Question about KJV

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Might I also be brave enough to say that (In my humble opinion), Eliyahu, may be misunderstanding the actual meaning of the complete phrase.

I agree. I do not think the phrase is a direct reference to the letters and parts of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. I think it is simply a metaphor meanings "all of" the law.

Gill says: "The design of Christ, in conformity to the language of the Jews, is to declare, that no part of the law, not one of the least commandments in it, as he explains himself in the next verse, should be unaccomplished; but all should be fulfilled before "heaven and earth pass" away."

 

[Eliyahu]

I still believe that Jesus was talking about the smallest aleph bet " Jod and Tittle (either dot as in sheen or masorah)which are not found in Greek, even though the basic meaning is that even the least portion of commandments should not be ignored, from which we can get a glimpse of which language Bible He was talking about.

 

[Dave]

I forgot one other reason I prefer the KJV. I really hate the idea of having to re-memorize all those verses that I learned as a child to conform to another version!

By the way, this has turned into a very interesting discussion. I have always read that the LXX was what was quoted from in the New Testament as well. If this is not the case, could the similarity be due to a similar translation of the Hebrew verses into the Greek language that both the LXX and the New Testament books are written in?

[ March 31, 2006, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Dave ]

 

[Phillip]

Hard to say Dave. I certainly wish I had about 10% of the Biblical and historical knowledge of the good Doctor Cassidy. I do not think; however, that anybody has actually proven the quotes were from the LXX, but I may be wrong.

Boy, I'm on a roll as far a "debating" is going today. I sound like Sgt. Shultz on Hogan's Hero's "I know NOTHINK!!!!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I still believe that Jesus was talking about the smallest aleph bet " Jod and Tittle (either dot as in sheen or masorah)which are not found in Greek, even though the basic meaning is that even the least portion of commandments should not be ignored, from which we can get a glimpse of which language Bible He was talking about.

Every theologian that I have heard discuss this verse and almost every reference book that I have read (concerning it), seem to indicate that Dr. Cassidy is 100% correct on his interpretation of the actual meaning and the Hebrew Bible that was in existence was a secondary issue to the "LAW" that is being referred to.

It also fits from the common sense point of view.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
Might I also be brave enough to say that (In my humble opinion), Eliyahu, may be misunderstanding the actual meaning of the complete phrase.

I agree. I do not think the phrase is a direct reference to the letters and parts of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. I think it is simply a metaphor meanings "all of" the law.

Gill says: "The design of Christ, in conformity to the language of the Jews, is to declare, that no part of the law, not one of the least commandments in it, as he explains himself in the next verse, should be unaccomplished; but all should be fulfilled before "heaven and earth pass" away." </font>[/QUOTE]Many a rabbi would disagree with you and John Gill.

Gill subjects his own opinions contrary to either sect of rabbi's depending upon which he agrees at the time.

The Masoretic Hebrews declare their writings to be extant and with no error, intentionally leaving out the vowel points as to prevent corruption and thus keeping hidden much of the understanding of the Old Testament to other peoples.

There has been dividsion amongst the rabbinic factions since the Law, but Jesus would only divide error from the Truth as to establish that Truth. Failure to preserve every jot and tittle to also preserve the grammatical distinction would be an atrocity in the rabbinic standards as well. But Jesus knows which understanding is correct, that is why He straightened out the Pharisees and the scribes so many times for their errors.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Dave:
I have always read that the LXX was what was quoted from in the New Testament as well. If this is not the case, could the similarity be due to a similar translation of the Hebrew verses into the Greek language that both the LXX and the New Testament books are written in?

The problem with the theory that the NT quotes the LXX is that the NT quotes do not line up exactly with any known Greek translation of the LXX (all 7 of the them, all different). It is much more likely, in my opinion, that the NT was quoting from the Hebrew Vorlage text, which differs from the Masoretic text in much the same way the LXX does, but without the variants seen in the NT quotes.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Many a rabbi would disagree with you and John Gill.

Please give me one quote from a Rabbi that disagrees with the position that "jot and tittle" is a metaphor referring to the entirety of the Law.

 

[JRG39402]

I just got a KJV that had the preface of the translators. I found it interesting how they didn't have a problem necessarilly with the other English versions of their time. Have any of you read it? What do you think of it? It would seem to me that they wouln't have a problem with a modern version of the Bible (although it's my guess they would prefer it be translated from the same text they translated it from)? What do you all think?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by JRG39402:
I just got a KJV that had the preface of the translators. I found it interesting how they didn't have a problem necessarilly with the other English versions of their time. Have any of you read it? What do you think of it? It would seem to me that they wouln't have a problem with a modern version of the Bible (although it's my guess they would prefer it be translated from the same text they translated it from)? What do you all think?

Excellent point. In fact, it is interesting how some people seem to ignore what was said by the KJV translators themselves.

My guess, is that if the translators had something to complain about concerning modern versions, it would be the lack of "artistic and poetic language" being used in the translation.

If they did anything right, they certainly batted 100% in "English style".

I'm not so sure they would have such a problem with modern textual criticism, they might even embrace it with their inquisitive minds. Anyway...just a thought.

 

[JRG39402]

I know they talked against some texts, but I don't know which ones. They seemed to have facts and data to back up their statements so I think they would at least consider it. It would be interesting to hear from them today.

 

[JRG39402]

Also, what about other languages? What about if you translated into a small tribal language for the first time? Would you go back to find words they used from long ago, or would you translate it into their modern language? Just a thought.

 

[Phillip]

Yes it certainly would. According to some authors that I have read, it seems like certain manuscripts may have been selected FOR them, by the powers that be (or were)....however, we do know that they relied heavily on other English versions because you can compare them for the exact wording.

Another factor is that some of the texts used today were not found until after their (the KJV translators) time--of course, I have never used that as an argument that they absolutely have to be more accurate simply due to their age. But, that is left for discussion in the W&H thread going on in this same area. But, it does have a factor in what WAS available to the translators.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
Many a rabbi would disagree with you and John Gill.

Please give me one quote from a Rabbi that disagrees with the position that "jot and tittle" is a metaphor referring to the entirety of the Law. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, let's start with Jesus, he said not one jot nor title, and He is the rabbi of all rabbis.

To think Jesus metaphorically was speaking of the law is redundant. He specifically meant every jot and tittle of the entirety of the law, inclusive of the spirit of the law.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Ok, let's start with Jesus, he said not one jot nor title, and He is the rabbi of all rabbis.

To think Jesus metaphorically was speaking of the law is redundant. He specifically meant every jot and tittle of the entirety of the law, inclusive of the spirit of the law.

In other words, you can't provide a quote from a single rabbi who disagrees with my position that "jot and tittle" is a metaphor referring to the entirety of the Law. I thought so.

 

[Eliyahu]

When I mentioned about Mt 5:18, the main point is that even the least portion of the commandments should not be ignored, which was the main theme of the message there. However, from that statement we gain the glimpse of the language involved there as a secondary information, which means Hebrew Bible in that case. I don't deny the key point of the message in Mt 5:18 was the importance of every bit of the commandment.

Also, Mt 23:35 talks about Martyrs starting from Abel thru Zechariah, then we can have the glimpse of the order of the Bible too, because LXX doesn't explain why Jesus ended up with Zechariah, while Zechariah is mentioned as the last Martyr in the Masoretic Text.

Also, Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew and Paul was explaining hisn own testimony about his salvation and calling, but from there we notice that Jesus was speaking in Hebrew to Paul who was fluent in Greek as well.

Also, Luke 23:38 says Superscription was written in Greek, Thisn is King of the Jews, in Greek, Latin, Hebrew. The content is the most important, but we can get the secondary information that it was written in Hebrew for the sake of Hebrew speaking Jews.

So, we get sufficient evidences that Hebrew was used among the disciples, and that Jesus was mentioning about Hebrew Bible. I have not encountered any single evidence that Jesus and Disciples used Greek Bible-LXX instead of Hebrew Bible.

 

[Eliyahu]

Actually I imagine that there could be 3 types of local Hebrew OT during the Pre-Christ period, one Palestinian, the other Egyptian, the other Babylonian as we notice variations from Dead Sea Scrolls. But some people make propaganda that DSS support LXX, while Emanuel Tov summarize :
65% of Dead Seas Scrolls support Masoretic Text
5% LXX
5% Samaritan Pentateuch
25% Neutral

If we check Jeremiah discovered among DSS, among 6 scrolls, 5 have longer writings supporting Masoretic, 1 has shorter writings supporting LXX.
So, the latter one has 12-13% shorter writings than MT.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Ok, let's start with Jesus, he said not one jot nor title, and He is the rabbi of all rabbis.

To think Jesus metaphorically was speaking of the law is redundant. He specifically meant every jot and tittle of the entirety of the law, inclusive of the spirit of the law.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />English is changing so much that in a few generations the KJV will be unreadable to those who are not taught to read and comprehend it (much like the Vulgate was by the Catholic Church for so many years).

That is not true. No one has taught me to read and comprehend the KJB other than going to public school and the Holy Ghost.

It seems many would like to seprarate the Holy Ghost from understanding the Bible, seems yall like to forget about Him. </font>[/QUOTE]If I held the NT autographa themselves in my palms I'm confident that the Holy Spirit would not help me understand them, barring some miracle that would be totally unnecessary with all of the excellent translations we have. The language barrier is a real one. (Otherwise it would be sufficient to mail KJV's to foreign nations and forget trying to translate the Bible into their language.) If the world continues English will eventually evolve so much that the KJV will be completely unintelligible.

 

[robycop3]

Scripture is replete with similes, metaphors, & rhetorical questions. In fact, Genesis 3 has the first rhetorical question: "Yes, has God said?..."

John said that if all the acts of Jesus on earth were written, the world couldn't hold the books.

I could bore everyone quoting more, but this should do. We must remember that such plays in language are not unique to English.

As for the law passing away...Just as the Selective Service Act is "on the books" but doesn't affect me, all the laws of sacrifice, etc. are still in GOD'S book, but don't apply to Christians. JESUS fulfilled all the sacrifice laws once for all.

Other laws such as the Passover requirements were given ONLY TO ISRAEL, but are there for all to read.

I agree with DC's view of "jot & tittle".