Luke 4:4 -- controversy

Controversy eliminated.

Matt 4:4

NIV -- "Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" "

NASB -- "But He answered and said, "It is written, ' MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" "

NLT -- "But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, `People need more than bread for their life; they must feed on every word of God.' ""

ESV -- "But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" "

CEV -- "Jesus answered, "The Scriptures say:
`No one can live only on food. People need every word that God has spoken.' " "

 

Hardly. That still does not explain the missing Scripture in Luke.

 

He didn't appear to be asking for an explanation of the difference, only that there was "controversy" because they apparently "confuse your understanding". I provided passages from the same Bibles that eliminate the confusion in understanding, and thus his "controversy".

If he really wants an explanation instead, I can give him that too.

Do either of you really want to play the "missing scripture" game, when all I have to do is say "Jude 1:25" or similar?

 

You can save that rubish for the newbies to the Bible versions "game" that dont know any better. So "say" all you want,you will not shake my faith in the KJB.

 

I wasn't trying to shake your faith in the KJV. I was simply pointing out an inconsistent argument.

Because. Gospels often use different wording, add/delete things when compared to other Gospels, etc. If the Gospels were all the same, we'd only need one of them, not four.

By looking at Matt 4:4, or from where both passages are quoting from, Deut 8:3.

So you think the KJV *does* have "controversies" on other passages where they don't "agree"?

 

After all of this time, some of you are showing you still have a basic misunderstanding of the issues and would rather go on in your own confusion.

Unless you have the originals, you cannot prove that Luke 4:4 omitted anything. It is most likely that Luke only included the part that the MVs have. There would be no reason to omit it if it were original. It is more likely that a scribe, familiar with Matt 4:4 added it is to Luke 4:4, thereby committing the sin of adding to the word of God, a sin that was carried on in the KJV.

Put aside your lack of knowledge and start learning people. We have been through this enough by now that this should no longer be an issue.

 

Personally, I don't see why this has to be a "controversy".

The Spirit of God inspired both passages just as they are for a reason. He can and will do whatever pleases Him. There is no lie being perpetrated here.

Reason He did it? Perhaps because there are an abundance of portions of the Word of God which do not proceed directly out of the mouth of God yet are the Word of God in that they are recorded in the Bible.

For instance :
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Here the serpent speaks, how is it that this is the Word of God by which we should live?

John 8:44 ...When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (directly from His mouth).

There is something essential for us to learn from every Scripture whether coming directly out of the mouth of God or God recording the words of others as a witness (howbeit indirectly) to His glory.

2 Timothy 3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

That the Spirit of God modified the Luke passage from the Matthew passage (or visa versa) to cover this case, so?

Or am I missing the point of the "controversy"?

HankD

 

You most certainly do!

Circular reasoning at it's worst;can you give me a explaination as to how Luke only included the part that the MVs have?

So you admit that you subscribe to W&H's theory of the shorter reading nonsense?

It is an issue to me when you discount the Holy Bible(AV).

 

No, it doesn't disagree. Disagree means to have an opposing view. Not completing the entire quote is not a disagreement.

For example:

Matt 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Mark 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Luke 19:46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house ('shall be called') is 'missing') is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.

All three quotes are different. Mark's is the longest, Matthew 'deletes' "of all nations", and Luke 'deletes' both "of all nations" and "shall be called".

And all three quotes differ significantly from the OT passage they are quoting, Jer 7:11a which says "Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?"

Are all these in "disagreement"? Is this a "controversy"? Are Luke and Matthew wrong for not using a longer quote like Mark did? Should we *add* to Matthew and Luke's quotes to make them the same as Marks?

Maybe for the same reason part of the verse in Luke 19:46 and Matt 21:13 are 'deleted'.

Perfect agreement does not mean textual accuracy, as is evident by the example I gave above.

Brian

 

There were no verses in the original. The versification was added well over a thousand years after the original was written; indeed, when the KJV was published, the verse divisions were still a "modern" innovation. Here, read this. Except in a few cases (e.g. the Psalms) the chapter divisions are also a relatively late introduction. To make any kind of claim about the completeness or incompleteness of a quotation based on whether or not it corresponds to the verse numbering system in the KJV or any other Bible is to raise this human editorial apparatus to the level of Scripture, which it is NOT. The MVs that have the verse numbers in the margins are much more faithful to the original texts, in this regard, than the KJV which treats each verse as if it were a paragraph.

Haruo

 

Text first, doctrine second. You don't make the text fit your doctrine, you derive your doctrine from the text. Otherwise, you end up with the NWT.

 

Textual criticism is not just about numbers. If it was, you'd have to reject 1 John 5:7.

Yes, doctrine is important. But you don't evaluate textual evidence based on doctrinal strength of the passage being evaluated. Should we add "Jesus is Lord" to every verse and call that scripture? No, because textual criticism is not about what "sounds better".

That's good. So do I. Why do I reject it? Because they made translational decisions based on what they already decided it should say. They had their doctrines decided, then changed the text to match. They did it backwards. Just as you are doing, by saying Luke 4:4 must have a certain phrase just because you've already decided it should be that way.

 

You most certainly do!</font>[/QUOTE]I am not the one showing the misunderstanding. I most certainly understand what is going on here. The problem is that after having been taught, you close your ears to the truth.

Circular reasoning at it's worst;can you give me a explaination as to how Luke only included the part that the MVs have?</font>[/QUOTE]Look up circular reasoning and you will see yet again a demonstration of misunderstanding. This is not circular in the least, much less the worst

Each gospel author only includes the part that he needs to make his point. The Holy Spirit was inspiring the author and so we take what the author says at face value and understand he included everything he was meant to. Look at a harmony of the gospels and find out how many times the KJV is condemned because of this very phenomenon. Read the crucifixion and resurrection accounts and see how many times one author says something another one doesn't. The fact is that if your reasoning here is right, then all of the gospels have problems. The reality is that you didn't think far enough through this to realize that you condemn even the KJV by such baseless arguments.

To characterize as "nonsense" is but another demonstration of your misunderstanding. This is a demonstrated phenomenon in all textual transmission. It is as basic on the nose on our faces.

No one here has done that. It is your side that has discounted the Holy Bible by making up false accusations against it. That is the real issue here.

 

If you reject the NWT,then why not reject the NASb? They both have TWO Gods in John 1:18,not to mention the same rendering of Luke 4:4.

Matt 7:18-20.