-
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!
DocCas said:
Jerimiah may well have spoken those words which did not make their way into his inspired writings
Then, presumably, Baruch wrote them down (Jer. 36:4).
Where are they?
Alternatively, I could believe that Matthew was appealing to some kind of oral Scripture spoken by Jeremy but never written down. That would be, in a word, silly.
[ September 17, 2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
Jerimiah may well have spoken those words which did not make their way into his inspired writings
Then, presumably, Baruch wrote them down (Jer. 36:4).
Where are they?
Alternatively, I could believe that Matthew was appealing to some kind of oral Scripture spoken by Jeremy but never written down. That would be, in a word, silly.
[ September 17, 2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
DocCas
New Member
I don't know why you would presume Baruch wrote down all the words spoken by Jeremiah, as it seems clear to me that the command was to write "from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which He had spoken unto him."
Who knows. If they did not make it into scripture it is obvious they did not meet the criteria above.
Yes, you would be silly for suggesting such a thing.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/
\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/
Terry Herrington: "I would say that the KJV is wrong in Isaiah and
the NIV is wrong in 2 Samuel."
Agreed. That is why i believe:
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His plenary infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.
I note that also i believe the KJv1611 is for
Middle English what the NIV is for Modern English.
It was NOT God who changed, it was NOT God's written
word that changed, it was English that changed.
So I believe:
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His plenary infallible written word for this generation
in the NIV Translation.
So the NIV is my Bible.
And i really don't appreciate people who
bash my Bible.
Pioneer: "Is the NIV the word of God or the words of man?"
Yes. It is the word of God in the words of men.
Pioneer: "If you stand by the NIV then you must stand against
the King James Bible. If you stand by the King James
Bible then you must stand against the NIV.
There is no middle ground."
LOGIC ERROR ALERT!!! This is a false dichotomy.
I stand for the King James Bible,
I stand for the NIV,
both contain within them God's written word.
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His plenary infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.
However, i note that the KJV uses archaic words
and the NIV does not. This makes the NIV in the
language that i speak to make a living,
to be the right kind of husband to my wife, to
raise my family, to witness to a lost world.
Pioneer: "Below are two examples of the NIV contradicting
the King James Bible."
I doubt it
The KJB has no contradictions within it.
The NIV has not contradictions within it.
Goodness, that is what "infallible" means.
Both contradictions aledged above have been dispelled.
Understanding the message erases the contradictions.
Pioneer: "Both cannot be telling
the truth. One is lying. One is a false witness.
Which one do you stand by?"
Again, a false dichotomy, a serious logical error.
Both are telling the truth, the very written word
of God, the Holy Scripture. Individual incompetence
in the form of preceived contradictions
does not negate the Holy Scripture -- never has,
never will.
\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/
Terry Herrington: "I would say that the KJV is wrong in Isaiah and
the NIV is wrong in 2 Samuel."
Agreed. That is why i believe:
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His plenary infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.
I note that also i believe the KJv1611 is for
Middle English what the NIV is for Modern English.
It was NOT God who changed, it was NOT God's written
word that changed, it was English that changed.
So I believe:
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His plenary infallible written word for this generation
in the NIV Translation.
So the NIV is my Bible.
And i really don't appreciate people who
bash my Bible.
Pioneer: "Is the NIV the word of God or the words of man?"
Yes. It is the word of God in the words of men.
Pioneer: "If you stand by the NIV then you must stand against
the King James Bible. If you stand by the King James
Bible then you must stand against the NIV.
There is no middle ground."
LOGIC ERROR ALERT!!! This is a false dichotomy.
I stand for the King James Bible,
I stand for the NIV,
both contain within them God's written word.
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His plenary infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.
However, i note that the KJV uses archaic words
and the NIV does not. This makes the NIV in the
language that i speak to make a living,
to be the right kind of husband to my wife, to
raise my family, to witness to a lost world.
Pioneer: "Below are two examples of the NIV contradicting
the King James Bible."
I doubt it
The NIV has not contradictions within it.
Goodness, that is what "infallible" means.
Both contradictions aledged above have been dispelled.
Understanding the message erases the contradictions.
Pioneer: "Both cannot be telling
the truth. One is lying. One is a false witness.
Which one do you stand by?"
Again, a false dichotomy, a serious logical error.
Both are telling the truth, the very written word
of God, the Holy Scripture. Individual incompetence
in the form of preceived contradictions
does not negate the Holy Scripture -- never has,
never will.
DocCas said:
Ransom:
Uh, inspiration?
Matthew wrote his Gospel to show how Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.
Seems a little funny that he would even attempt to persuade someone by citing an alleged "spoken" prophecy that was never written down in the Old Testament and which apparently only he knew about.
I submit to you that this "spoken/written" dichotomy is merely more KJV-only post-hockery to get around another of their double standards.
Ransom:
Uh, inspiration?
Matthew wrote his Gospel to show how Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.
Seems a little funny that he would even attempt to persuade someone by citing an alleged "spoken" prophecy that was never written down in the Old Testament and which apparently only he knew about.
I submit to you that this "spoken/written" dichotomy is merely more KJV-only post-hockery to get around another of their double standards.
Here is what my handy dandy Nelson Study Bible says about 27:9-10
The prophecy is found in Zech 11:12, 13; however, Matthew states that the prophecy was made by Jeremiah. The best solution to the problem seems to be that the prophecy was spoken by Jeremiah and recorded by Zechariah. A second option is that the name Jeremiah stands for the collection of prophetic writings in which Zechariah is found. It may also be that in the days of Christ, the Book of Jeremiah headed the books of the prophets. The quotation is then identified with the name of the first book in the section and not the name of the specific book within the group.
Personally, any of those explanations sound plausible to me...
Eric
The prophecy is found in Zech 11:12, 13; however, Matthew states that the prophecy was made by Jeremiah. The best solution to the problem seems to be that the prophecy was spoken by Jeremiah and recorded by Zechariah. A second option is that the name Jeremiah stands for the collection of prophetic writings in which Zechariah is found. It may also be that in the days of Christ, the Book of Jeremiah headed the books of the prophets. The quotation is then identified with the name of the first book in the section and not the name of the specific book within the group.
Personally, any of those explanations sound plausible to me...
Eric
I've tried to understand the thread of discussion, but I think I'm missing something; why is this passage important with regards to the KJV vs. NIV? This passage says basically the same thing in KJV, NIV, NKJV, and NASB... the only difference I see is that KJ refers to Jeremiah as Jeremy but it's obviously the same person.Originally posted by DocCas:
I agree, eric. Every conservative commentary I have says the same thing. Spoken by one, written by the other. Everyone except Ransom seems able to read that. Only he seems inclined to call me names and lie about my position regarding the KJV.
Eric
Bible-belted
New Member
Quoting from the NIV Bible Commentary (an abridged version of the Evangelical Bible Commentary) written by D.A. Carson:
..."the quotation appears to refer to Jer 19:1-13, along with phraseology drawn mostly from Zech 11:12-13. Such fusing of sources under one "quotation" is not unknown elsewhere in Scripture (eg. Mk 1:2-3). Jeremiah alone is mentioned, perhaps because he is the more important of the two prophets, and perhaps also because Jer 19 is more important as to porrphecy and fulfillment."
There is no ned to se a difference between "spoken" and written". Ransom is correct. Any perception of error is simply a failure to understan how NT writers quote the OT.
DocCas
New Member
It isn't all that important to me, but many KJV defenders point out the variant in Mark 1:2, which, in the Alexandrian textform attributes the words of Malachi to Isaiah vice the Byzantine textform which attributes the words of Isaiah and Malachi to "the prophets." The verse in Matthew is brought up by those who attempt to say the KJV (and Byzantine textform) does the same thing, but in this case they fail to distinguish between what is "spoken" and what is "written." Clearly different words with completely different meanings. In my opinion the Byzantine textform has the superior reading, as you can read it as it is written without having to do verbal gymnastics to make the readings work.
Oh, I see, NIV and NASB have Mark 1:2 as "It is written in Isaiah the prophet:"Originally posted by DocCas:
It isn't all that important to me, but many KJV defenders point out the variant in Mark 1:2, which, in the Alexandrian textform attributes the words of Malachi to Isaiah vice the Byzantine textform which attributes the words of Isaiah and Malachi to "the prophets." The verse in Matthew is brought up by those who attempt to say the KJV (and Byzantine textform) does the same thing, but in this case they fail to distinguish between what is "spoken" and what is "written." Clearly different words with completely different meanings. In my opinion the Byzantine textform has the superior reading, as you can read it as it is written without having to do verbal gymnastics to make the readings work.
Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not familiar with the Greek sources or how the Greek was used, but doesn't the use of the preposition "in" instead of "by" imply that the quote could have been from a collection of writings refered to as "Isaiah the Prophet" but not necessarily limited to the writings of that prophet alone? I do agree with you that the majority text is simpler to understand, though...
I guess I don't know much about which text forms are superior to which, I don't really have the educational background to contribute to that debate, but I do know that the differences between the KJV/NKJV which use the TR/Majority and the NASB which strongly favors the CT are amazingly slight... I can't think of a differnce that makes any theological impact at all. I try to keep my nose in both the NASB and NKJV in case there happens to be an important difference, but I haven't found one yet.
Anyway, thanks for bringing me up to speed
Eric
[ September 19, 2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]