the letter, only that when Jesus quoted the scriptures, you knew what He was saying. When satan quoted scriptures he done it in such a way as to cause doubt. Such as what he did with Eve. Watch... "Yea, Hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" and again in verse 4,5 "4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
Now was satan right? [partly], but the truth was mingled with deception. And that is my point.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These issues you address here as far as "watering things down" have been addressed elsewhere. It has been demonstrated that the MVs do no such thing. If you want to discuss individual issues with a heart to learn then feel free to start a thread discussing them individually. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No one has demonstrated to me anything of the sort. Just because those transcripts were older does not make them more realiable. That would be like saying well Tom here is more realiable than Jack because Tom is older than Jack. There's just no truth to that. But far be it for me to trust something that was preserved in the church which Christ ordained over the texts which dwelled in Eygpt.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:

No one has demonstrated to me anything of the sort. Just because those transcripts were older does not make them more realiable. That would be like saying well Tom here is more realiable than Jack because Tom is older than Jack. There's just no truth to that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If your analogy is indicative of your understanding of this issue then you have identified part of the problem.

Let's use your analogy. You are right. The fact that Tom is older does not make him more reliable than Jack.

However, let's imagine that Tom lived in the early 1800's. Let's say that his grandfather knew a man who knew George Washington and a personal story about Washington was told to Tom second hand but with the intent of factual accuracy. Let's say that Tom writes the story in his diary which was subsequently lost. Let's also imagine that the story continued to be passed down orally through the next 6 generations with various people along the way writing the story in their diaries until finally we come to Jack who hears the story and writes it down in 1985.

Jack's son decides to research the story and finds several old diaries including Tom's. The story is basically the same but there are some minor, inconsequential differences. To help verify which account was more accurate, the son compares the various diaries to the writings about GW by his contemporaries and finds that Tom's story is much closer to the other old accounts than Jack's... Which story is more reliable?

It does not matter that Tom is older than Jack. What does matter is that Tom's account is closer to the source than Jack's account and that it is validated by other accounts of the same period. Likewise, it does not really matter which texts are older except as it relates to the number of copying generations between them and the originals. The fact that the quotes from early church fathers as well as the early translations agree more with the Alexandrian text type supports its reliability.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But far be it for me to trust something that was preserved in the church which Christ ordained over the texts which dwelled in Eygpt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if you accept that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scribes which gave us the Byzantine text type were never guilty of harmonizing what they copied with what they believed, don't you think that mss that were safely "lost" for over 1,000 years among people who had no idea what they were are safer than those which were in the hands of men?

 

Good story, but you see in all actuality. George Washington himself wrote the story in his diary and it was passed on, but now Tom's granfather had a copy of it but decided to tamper with (corrupt) it. And told it to Tom and so forth and so on as your story goes. While in the mean time the true record of the account is being passed down from one to another and so on and so forth and subsequently the orginal lost and many of the older copies but we still have a record of the true account. Now though while persueing your career as an archaeologist you find the older but corrupt copies of Tom's grandfathers story and try to pass it off as the whole truth, as to further yourself, nevertheless the truth lies elsewhere in the copies of the diary of GW himself, untainted.
hehe! Pretty good huh!

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I never said that Jesus quoted OT scriptures to the letter, only that when Jesus quoted the scriptures, you knew what He was saying. When satan quoted scriptures he done it in such a way as to cause doubt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quote you gave from Scripture above in the temptation of Christ caused no doubt at all. Christ understood perfectly what Satan said. Nevertheless, you made a statement about Satan’s citations of Scripture that is also true about Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Such as what he did with Eve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice though that Satan did not change the Word of God. He affirmed what God had said and then flatly denied the truth of it. That is a far different thing than your argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No one has demonstrated to me anything of the sort. Just because those transcripts were older does not make them more realiable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you just haven’t read enough here. It has been amply demonstrated that the MVs do not denigrate the deity of Christ, the blood of Christ, or any such thing. They are doctrinally sound just as the KJV is. The older manuscripts tend to be more reliable, all things being equal, because they are closer to the source. There is less time for corruption. They passed through fewer hands. They were copied less times. Therefore, all things being equal, they are considered to carry more weight than a more recent manuscript. As for Tom and Jack, their reliability depends on what they are talking about. I can assure that my grandfather would be much more credible on the Great Depression than I would be because he was there; I was not. Age does have its benefits.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, you just haven’t read enough here. It has been amply demonstrated that the MVs do not denigrate the deity of Christ, the blood of Christ, or any such thing. They are doctrinally sound just as the KJV is. The older manuscripts tend to be more reliable, all things being equal, because they are closer to the source. There is less time for corruption. They passed through fewer hands. They were copied less times. Therefore, all things being equal, they are considered to carry more weight than a more recent manuscript. As for Tom and Jack, their reliability depends on what they are talking about. I can assure that my grandfather would be much more credible on the Great Depression than I would be because he was there; I was not. Age does have its benefits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying that you would take satan's word on scripture rather than say Paul's, seeing that satan has been around far longer than Paul? See where I'm getting at. Just because it's older doesn't mean it isn't corrupt.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote by me:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said that Jesus quoted OT scriptures to the letter, only that when Jesus quoted the scriptures, you knew what He was saying. When satan quoted scriptures he done it in such a way as to cause doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote by pastor Larry:
The quote you gave from Scripture above in the temptation of Christ caused no doubt at all. Christ understood perfectly what Satan said. Nevertheless, you made a statement about Satan’s citations of Scripture that is also true about Christ.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, but satan done it in such a way as to TEMPT Christ. And in such a way as would not be in the will of God.

 

&lt; Just because it's older doesn't mean it isn't corrupt. &gt;

That's a very valid statment to make on this forum which is subtitled "KJV v. newer translations."

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
&lt; Just because it's older doesn't mean it isn't corrupt. &gt;

That's a very valid statment to make on this forum which is subtitled "KJV v. newer translations."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must be half asleep this morning, but it took me reading this twice -- Good response. LOL

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Good story, but you see in all actuality...
hehe! Pretty good huh!

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the best part is what you chose to ignore. Most of the early witnesses, versions, and mss read like the Alexandrian text family...except for the Latin. So to believe your corruption theory, we must accept that all of the early Christians except the Romans were in on a conspiracy to taint the Bible....

...Most of the Byzantine evidence comes from after errors began to creep into the catholic, ecumenical churches centered at Rome. My understanding is that the earlier a Byzantine ms is dated, the more likely it is to agree with the Alexandrian.

So the choice is: Do we believe that early, exiled Christians who found refuge (very much parallel to the preservation of Israel, Abraham, and the baby Jesus) in Egypt purposefully corrupted the text of the NT within the first 200 years of the church? Or do we believe that RCC and Gr. Orthodox scribes made accidental or purposeful changes during their 1,000 years of dominance? I might add that these churches progressively departed from sound biblical doctrine during this same time period and that where the Byz. and Alex. disagree, the BT agrees with the Latin (RCC) tradition.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...Most of the Byzantine evidence comes from after errors began to creep into the catholic, ecumenical churches centered at Rome. My understanding is that the earlier a Byzantine ms is dated, the more likely it is to agree with the Alexandrian.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you most mean such corruptions as the Trinty as in 1 John 5:7 or maybe the corruption of Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Oh yea I can see where that's corrupt.
Or maybe you are referring to the very corrupt idea that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. as in Luke 4:4
OK! I can see how these can be damaging to Christians... (sarcasim)

[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:


Oh you most mean suchcorruptions as the Trinty as in 1 John 5:7<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This subject has been covered over and over. The best evidence points to the conclusion that quotes from outside sources were written in the margin notes and then at some point incorporated into the mss of the Latin tradition. Because of the 1,000 year reign of the Vulgate, the questionable clause became so accepted that anyone who dissented was attacked just as we commonly see today. But we should also check scripture with scripture to determine its doctrinal usefulness. Do you know of any other scripture that identifies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as witnesses together in heaven?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>or maybe the corruption of Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Oh yea I can see where that's corrupt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You will please note that I did not say that it was corrupt. And the question is not whether the text passes a theological purity test. The question is whether or not the passage was part of the originals. If you have evidence that says it does then please show it. I would personally like to believe that it was!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or maybe you are referring to the very corrupt idea that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.[/B} as in Luke 4:4<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since you do not seem to be new to this debate, I am sure that you know that the parallel passage in Matthew in the CT contains the bolded phrase. The question then becomes, would someone delete it in one place but not in another or would someone harmonize the two passages?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OK! I can see how these can be damaging to Christians... (sarcasim)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should sarcasm be part of the discussion of a disagreement between Christians?