No. It can be a valid TRANSLATION into another language of God's preserved Word, but not God's preserved Word.
That is reserved for God's preserved Word!! (Which He preserved for all mankind in all language groups in the Hebrew/Greek text)
-
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 used a “version” of the Bible
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
- Status
No. It can be a valid TRANSLATION into another language of God's preserved Word, but not God's preserved Word.
That is reserved for God's preserved Word!! (Which He preserved for all mankind in all language groups in the Hebrew/Greek text)
If it really IS the "Greek text" that is the issue and the KJV and NKJV have been proven to use the same, then there would be no such bird as "King James Only". It would of necessity by King James and New King James only.
Sadly, the "text" issue is a smokescreen. It IS the exact ENGLISH word choice of the Anglican translators (not a Baptist among 'em) that is giving status as the "only" text.
And that, of course, is error.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
I stand corrected.
I'm reposting this. This was specifically directed to Winman but I'll take anyone's answer.
It's a classic battle :KJV Vs.KJV! Things that are different are not the same. There's a flaw --an imperfection, in a KJV that can no longer be ignored. If there is one mistake,there have to be many others. Actually if Winman and Baptist4Life will do a little research in the BB archives they will discover a host of mistakes in the various KJV's. However,whether they'll own up to the obvious is too much to hope for.
A while back, when discussing what version of the Book of Isaiah JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:6-21, Dr. Cassidy said he believed it to have been a vorlage edition. The fact is, it doesn't matter what language it was in; what matters is that it was a different edition from that which was used by the AV translators in making their English edition of Isaiah. This is more ammo against the false "one-version-only" doctrines.
They won't answer- they CAN'T answer. That would require "scholarship"
It's worth a try. :saint:
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello robycop3
You are twisting the facts, to make your point.
You said....
For that matter, how many Greek editions of the Old Testament were available to Jesus?
Sometimes Jesus would quote from the Hebrew Bible(the Masoretic Text), and sometimes He would quote form the Greek Bible(the Septuagint).
This is not like [personal attack snipped] today’s Christian, who searches through several ENGLISH translations, to find one that uses the words needed, to make his point.
--------------------------------------------------
The point of my OP, was in response to those who say, that “no translation” is God’s Word; (Simply because it has been translated to a different language.)
When we see Jesus using a translation, than we KNOW that this is false.
As for the KJB, having been translated from the Masoretic Text: Of course it was.
It would have been stupid, to translate the Old Testament from a Greek translation, rather than going to the original languages?!?
You are twisting the facts, to make your point.
You said....
How many Hebrew editions of the Old Testament were available to Jesus?
For that matter, how many Greek editions of the Old Testament were available to Jesus?
Sometimes Jesus would quote from the Hebrew Bible(the Masoretic Text), and sometimes He would quote form the Greek Bible(the Septuagint).
This is not like [personal attack snipped] today’s Christian, who searches through several ENGLISH translations, to find one that uses the words needed, to make his point.
--------------------------------------------------
The point of my OP, was in response to those who say, that “no translation” is God’s Word; (Simply because it has been translated to a different language.)
When we see Jesus using a translation, than we KNOW that this is false.
As for the KJB, having been translated from the Masoretic Text: Of course it was.
It would have been stupid, to translate the Old Testament from a Greek translation, rather than going to the original languages?!?
Last edited by a moderator:
First, that's not why we use multiple versions. They all teach the exact same thing. Also, there were not several translations available at that time, that doesn't mean we can't utilize the blessing we have today.
The KJV is the Word of God. The ESV is the Word of God. They themselves(the English words) were not inspired, but translations of inspired words. Copies are not inspired. They contain inspired words, but the copyist was not inspired like the original writers of Scripture were. Translations are not inspired in the sense that God keeps the translators from error.
I think it is wise to go to the original language for translation. But that doesn't mean you can't look to see how other translations have done it for help, especially in difficult places.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Since Jesus is the Author of scripture He simply quoted His word. He did not have to 'use a version.'
What a terrible charge to make against the living Word of God, that He had to depend on some's fallible man's translation work!
What a terrible charge to make against the living Word of God, that He had to depend on some's fallible man's translation work!
Last edited by a moderator:
dwmoeller1
New Member
How do you know that the CT is "missing" these words? Why can't it be true that the TR has "added" these words? Your whole position is begs the question.
No one says that they are the same. Claiming that they do a thousand times will not change reality. What is being disputed is whether the differences represent an essential change such that one is God's Word and the other is not.
That's not exactly correct. When quoting scripture Jesus would say things like this: "it is written" "have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God" "did ye never read in the scriptures" "have you not read what David did". Jesus referred to the written scriptures that the Jews at that time had in their possession and could have, and really should have, read.
Now, the OP is off in suggesting that Jesus read from the LXX. I really doubt Jesus preached to Jews in Greek and quoted a corrupt Greek translation of the text.
Now, you speak of some fallible man's translation work. Does that mean you believe all translations are fallible and are unable to be relied on? If so, where can you send people who cannot speak or read Greek or Hebrew? To a translation not good enough for the Son of God to rely on?
stilllearning
Active Member
Hi jbh28
You are a “case in point”, for the error this thread is dealing with.
You said.......
So our Bible’s are God’s Word, but......they are not inspired?!?
(But, as you put it, “they contain inspired words”.)
Which words are inspired and which words arn’t?
--------------------------------------------------
This attitude destroys people’s faith.
You are a “case in point”, for the error this thread is dealing with.
You said.......
So our Bible’s are God’s Word, but......they are not inspired?!?
(But, as you put it, “they contain inspired words”.)
Which words are inspired and which words arn’t?
--------------------------------------------------
This attitude destroys people’s faith.
So, are you saying the copyist were inspired? They were kept from making errors?
glfredrick
New Member
I think that some folks like to argue for the sake of the argument... :BangHead:
Now that I've self-identified... :type: :thumbsup:
A couple of points... Hebrew was almost a forgotten language by Jesus time. Greek was the common language of the people. Latin was just starting to be in vogue, largely spoken by the Roman faction that were in the area to administer the government. The Bible tells us that the sign nailed onto the cross was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
As the other common language of the people was Aramaic, but there are no scriptural texts translated into Aramaic, it is presumed that those reading the scrolls did so, largely, in Greek, with some still dealing in Hebrew, but certainly not common people. Textual criticism (not all bad, in that elements of the text can be compared to other texts to see from whence they arise) have demonstrated that many of the OT citations found in the NT are indeed from the LXX, including many of the words attributed to Jesus. As RAdam pointed out, Jesus certainly did point people to the written texts!
But, I also think that RAdam missed an important point when he said that Jesus did not read or preach from the LXX. While I fully agree that Jesus Christ is God, and fully capable of knowing His Word without reference to a text at all, I also know -- from the Scriptures -- that He was trained in the texts and that he read from them. Check it out. The Scriptures say so in multiple places! Which text did He read from? That would depend largely on where He was when He was reading. If in the region of Galilee, it almost certainly would have been the Greek LXX, as that was the language of that region, it being largely Greek in influence.
dwmoeller1 wants to know if the TR has added words. Indeed, a great question, and the answer would seem to be -- from manuscript evidence -- yes. It is not as if we cannot compare the TR to the CT -- and both to the 20,000+ texts, fragments, codex, etc., etc., etc., to see where there are similarities and differences, and even pin down to which family these differences owe their arrival. No textual scholar before now has had at his or her hands the resources we now have for accurate textual examination.
Akin to the field of medicine, where our specialist doctors are light years ahead of Medieval doctors, so too are textual scholars light years ahead of those who came before us in their ability to compare texts, read the multiplicity of texts in many many languages, and even utilize modern scientific methods to extract erased text and scribal notes from papyrus or vellum that was later reused by scribes to see what was written under the more modern versions.
That, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hag Hammadi texts, and a number of other very influential archaeological finds have furthered the science of textual examination to a point where we now know more than at any other time in history -- except for the earliest and original writers!
Now that I've self-identified... :type: :thumbsup:
A couple of points... Hebrew was almost a forgotten language by Jesus time. Greek was the common language of the people. Latin was just starting to be in vogue, largely spoken by the Roman faction that were in the area to administer the government. The Bible tells us that the sign nailed onto the cross was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
As the other common language of the people was Aramaic, but there are no scriptural texts translated into Aramaic, it is presumed that those reading the scrolls did so, largely, in Greek, with some still dealing in Hebrew, but certainly not common people. Textual criticism (not all bad, in that elements of the text can be compared to other texts to see from whence they arise) have demonstrated that many of the OT citations found in the NT are indeed from the LXX, including many of the words attributed to Jesus. As RAdam pointed out, Jesus certainly did point people to the written texts!
But, I also think that RAdam missed an important point when he said that Jesus did not read or preach from the LXX. While I fully agree that Jesus Christ is God, and fully capable of knowing His Word without reference to a text at all, I also know -- from the Scriptures -- that He was trained in the texts and that he read from them. Check it out. The Scriptures say so in multiple places! Which text did He read from? That would depend largely on where He was when He was reading. If in the region of Galilee, it almost certainly would have been the Greek LXX, as that was the language of that region, it being largely Greek in influence.
dwmoeller1 wants to know if the TR has added words. Indeed, a great question, and the answer would seem to be -- from manuscript evidence -- yes. It is not as if we cannot compare the TR to the CT -- and both to the 20,000+ texts, fragments, codex, etc., etc., etc., to see where there are similarities and differences, and even pin down to which family these differences owe their arrival. No textual scholar before now has had at his or her hands the resources we now have for accurate textual examination.
Akin to the field of medicine, where our specialist doctors are light years ahead of Medieval doctors, so too are textual scholars light years ahead of those who came before us in their ability to compare texts, read the multiplicity of texts in many many languages, and even utilize modern scientific methods to extract erased text and scribal notes from papyrus or vellum that was later reused by scribes to see what was written under the more modern versions.
That, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hag Hammadi texts, and a number of other very influential archaeological finds have furthered the science of textual examination to a point where we now know more than at any other time in history -- except for the earliest and original writers!
Hmm, you seemed to miss something very big from the bible. At the end of Acts 21 there was a crowd that wanted to kill Paul but he was saved by Roman soldiers. He asked the captain to allow him to speak to the people. The bible said, "And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)" He goes on to make his defence to them, explaining how he persecuted the Christians until Christ came to him on the road to Damascus. He stated that Christ said unto him, "Depart: for I will send thee far hence to the Gentiles." Luke then records, "and they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live."
Ok, so we have Paul speaking to them in Hebrew. Apparently Hebrew wasn't quite as lost as you thought. When he spake to them in Hebrew, they kept the more silence. Why? Well, it was their tongue. The Gentiles that were there couldn't understand what he was telling them. Finally, when he tells that Christ said He would send him to the Gentiles, Luke said they gave him audience until that word, and then they cried out for him to be killed. The fact is, these Jews hated the Gentiles. They didn't like the Romans being there, they thought the Gentiles were dogs, and they especially hated the idea of the religion going out to the Gentiles. The idea of a religious message being given on an equal footing to Gentiles, and Gentiles being equal with Jews in religion was offensive to them.
Given all these facts, I find it hard to believe that Jesus preached from the LXX. Is it possible? Yes, I wasn't there. But it just doesn't add up to Jewish notions at the time.
Ok, so we have Paul speaking to them in Hebrew. Apparently Hebrew wasn't quite as lost as you thought. When he spake to them in Hebrew, they kept the more silence. Why? Well, it was their tongue. The Gentiles that were there couldn't understand what he was telling them. Finally, when he tells that Christ said He would send him to the Gentiles, Luke said they gave him audience until that word, and then they cried out for him to be killed. The fact is, these Jews hated the Gentiles. They didn't like the Romans being there, they thought the Gentiles were dogs, and they especially hated the idea of the religion going out to the Gentiles. The idea of a religious message being given on an equal footing to Gentiles, and Gentiles being equal with Jews in religion was offensive to them.
Given all these facts, I find it hard to believe that Jesus preached from the LXX. Is it possible? Yes, I wasn't there. But it just doesn't add up to Jewish notions at the time.
I do not know for an absolute fact that the TR did not add to God's word. I believe it to be the preserved and pure word of God by faith, not by any scientific or scholarly proof. If we had proof then we would not need faith to believe God's promise to preserve his pure word.
That is what some folks can't seem to grasp. We are supposed to believe God's promises by faith, not proof. So, it doesn't bother me whatsoever that there is all this controversy about which are the exact preserved and pure words of God. I simply believe God kept his promise. I can't explain it, and I don't try to explain it, I simply believe it.
Your second statement is not correct. Many here have claimed mulitple times that both the CT and RT are God's preserved word. That is impossible. Either the CT diminished from God's word, or the RT added to it, but they cannot both be preserved and pure. God said he would not only preserve his word, but also that it would be pure, that means without error or corruption. So the CT and RT cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Kind of like how either the KJV1611 left part of God's word out of 1 John 5v12 or the KJV1769 added to it?
There cannot both be preserved and pure, without error or corruption, can they?
Which one is corrupt?
If there is going to be a standard it must be consistent across the board.
So the KJV1611 and the KJV1769 cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God.
- Status