• 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!

#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

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.

If I were to say to my young son: "I don't want you to play with that John Baker kid anymore. He is too rough and hurts other kids", then several days later I saw my son again with this boy and I now tell him: "Didn't I tell you not to hang around with Johnny because he is a bully?", would it be fair to say I hadn't told him that before? And this is just a human example. How much more can God vary His own specific words according to His design and purpose?

Here are a few more examples of the Holy Ghost expanding, explaining, amplifying, and applying His words as the occasion requires.

Luke 7:27 "This is he of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before THEE." Yet when we look at Malachi 3:1 the text says: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before ME." The LXX reads differently with: "and he SHALL SURVEY THE way before MY FACE." (kai epiblepsetai odon pro proswpou mou).

An interesting case is cited by our Lord in Luke 19:46 where He says: "It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves." At first glance this would seem to be a single Scripture taken from the Old Testament, yet in fact the first part is a revised reference to Isaiah 56:7 where God says: "for mine house SHALL BE CALLED an house of prayer for all people", and the second is a revised application from Jeremiah 7:11 where the prophet asks: "Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?". Yet Christ combines two different quotes from two different books into a new saying and says "It is written".

There are many more like this, but one more should suffice to see that God can revise His "quotes" anyway He wants to. In John 12:39-41 the apostle, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, writes: "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias SAID again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart: that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. THESE THINGS SAID ESAIAS when he saw his glory, and spake of him."

Yet when we look at the passage in Isaiah 6:9-10 we read God telling Isaiah: "Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not: and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

The "quote" of what Isaiah "said" is quite different. Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses.


Will Kinney
 

natters

New Member
Will said "Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses."

The problem for you is that the KJV says it was "written". Jesus himself called in "scripture", which by definition is the word of God in written form (as opposed to spoken form). If you explanation is correct, than Luke was in error for saying it was "written" and Jesus was in error for saying it was "scripture".

Was Jesus reading the Septuagint? Probably not. But it doesn't matter. Whatever he was reading, whatever was "written" and was "scripture", is different than what the KJV has for that passage. Onlyism is disproven, and within the KJV itself no less. QED.
 

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
Kinney: 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.
(1) No one on this thread claimed that the reading was being taken from the LXX. You should modify your essays to suit the purpose.

(2) The Scriptures were read while standing (Luke 4:16). Commentary occured after the reader sat down (Luke 4:20). There is no indication that Jesus was making commentary at the time. In fact this occurred in Nazareth where He would soon be rejected. To ignore the custom of the synagogue would have incensed the hearers rather than making them wonder at His gracious words (Luke 4:22). The same custom is observable in modern Jews.

(3)Please show me the phrase "recovering of sight to the blind" in the Old Testament.

This may be your weakest argument yet, Will. We will await your answer. Oh! That's right, you don't answer questions that jeapordize your position! We'll stop holding our breath.

Day 11 and counting:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2805.html#000009

BTW, have you complied with the copyright laws that protect this site yet?
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2805/7.html#000102
 

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
I wondered why Will already had an essay on this and, as I have learned one must do, I decided to check behind him. Something about the LXX had offended him, obviously.

He's right. The LXX does not read like the New Testament in Luke 4:18-19 (there, Will, I said you were right). It should be noted that no one said it did. However, here is what Will did NOT reveal in his essay:

ISAIAH CHAPTER 61

1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me; He has sent Me to preach the gospel to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, 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 recompense; to comfort all that mourn;


http://www.apostlesbible.com/books/i23isaiah/sixties/i23c61.htm

"Recovery of sight to the blind" is a phrase found in the Septuagintal reading of Isaiah 61:1. This must be why he had an essay ready to go on it. Rather than revealing this with a full quote, however, he only feeds his reader what he wants them to see. Why would one defend the truth with a half-truth?

Here's a link for future reference of an online English translation of the Septuagint, just to keep 'em honest:
http://www.apostlesbible.com/

Now, I wonder if he has an essay about the similarity between the Aramaic Isaiah Targum and the concluding phrase of Mark 4:12, "and it be forgiven them"? (Of course on this point, the Septuagint will be authoritative as it agres with the Masoretic!)
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Notice in Luke 4:21 that Jesus Himself deems what He read "Scripture" that has been fulfilled.
--------------------------------------------------

Again, this is speculation based upon the presumption that Jesus Christ was quoting from something other than the Hebrew scriptures. No where in that text, does it say He wasn't. Jesus Christ said that one jot, nor one tittle would pass away until all be fulfilled. Jesus Christ was referring to something pertaining to only the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament scriptures, and validates the Hebrew texts. Another important aspect overlooked by many, is that the Apostles were given God's words to record the New Testament scriptures in Greek, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit as God breathed to them. Assuming this proves the septuigent, and that Jesus Christ himself in these type of passages is condoning versions that have differences in them, IS SPECULATION at best, and in direct CONTRADICTION of scripture truth themselves.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

A jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, also called a yodh. A tittle is the smallest part of a Hebrew letter, something like the crossing of a t. These terms refer exclusively to the Hebrew language, and cannot refer to any other language. Christ was referring to the Hebrew language when He made that statement. If this verse is to be used for preservation of the Word of God, it is the strongest argument ever that the Word of God is preserved in the Hebrew language and in none other--a direct blow to KJVO ism.
DHK
 

artbook1611

New Member
When all is said and done, with all this dialogue, nobody is none the wiser. Everyone just argues on and on with their little ideas and absolutely nothing is getting accomplished. The only people who have done their homework and know what they're talking about is Will and Altalux, but they are addressing a bunch who have scales on their eyes and have their ears blocked.
At the judgement seat of Christ, some may be very surprized on what truly was wood, hay or stubble.
 

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
Actually, many are the wiser, having seen the consistent ducking and weaving that has been evident, if only you would understand.

Altulux is interested in the truth, it seems; Will is interested only in his pet views.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by artbook1611:
Wh The only people who have done their homework and know what they're talking about is Will and Altalux, but they are addressing a bunch who have scales on their eyes and have their ears blocked.
So you would say taking things out of context and misrepresenting two authors is doing your homework?
Did you check out the sources he gave in Liddell and Scott along with Kittel. Those were totally lifted out of context and applied to what he believed not what the authors wrote trying to get the authors to say what they did not.

Now you call that homework.
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is Jesus Christ who I blindly follow.
Did you know that Jesus Christ used a variety of translations of the Old Testament in the quotes we have of His?

Look at the last phrase in Mark 4:12, "they should be forgiven." We have here a direct quote from Christ that is not found in the Old Testament as we have it. The proto-Masoretic Old Testament of Isaiah 6:10 translates, "healed."

The evidence of this change is right there in the KJV. It is not part of a "conspiracy" to "corrupt" the word of God as many claim of differing versions and it is a direct quote from Jesus.

That is just one example. There are many other New Testament quotes that align more with the Septuagint or the Aramaic than the Masoretic. Do you feel Jesus was in error by not staying with the text upon which the KJV translators based their rendering? Or should the KJV translators have changed their translation to match the words of Christ? Or did they, perhaps, recognize that it was not that much of an issue?
</font>[/QUOTE]Clint, things like this have been pointed out to michelle time and time again, yet she still holds to a vision that even the KJV translators didn't hold to, nor would they now endorse. She says that all the versions before the KJV in English were the inerrant, perfect Word of God, and that all the versions of the KJV are the Word of God, so it is therefore doublespeak from her yet again. Circular round and round reasoning is all she knows, not being able to prove in any way shape or fashion that the Bible teaches one version onlyism.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, truly, you need to realize that if you promote a KJVO position, you are effectively saying that no other English version, before or after the KJV was the Word of God.
--------------------------------------------------


Again, you are avoiding, forgetting, or refusing to acknowledge what I have said concerning this, and are the one attempting to pull me into circular reasoning and arguments, yet again. And at the same time, misrepresenting what I believe, and what the truth in this issue is, in order to try to show my belief is wrong. Someday you will know.


--------------------------------------------------
The falacy of the KJVO position is obvious, especially to those of us who have at one time or another held that position ourselves. I did for many years until the Lord led me into the truth that it was not only cultic, but divisive and destructive to other believers faith, as well as my own. I will be praying for God to open your eyes.
--------------------------------------------------


It seems to me that you have covered your eyes from the truth with the glasses of a false man-made label slapped onto the truth. The Lord has told us to be pleasing to God, not pleasing to men. I fear you would rather please men, than God.


Again, you are insinuating that I have cultic beliefs, which you have not supported whatsover, and to which is not only a false accusation of me and many others, but slanderous as well. If anything, my belief encourages others to have 100% faith in the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. What the mv proponents would rather us believe the opposite and cause many to DOUBT. The only reason for division regarding this issue, is from people like you, who make false accusations and claims against not only the scriptures, but also against fellow believers in Jesus Christ and treat us as enemies. The true division is caused by these mv's and those who condone them and are stubborn to the truth and compromising with obvious alterations that have been done to the very words of God.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, I and many others on this forum and on the Bible versions forum have shown evidence of the KJVO position being a cultic position to have. I do not wear these imaginary glasses you have tried to attribute to me that supposedly take away the Holy Spirits ability to work in ones life (which brings you very close to putting words in the Holy Spirits mouth, which is a sin). You keep referring to labels, but refuse to acknowledge that you yourself have labeled people as uneducated, blinded, etc. This is the epitomy of hypocrisy in action. The division comes from people such as yourself whom try to force people to believe in a cultic system of KJV Onlyism which is far from Biblically correct, which again, even the translators OF the KJV recognized. You again in your statement above imply that people who use MV's are followers of man and not followers of God, yet you have no proof of that and are elevating yourself to the position of the Holy Spirit in saying so, nearly stating you can read their hearts and minds. You really need to change your tag line, Michelle, because you have NO LOVE in Christ Jesus for anyone who disputes what you try to shovel off on others.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
That side that does this is the KJVO's with their "if you weren't saved using this version of the Bible, or if you're not using this version of the Bible you're liberal, not living for the Lord, etc" is false and divisive to the core, intentionally or not. There is a side which has begun to fight back, and that is the side of the MV's. And justly so.
--------------------------------------------------


NOT ONE KJBO person since I have been posting on these boards has ever said such a thing, or implied such things as you have indicate above in bold. Liberal? yes. Most definately liberal, but not those other things. Sometimes the truth is divisive, or seems divisive to those who cannot yet see it and fight it. WE are never told to compromise with error, but to separate from it, and warn others of it. This of course will seem divisive to those who are compromising or blinded by the error and condone it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, you yourself have implied so many times. Not only that you have put yourself into the position of the Holy Spirit judging not only their ability to comprehend, but follow the Lord. You're truly one twisted young woman. I am far from liberal, and I know many who use MV's who are closer to the Lord than you will ever be with your false allegations, etc. There is no error in a person using the MV's. The only people who would say that are the people who are drawn into the cultic position of the KJVO's.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
You have no love in your heart Michelle, or you wouldn't libel so many of your brothers and sisters in Christ. Your posts are not in love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, but a denegration of other believers. Again, hypocritical to say the least, and very much a misrepresentation of the Lord.

--------------------------------------------------


I have not been the one to slander you and others. In fact you have done a great job of doing this to me, and many other fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord, by saying our belief is cultish, and that what we believe is false, and without any scriptural support to such claims. You claim I have not love in my heart? I am not falsely accusing you brother and I am not slandering you as you are doing to us. You have come into this thread with nothing but accusations against me and others, and false ones at that. Who is the one being hypocritical and judgemental and divisive? Please look in the mirror.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
The above assertions by you are false, Michelle. You have libelled others on many occasions. I have not libelled you, but have pointed out the inconsistancy of your position over and over. I look in the mirror every day, dear, and I know for a fact that having once been in the KJVO position like you are now, it is very hard to see the facts of the cultic position this view holds. Been there, done that. Definitely won't be going back to that position as it is not scriptural. As for your long rants of scripture, Michelle, they DO NOT support your position of a one version only system. That is my point. They might in your twisted view of the scriptures, but, then the Mormon's believe their view is correct, too, and they are every bit as much a cultish system.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Prove it, Michelle. Don't just spout out accusations. Post your proof. The KJV is far from inerrant, and previous posts in this thread itself prove that. Even the KJV translators did not believe that.

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The proof has been given to you all many times, in many places, by many people. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Your denial of it, doesn't make it not proof. It may not be proof to you, but it is proof and very obvious to those who have eyes to see it. If it weren't we wouldn't then have reason for these debates, now would we?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Again, you put yourself in the position of the Holy Spirit implying I have no eyes to see. And again, I state that I have been in your position and know for a fact it is unbiblical. It has been pointed out to you many times on the Bible version forums, and you couldn't cut it there, so you ran down here. NOWHERE in the KJV, MV's or anywhere else is a one version system shown or advocated. My eyes are quite well for seeing what the Lord wants. I'm not the one blinded by a cultic system.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
I will limit my time on you and your circular reasoning and insults and continuosly accusing people of slapping a label on people, when it is you yourself that does such...Remember "if you would understand, you would understand".

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------

And what label have I placed on you and others? Did you not just insinuate, yet again, and insult ME, with a quote that I never quoted, but to which many have twisted what I have said, to misreprent what I said, to present me falsely as a gnostic? And I am to not take this as slanderous?

You came into this thread not discussing this issue or topic, but personally attacking me and others, and our belief. I am merely defending myself and others from your false accusations of us. You came in here doing the attacking brother!


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, as far as you quote, yes, you have come close to making that same statement, and it is implied in many of your posts. It has been condensed by many others to show just how ludicrous your position is.

AVL1984
 
Natters wrote: "The problem for you is that the KJV says it was "written". Jesus himself called in "scripture", which by definition is the word of God in written form (as opposed to spoken form). If you explanation is correct, than Luke was in error for saying it was "written" and Jesus was in error for saying it was "scripture".
Was Jesus reading the Septuagint? Probably not. But it doesn't matter. Whatever he was reading, whatever was "written" and was "scripture", is different than what the KJV has for that passage. Onlyism is disproven, and within the KJV itself no less."

Natters, how logical is this argument you present? If the KJB is disproven as being true Scripture, then so also are your "Probably Close Enuf Versions" because they also say "the place where it was written" and call it "Scripture", and yet they too differ the one from the other.

In your misguided zeal to disprove the KJB as being the true word of God, you use arguments like this that destroy even your own favorite versions; then sitting in the dust surrounded by the ruins of your crumbled edifices, you proudly declare victory.

You guys are amusing to watch.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
It is not about trying to dectroy and particular translatiob but about the nonsensical myth of KJVO that is heresy. That heresy does nothing but destroy. If it was ful of life it would produce chruches ful of radical believers but instead all I have seen it produce is death.

When Jesus was living there were several translations. Never once did he or any other apostle make an issue of it.

The real issue is hwo's living for Jesus Christ becuase of our life not how many dead we produce.

If Henry Ford were living today would he be happiest with one good running Ford or 1000 in the junk yard?
 

Jason Gastrich

New Member
Will: You guys are amusing to watch.
Debating you was amusing.
thumbs.gif


Jason
 
Hi D, you make a great point but fail to see the significance of it.

You said: Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

A jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, also called a yodh. A tittle is the smallest part of a Hebrew letter, something like the crossing of a t. These terms refer exclusively to the Hebrew language, and cannot refer to any other language. Christ was referring to the Hebrew language when He made that statement. If this verse is to be used for preservation of the Word of God, it is the strongest argument ever that the Word of God is preserved in the Hebrew language and in none other--a direct blow to KJVO ism.
DHK "


D, the King James Bible is translated in the Old Testament solely from the Hebrew texts, wheras the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman all frequently reject the Hebrew readings. They are bogus bibles.

An accurate translation is just as authoritative and inspired (derivative inspiration) as the inspired copies from which it was translated.

You have the right idea to begin with, but you draw the wrong conclusion.

So, do we all need to learn Hebrew in order to have an infallible Old Testament? Apparently you seem to think we also need to learn Greek and then have the correct Greek texts in order to have an inerrant New Testament.

Boy, it seems that according to your views fewer and fewer people in the world have access to this Bible of yours, and then you criticize the KJB believer for thinking the best Bible is in the English language which is read by millions of people. How consistent is that?

Will K
 
Clint - " No one on this thread claimed that the reading was being taken from the LXX. You should modify your essays to suit the purpose."


Clint, twice in this immediate context both Michelle and natters made mention of the Septuagint. So I included this common idea in my response.


Sister Michelle: "Assuming this proves THE SEPTUAGINT, and that Jesus Christ himself in these type of passages is condoning versions that have differences in them, IS SPECULATION at best, and in direct CONTRADICTION of scripture truth themselves."


Natters -"This is not discussed to prove THE SEPTUAGINT or anything, but only to prove that what the KJV calls "scripture" and was "written" is different than what the KJV itself has.


Clint - "Please show me the phrase "recovering of sight to the blind" in the Old Testament.

This may be your weakest argument yet, Will. We will await your answer. Oh! That's right, you don't answer questions that jeapordize your position! We'll stop holding our breath.

Clint, the phrase "recovering of sight to the blind" is not in the Hebrew text. The Lord is expounding, amplifying and explaining the meaning of the passage as He sees fit. He is the author of Scripture and has every right to do this.
 

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Natters, how logical is this argument you present? If the KJB is disproven as being true Scripture, then so also are your "Probably Close Enuf Versions" because they also say "the place where it was written" and call it "Scripture", and yet they too differ the one from the other.

In your misguided zeal to disprove the KJB as being the true word of God, you use arguments like this that destroy even your own favorite versions; then sitting in the dust surrounded by the ruins of your crumbled edifices, you proudly declare victory.
No one here is trying to disprove the KJV as being the word of God. We are showing you that it is not the only source of the word of God by using its own words.

You guys are amusing to watch.
And your attempts at bravado after showing your true colors, falsified sources and unethical techniques has been quite pitiable to see.

I notice that you still have not posted any links at Yahoo despite their own statement on intellectual property and the notice at the bottom of every page of the Baptist Board:
© 2000-04 BaptistBoard.com Any reproduction or retransmission of the contents of this site without the express written consent of BaptistBoard.com is strictly prohibited.
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html

Perhaps you also have an essay that pontificates away Romans 13. We clearly recognize that your failure to post links to the three commentary threads and other unlinked threads on that same message board is so that no one can see you getting trounced here. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, many of us are able to check behind you and disqualify your assertions.

Proverbs 29:23
A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.
 
Top