The "original" Autographs

[Ransom]

The Harvest said:

There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. NASB

There is a perfectly good explanation for this apparent discrepancy. Why don't you go look it up?

In the meantime, explain why the KJV translators added to God's word in this verse by adding the words "the brother of" which are not necessary for clear English, but in fact are a conjectural emendation affecting the sense?

On Mark 1:2, you said:

i've heard this ridiculous argument before. i don't buy it.

Oh, well. C'est la vie.

 

[Harald]

Thank you, HankD. It does seem like this verse is a difficult one. Whichever way, the NASB way or the KJV, I think the verse agrees well with 1Tim. 6:3, and teaches the Scripture as the final authority in matters of religion, doctrine, practice, etc. I have a few Hebrew grammar books but have not yet taken time to read in them. I hope one day to learn some.

Harald

 

[The Harvest]

Originally posted by Scott J:
If you don't buy this explaination, please post the passage of Jeremiah that Mat 27:9 quotes from in the KJV.

that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet

it doesn't say it is written in Jeremiah. it says Jeremiah spoke this. certainly you don't think that everything any prophet ever said is recorded in scripture.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by The Harvest:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
If you don't buy this explaination, please post the passage of Jeremiah that Mat 27:9 quotes from in the KJV.

that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet

it doesn't say it is written in Jeremiah. it says Jeremiah spoke this. certainly you don't think that everything any prophet ever said is recorded in scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, OK. So the valid explaination for Mark 1:2 is "you don't think everything written by the prophet Isaiah was scripture do you?" Perhaps he wrote another book that is being referred to?

Actually, the Mat 27:9 quote comes primarily from Zec 11:12-13. This shows that at least once and possibly twice prophecies from different books of the OT were combined and attributed to the more major of the two.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Actually, the Mat 27:9 quote comes primarily from Zec 11:12-13. This shows that at least once and possibly twice prophecies from different books of the OT were combined and attributed to the more major of the two.

Exactly. According to Robertson in his Word Pictures (refering to Mark 1:2):

But Isaiah is mentioned as the chief of the prophets. It was common to combine quotations from the prophets in testimonia and catenae (chains of quotations).

 

[HankD]

Thank you, HankD. It does seem like this verse is a difficult one. Whichever way, the NASB way or the KJV, I think the verse agrees well with 1Tim. 6:3, and teaches the Scripture as the final authority in matters of religion, doctrine, practice, etc. I have a few Hebrew grammar books but have not yet taken time to read in them. I hope one day to learn some.

You're welcome Harald and yes, it fits in with 1 Timothy 6 and context.

HankD

 

[The Harvest]

There is a perfectly good explanation for this apparent discrepancy. Why don't you go look it up?

why don't you quit acting so arrogant and explain the "perfectly good explanation" for this since you seem to know so much about it?

In the meantime, explain why the KJV translators added to God's word in this verse by adding the words "the brother of" which are not necessary for clear English, but in fact are a conjectural emendation affecting the sense?

you said earlier that all of the copies of the originals have errors in them. how do you know that "the brother of" wasn't in the originals? besides if "the brother of" wasn't necessary for clear English why does it make such a difference in meaning?

 

[The Harvest]

Actually, the Mat 27:9 quote comes primarily from Zec 11:12-13. This shows that at least once and possibly twice prophecies from different books of the OT were combined and attributed to the more major of the two.

i don't think this proves anything. i'm aware of what Zech 11 says. but it doesn't say "the prophets said" or "zechariah said". in the NASB mark says "it is written" which means written down on something. Matthew says "Jeremy said". writing and speaking are different. i still stand by what i "wrote" earlier that Jeremiah did indeed say what's quoted in Matt, it just isn't written in his scripture.

 

[kman]

When Matthew says "spoken" referring to prophesy it is the same as saying it was written.

Are all these examples of unwritten prophesies that were just "spoken" and never recorded?

Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Mat 4:14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Mat 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare [our] sicknesses.

Mat 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

Mat 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Mat 21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Mat 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by The Harvest:
i don't think this proves anything. i'm aware of what Zech 11 says. but it doesn't say "the prophets said" or "zechariah said". in the NASB mark says "it is written" which means written down on something. Matthew says "Jeremy said". writing and speaking are different. i still stand by what i "wrote" earlier that Jeremiah did indeed say what's quoted in Matt, it just isn't written in his scripture.

To me, it proves you are willing to play semantical games to establish a double standard. How would anyone know what Jeremiah said hundreds of years after his death except by what was written? If you would say that this prophecy was recorded in in a non-scriptural book then it would have no authority with the Jews or any other Bible believer. Word of mouth? That wouldn't be anything more than a legend.

When it reads that Jeremiah said it, the only way it becomes a valid citation is if it refers to scripture. There are no theological problems with my explaination. It is clearly legitimate for a writer to cite the prophets that way. The only obvious problem is it explains the "apparent" problem in the NASB as well as the KJV... and that doesn't suit your purpose.

 

[The Harvest]

How would anyone know what Jeremiah said hundreds of years after his death except by what was written?

i wouldn't expect that many people would know something like this at all. how did the apostles know things that happened when they weren't around to see them? how did they know exactly what Jesus prayed unless they were sitting right there where they could hear him? how did Balaam's ass speak? "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." the men who wrote the Bible were speaking under inspiration. God knew everything Jeremiah ever said and was able to bring that forth to Matthew. and no, i'm not suggesting that Balaam's ass was a holy man of God.

 

[Johnv]

Interesting. On page 1, I posted a list of what I believe are errors in the KJV. So far, only one person has been willing to discuss any of the items.

No one else wants to discuss my concerns of error I listed?

 

[The Harvest]

kman, those prophets did speak everything quoted in the scriptures you listed. 2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. some of the things prophets spoke were not recorded in scripture for us to read. just like many of the things Jesus did on this earth were not recorded in scripture. but that doesn't mean that those things didn't happen. John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

 

[Ransom]

The Harvest said:

why don't you quit acting so arrogant and explain the "perfectly good explanation" for this since you seem to know so much about it?

I'm sorry, I though you were a serious student of the Bible. If you were, you would already have done the appropriate research, anticipated the objections to your argument, and refuted them before I could raise them.

So go do your homework.

 

[Ransom]

[duplicate post yoinked]

 

[Ransom]

The Harvest said:

i don't think this proves anything. i'm aware of what Zech 11 says. but it doesn't say "the prophets said" or "zechariah said". in the NASB mark says "it is written" which means written down on something. Matthew says "Jeremy said".

If "Jeremy" said it, but never wrote it, how were Matthew's readers supposed to be convinced that a prophecy was being fulfilled by those events since they never heard it spoken? Were skeptical Jews just supposed to take his word for it?

 

[The Harvest]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Interesting. On page 1, I posted a list of what I believe are errors in the KJV. So far, only one person has been willing to discuss any of the items.

No one else wants to discuss my concerns of error I listed?

sorry about that. i decided that since i like to "let God be true, but every man a liar" that i would ignore your boring rantings about how you are such a learned greek and hebrew scholar. none of the "errors" you posted are worth the time you took to type them all out. do you enjoy wasting time correcting God and correcting the 60 some men who were greek and hebrew EXPERTS that translated the 1611? what makes you so qualified to correct the King James translators? what are your credentials?

 

[Ransom]

The Harvest said:

how did they know exactly what Jesus prayed unless they were sitting right there where they could hear him?

So it wasn't in Scripture, but it was a tradition passed down to the Apostles and regarded as authoritative.

I've heard that somewhere before, but I Really Can't remember where.

 

[Scott J]

i wouldn't expect that many people would know something like this at all. how did the apostles know things that happened when they weren't around to see them? how did they know exactly what Jesus prayed unless they were sitting right there where they could hear him? how did Balaam's ass speak? "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." the men who wrote the Bible were speaking under inspiration. God knew everything Jeremiah ever said and was able to bring that forth to Matthew. and no, i'm not suggesting that Balaam's ass was a holy man of God.

Again, you are avoiding the reality of the text. The direct implication is that the writer was quoting a recorded prophecy and attributing it to Jeremiah. It would be pointless to cite a saying of Jeremiah that was lost to everyone until God restored it to Matthew. That would defeat the whole purpose of showing the fulfillment of messianic prophecy.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why doesn't someone tell me where in my Bible I can find a prophet named "Jeremy." I have looked all over it and can't find it. Couldn't these perfect translators even get the name right??