They Dare Call This Science!

Thirdly, what is your problem with ..."there are undeniable, irreconcilable errors in the KJV. Here are two: Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1,
------------------------------------------------------------------------Jesus was reading from an OT scroll (scripture, the Word of God). The text tells us when He stopped reading. The portion He read from Isaiah 61 disagrees with the text used by the KJV translators. One or the other or both passages are in error in the KJV.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Kings 8:26 v 2 Chronicles 22:2."?
------------------------------------------------------------------------These two passages are exact parallel accounts of Ahaziah's ascendance to the throne. One says he was 22. The other says he was 42.

Hi Scott, I will first answer the one about Luke 4, and later the one about the age of Ahaziah. But I will ask in passing: regarding the number 42 years in 2 Chron. 22:2, I hope you are aware that this is the clear reading of the Hebrew text.

It is also the reading of the 2 Jewish translations I have, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Geneva bible, Darby, Douay, and Youngs.

So, is this one of the places people like you and Larry think the Hebrew text has been corrupted and it is up to you guys to correct it like the NASB, NIV and ESV do?

Now for Luke 4

Keep in mind that if you condemn the KJB you are also condemning the NKJV, TMB, KJV21, Green's Modern KJV, the Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's, Tyndale, Diodati, Luther, and the Geneva Bible.

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.


Edersheim's comments on Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 and how Jesus targummed.
http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book311.htm

Will K

 

Hi Scott, I just want to clarify a couple of important points you raised in your response.

I said: "Scott, it is readily apparent that you do not have any inspired Bible, and you have admitted such. You previously said we do not have an inspired Bible today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Scott-This is a lie. I have said that the words of translations are not inspired.
I accept the Bible as my final authority for all matters of faith and practice."

Ok, Scott. Let's look at your statements here. You do not believe the words of translations are inspired. So, we can conclude from this that neither the KJB, NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV ad infinitum, are inspired. None of them are.

Yet your refer to "the Bible" as your final authority. I'm a bit confused by your statement. What is "the Bible" you are referring to?

Is it something you can hold in your hands, read, and not "correct" because it is corrupted in some places?

Does this "bible" of yours exist anywhere on this earth where we can see it? Is it a particular Hebrew and /or Greek text? If so, what is it called?

Where is "the Bible" of which you speak in such lofty terms as being your rule for all matters of faith and practice?

Will K

Please try to give me a straight answer to this. I really would like to know exactly what it is your refer to as "the Bible" since you don't believe any translation is inspired. Do you have an uninspired Bible, is that it?

 

They Dare Call This The Science of Textual Criticism - Colossians through Thessalonians.

Hey guys, which one of these is the inspired, inerrant, pure word of God? It appears your versions and noted scholars can't seem to agree among themselves and your Greek texts keep changing. Wat's up?

Yea, hath God said...?

Colossians 1:2 "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father,AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST." This is the majority reading as well as Sinaiticus and the Syriac Peshitta. But Vaticanus omits "and the Lord Jesus Christ" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV.

Colossians 3:4 "When Christ, who is OUR life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."

"OUR life" is the majority reading as well as Vaticanus and so read the NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV and the RSV. But Sinaiticus reads: "Christ, who is YOUR life" and thus read the NIV, NRSV, and the ESV. Again, the Nestle-Aland text used to read "our life" but again they later changed it to "your life".

Colossians 3:6 "For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh ON THE CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE."

"on the children of disobedience" is the Majority reading and that of Sinaiticus. It is found in the RV, ASV, NRSV, ISV and Holman. It is also now in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek text. However the previous Nestle texts omitted this phrase and the versions that continue to omit this phrase are the NASB, NIV, RSV, and the ESV. Consistency is not their strong point, is it?

Colossians 4:15 "Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in HIS house."

Some modern versions tell us Nymphas was a "she" rather than a "he". For an amusing and very well done article on this verse, I highly recommend an article done by my good friend Marty Shue. He deals with the textual issues and does it in a very interesting manner. See his article at http://www.AVDefense.com/nymphas.html

First Thessalonians

1 Thessalonians 1:1 "...Grace be unto you, and peace, FROM GOD OUR FATHER, AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST."

These last nine words are found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus, A, the Old Latin, Lamsa's Syriac Peshitta, and the Coptic Boharic ancient versions. Yet in spite of all this evidence, primarily because Vaticanus lacks this phrase, the NASB, NIV, ESV, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard unite in omitting all these words. Yet it is interesting to see that the new 2003 International Standard Version, which almost always follows the same constantly changing Nestle-Aland format, has now put these words back into their text!

2 Thessalonians 1:2 "Grace unto you, and peace, from God OUR Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." If EVERY word of God is precious to you, then this example is important. The word "our" before "our Father" is found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus. Vaticanus omits the word "our" and the NASB, NIV, RSV follow Vaticanus saying "God THE Father". The older Nestle-Aland text read this way, but then later they changed it again to now read "God OUR Father", and this is how the NRSV, ESV, ISV and Holman versions now read.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus CHRIST."

The word "Christ" is in the majority of texts, including Sinaiticus, Old Latin, Syriac, Gothic, and Armenian ancient versions. However Vaticanus omits "Christ" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 Another mind-blower!

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation..."

"From the beginning" is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It also was the reading of the previous Nestle-Aland Greek editions, and is still found in the NIV, NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, and the upcoming 2003 Holman Christian Standard.

However, the latest Nestle-Aland texts have once again changed their reading, based on Vaticanus, and now reads: "God has chosen you AS THE FIRST FRUITS to be saved" and this is how the NRSV, ESV and the 2003 ISV now read!

Will Kinney

 

Scott, I thank you for answering this question honestly.

Will>>>But I will ask in passing: regarding the number 42 years in 2 Chron. 22:2, I hope you are aware that this is the clear reading of the Hebrew text.
It is also the reading of the 2 Jewish translations I have, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Geneva bible, Darby, Douay, and Youngs.
So, is this one of the places people like you and Larry think the Hebrew text has been corrupted and it is up to you guys to correct it like the NASB, NIV and ESV do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott>>>>Yes. I am aware that it is a universal variant. A copyists' mistake that God Himself providentially preserved... quite possibly to steer us away from a perverted emphasis on words but that is speculation on my part. I have no problem with this fact. You do however. You say the KJV is inerrant. It cannot be inerrant if it contains an error, no matter what the source is."

Thanks at least for admitting that this is one of the places (and I will bet there are a whole lot more than one because the NASB departs at least 40 times from the Hebrew readings, while the NIV, ESV do so far more often) where YOU THINK the Hebrew text is in error.

This is your mindset. If you do not understand something, and it doesn't make sense to you, then it must be an error. So, as it stands now, you do not have any inspired Bible anywhere on this earth, neither in Hebrew, Greek, English or any other language. Your "Bible" is a mystical one that exists only in your own mind, and is different from everybody else's.

On the other hand, a King James Bible believer like myself, will come to the text, believe it is true even if I don't understand it, and ask God to open my understanding. I do not change the text in any way. I have the preserved, inerrant words of God, and you do not.

I have seen this many times. I have an answer for this apparent contradiction. It may be correct and it may not be. (I think it is) But it provides a very possible explanation that does not change the Hebrew text. You however, will refuse to accept the possible explanation which maintains the integrity of God's inerrant word, because you are operating from a position of unbelief and have already decided that the oracles of God committed to the Jews has a universal "scribal error", and if YOU can't seem to understand something, then you conclude it must be wrong. You see, you have exalted your own mind above the word of God and you now are the final authority.

 

Scott, I asked: Yet your refer to "the Bible" as your final authority. I'm a bit confused by your statement. What is "the Bible" you are referring to?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Scott>>>-The Word of God is accurately and sufficiently communicated in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, LITV, EMTV, Geneva, and various other works of men. They all teach me the same things. Even the texts of specific verses differ very little in substance and when take on whole these versions agree with each other."


Scott, if you think all these versions "accurately" communicate the word of God and "they all teach the same things", then words have lost all sense of meaning. There are literally hundreds of verses where even when they supposedly are using the same texts, where the meaning is totally different. Let alone all the whole verses and large sections that are in one and not in the others.


And if "they teach the same things", then why do you accuse the KJB of containing "undeniable and irreconcilable errors"?

I pointed out to you several passages that doctrinally do not teach the same things. I guess if these things are unimportant to you, then it is little wonder you do not defend any text in any language to be the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God.

I know I cannot convince you of the truth of my position, but I just want to clarify to others where you are coming from concerning the Bible version issue.

Will K

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this "bible" of yours exist anywhere on this earth where we can see it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes. biblegateway.com

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a particular Hebrew and /or Greek text?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Scott>>>-No. It is the sum of them.

When asked this question by a King James Bible believer, a modern version proponent answered in this way. This is an actual post at one of the Bible clubs I belong to.

".If only the originals were inspired and without error what was the purpose of God giving us a perfect Bible and then losing it?"

His answer is this: "It was not lost. God simply did not preserve it in the way that you demand that He should have. Why do you question the will of God? It is preserved in 5000+ mss, 12000+ ancient versions, and 12000+ ancient witnesses."


To which the KJB believer posted this great little song.

Christian Universities Anthem!

Tune: from "An American Tale"

Dedicated to my [-- Timothy D. Fellows, Jr.] alma mater, Bob Jones University
which inspired its writing

Somewhere out there, the Word of God exists;
Somewhere in those manuscripts all the words consist.
Somewhere out there in parchments worn and rare,
Lies a text that could be the next
That would prove beyond compare!

Somewhere out there, the Word of God is true;
Somewhere in those pyramids it waits for me and you.
Somewhere out there beneath the sands of time,
There's a scroll that could yet unroll
And reveal God's Word sublime!

Somewhere out there, the Word of God is sure;
Somewhere in old languages it rests so very pure.
Somewhere out there in variants so vast,
There's a reading that we're still a needing,
So we have God's Word at last!

Refrain:
Oh just imagine what a wonder it would surely be
If we could have the Word of God completely error free!
If we believe our dreams can really come right shining through
Then we shall ever have our wish -- the Word of God come true!

Somewhere out there the Word of God is found;
Somewhere in those autographs all the words are sound.
Somewhere out there if only where we knew,
We could cope with a ray of hope
Out there -- where dreams come true!

-- Timothy D. Fellows, Jr.