Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

[robycop3]

Michelle:I have read it over and over again, and to see it also repeatedly shown on these posts, and it still does not say what you assume it to say.

Why not? All you need do is compare Luke with Isaiah in the verses indicated in the KJV.

You come to this debate with the assumption of a different version being read from, rather than reading the text as it plainly says, and leaving it at that.

But of course. The text of Isaiah is different from the text of Luke in the verses indicated.


You all are the ones adding to what is given, because of your biased assumption. You keep running around in circles to prove something based only on a presumption.

The presumption is based upon the empirical, clear evidence that the words in Isaiah are different from the words in Luke. This evidence cannot be any plainer.


That is not the way to interpret the scriptures. I can read it fine, and understand it fine also. I can also see the references to this passage in the Old testament and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ included in the reading something that was in another part of the book of Isaiah.

Now YOU'RE trying to fit something into Scripture that isn't there. Please read the entire Book of Isaiah for yourself very carefully, and see if the same words that appear in Luke 4 are there.


I am not adding any assumptions, only taking it for what it actually says, without bias to prove any point.

Then, by what it actually says, the words of Isaiah are different from the words of Luke.

The same cannot be said of others here on this thread, and it borders limiting what Jesus Christ actually did.

Jesus read from a scroll handed to Him, and the words He read are recorded.

There are some assumed things here that SHOULD be no-brainers. First, we assume Jesus specifically asked the attendant to bring Him the book of Isaiah. Second, He deliberately found the Scripture He had chosen to read. Third, He read it aloud.Fourth, in V.21-"And he *began to say* unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears", we can safely assume that He FINISHED saying those words unto them.

No poor assumptions here-all the empirical written evidence is plain, straight from the KJV. Speaking of assumptions, if you assume every word of the KJV is true, then you should also assume that Jesus read from another version of Isaiah, and not from the Masoretic version.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Orvie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Precepts:But you still can't understand the meaning of "place" can you? I gave you the definition from the Greek lexicon, the Merriam Webster Dictionary(snipped)

Precepts, you might save yourself a lot of spin invention and typing if you could prove to us that Jesus read aloud, during the events described in Luke 4:16-21 from any other place in the scroll of Isaiah handed to Him, besides what appears as Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 61:1-3 in the KJV.

Wow! Cranston is anti-KJVO and he now admits Jesus reasd from Isaih 61 and 42! Hey! It would do yall good to pat attention to Cranston here! try Isaiah 49 too. </font>[/QUOTE]Roby, Haven't ya figured it out yet? The Anglican Translators were infallible, and we as Baptist just better accept their English rendering, no matter what! </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, we certainly wouldn't wanna get Dr. Ruckman mad at us-he might call down fire from heaven upon us!

But Precepts avoids the point of what he pasted from my post. He cannot quote any Scripture from Isaiah that really matches what Jesus read in Luke 4. And just as Prez Clinton had trouble with "is", Bro. Precepts seems to be having trouble with "place", I.E. if 'THE place' means the SPOT....

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

I have seen no one here on these posts, who stand for the preserved word of God use double standards -this is indeed coming from your flawed thinking and false labels you attach to us - and is indeed in your own minds. It is the many who excuse away the corruptions that have been done to God's pure words that use double standards. For an example, you all bash the KJV continually, and all that were involved with it, and in fact have admitted that it has errors in it, yet you claim you still love it and find it God's word. Yet, you claim you have authority, and you have NONE because you don't believe that you have been given every word of God by Himself. You then take the KJV, and use it to attack those who stand for it, and even sink to the level of accusing those of us who are standing for it - that we are sinning because of it, and attack the very preserved words of God that he has so wonderfully preserved for us who speak English - you people are totally ungreatful to and disrespectful of God Almighty. It is not only double standards, but it is hypocracy. We who stand for God's preserved word, do not waver at all in our stand. You all must make excuses for one thing or another that is wrong with one of your beloved versions and have even sunk to the level of adding something to the scriptures that is not there in order to prove your preverted stand, rather than facing the truth about the very corruptions in them. The truth is always turned around back on to the above mentioned things pertaining to the KJV in order to take the attentions and real truth of the modern versions away. This is the most unbelievable thing I have witnessed since the Lord called me out and saved my wretched soul. This thinking and this attitude is absolutely unbelievable coming from those who claim the name of our precious Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Does this seem harsh to you all? GOOD. I hope it is, because what you are doing and saying and implying is sickening to me, and not that of those who claim to be in Jesus Christ our Lord. You people have shown me these past few weeks, that you have absolutely NO LOVE FOR THE WORD OF GOD. None. Where is your fear of God? Where?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[robycop3]

Will Kinney:Bob, you Christians with no inerrant Holy Bible who promote mutliple conflicting versions

Will, you make this same ridiculous statement about everyone who's smart enough not to believe the onlyist myth. Why is it ridiculous? because you use a Bible with proven booboos and multiple conflicting books within it, same as everyone else.

are perhaps failing to understand how God "quotes" Himself. Instead of believing the Lord Jesus or even Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is modifying and expanding the Hebrew passage of Isaiah 61, you guys now have us supposing Christ was literally reading from an unknown version in an undefined language.

Will, I'm gonna avoid the word 'hypocritical' here, but for you to proclaim you believe every word of the KJV as written, and then, try to read something into those words, acting as if you DON'T believe them as written, is a double standard, at least. The KJV has a no-brainer set of verses in Luke 4 that say Jesus read certain words from a scroll, in a synagogue. And He even said,"This day is **THIS SCRIPTURE*** fulfilled in your ears."(V. 21)

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.

So now you're telling us that the WORDSSS don't matter, but only the THOUGHT? That's quite a reverse, but the KJVO will do almost anything to defend his/her myth...


It apparently was not the Hebrew masoretic text and it doesn't match the LXX, so it remains a mystery exactly what He was "reading from". This is Archy's line of reasoning.

So the actual words aren't important, but only the thoughts are? That seems to be the case in the examples you give.

The "quote" of what Isaiah "said" is quite different. Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses.

Again, you completely and deliberately ignore the fact that Jesus was reading to a skeptical and possibly hostile crowd who knew Jesus only as the son of Joseph and Mary, who'd grown up in their midst. And there were certainly people in that crowd who knew every word of the Scriptures, and would've spoken up at once had Jesus not read verbatim. OF COURSE He has the right to alter His own word as He chooses. BUT-Did He so choose to do it in Luke 4? There's not the slightest indication in the context that He did. And when He said, "THIS SCRIPTURE" in V.21, that SHOULD'VE been a no-brainer that He had READ 'this Scripture'ALOUD.

You say that the WORDS are important when that premise fits your KJVO myth, but when the evidence from the words of the KJV clashes with your KJVO myth, you waffle and say the THOUGHTS take precedence over the WORDS. Do we smell a DOUBLE STANDARD here?

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
And what you're insinuating is then an impossiblility altogether. God spoke to holy men and inspired them to pen down in their language what God spoke to them. You try to say God spoke in these three: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, but you have absolutely NO proof of that.

I know that God spoke in Hebrew, because we see that he communicated to Abraham. I know that God spoke Aramaic, because he spoke to Daniel. I know that God spoke Greek because he spoke to John in the book of Revelation. I know that God speaks English because He speaks to me. God is not limited by language, but can speak to the heart of anyone in any language. However, the issue is what did God speak to those who were writing the language. He most certainly did not whisper to Moses the English, "Let there be light", but the Hebrew equivalent. That is why I can say without reservation that the KJV does not contain God's exact words. It is a translation of God's exact words, which makes them powerful, but still not as good as the originals. Every translation has a few places in which they do not get the English exact, most often because of the nature of the Greek language which can be hard to formally equivocate.

All you have is a varied mass of MSS and are not exactly sure which are actually the Words of God. But then they can't be God's Word, you NEVER actually heard God speak so then you don't know anything certain if they are, or they are not, the actual Words of Him.

I've heard God speak. Are you saying that you haven't? How do you think God calls people? If it had been Hebrew, I wouldn't have known what He was saying when he told me to follow him and give my life for Him.

You have now admitted that YOU have NO inspired Bible, Thank You for finally confessing this before all. By your estimation, NNE HAS THE WORDS OF GOD!

Sigh. I didn't admit that, and, frankly, you're absolutely sinning by implying it.

So then you should resign your position at OFBC, because you can't teach what God said in any language, because all languages are of men and not God. God speaks through inspiration. He only spoke audibly a couple of times, and not the entirety of scripture.

Again, God speaks to me daily, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that He's not speaking to people anymore. I find your words very offensive and call you once again on that fact.

You lose.

Thankfully, you're not a judge. Stop responding to me. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not exactly responding to you, Scott, I'm simply putting your feet to the fire. You say God speaks to you, in English I can ONLY presume, because you reply in English. You then try to say that God's exact words are not found in the KJB, how is that? God speaks directly to me from the KJB, He also speaks to me in comfort knowing I have His Precious Word inspired, infallible, inerrant, perfectly preserved in the AV 1611 KJB and then your type comes along and tries to make God a liar.

Then we have your emotional reply in accusing a brother in Christ of sinning in a vain attempt to try and prove some totally pointless point of yours.

I have no reason to doubt God speaks to you, but then you have absolutely no right to say God doesn't have his Word preserved in the KJB. By what I believe, doing that is sin, you are sinning, not me.

You're inciting confusion, Sir, we are incitng certainty, faith, stability, stedfastness, hope, security in what thus saith the LORD.

The Words of the LORD are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

This is stated truthfully, honestly and understandibly to be men and words together, tried, purified(not putrified), kept,(not scattered amongst varying and contradicting MSS) PRESERVED! from this generation FOR EVER! in the AV 1611 KJB.

Men are written epistles. Men of God are written epistles of God. God writes on men's hearts His Law. "Men" then are the actual "words"/written epistles of God. Either way you interpret these two verses; His Word is preserved and men are preserved by His Word.


If you desire for me to stop responding to your posts, then stop posting such outlandish stuff that we can't have the preserved Word of God and His actual Words when we know we do. Since nearly everyone of us who speak English came to know God through His English Word, who are you to try and tell anyone they aren't the actual Word of God? Wasn't God speaking? Yes, He is. Does God author confusion? NO! HE DOESN'T! He would not have you or anyone else confused over His preserved Words, so why then are you still searching through such a mass of confusion in the varying and contradicting, confusion inciting, interpretations of MSS? I know what the answer is, Scott, you don't like what God said in the KJB/ His actual Words; in English.

You lose.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Precepts: " . . don't like what God said in the KJB/His actual Words; in English."

Hi precepts. My name is Bob. I wanted to "cyber-shake" your hand.

I have seen many proponents of the KJVo sect on the BB and elsewhere, but never had one openly and completely admit to the Ruckman philosophy that God's actual words were the King James.

Since there are 5500+ differences in all of the various KJV revisions, WHICH ONE has the "actual words" of God in English? Want to be sure I get the correct one.

Thanks.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:

We conclude that YOU have NO inspired Bible.

The KJV itself offers us not one, but *two* clear examples of individuals reading the exact words from a different version of a written copy of Isaiah, and in both instances those different versions are called "scripture." We have the instance of Jesus reading from a different version of Isa. 61:1-2 in Lk. 4:16-21, and we have the instance of the Ethiopan eunuch reading from a different version of Isa. 53:7-8 in Ac. 8:27-35. By the testimony of these two Biblical witnesses, the whole notion of "One Version Onlyism" is exposed as unscriptural.

I conclude that while you may believe you have an inspired Bible in the KJV, you don't really believe what your own inspired Bible says -- at least, not on the subject of God's use and approval of different versions. </font>[/QUOTE]No, Sir, I conclude that I don't believe what you try to say the KJB says. I know what it says abnd you are trying to add something to what the KJB specifically says. There is nothing in either of these two passages that say what yall are insinuating.

If you REALLY want to get down to brass tacks, all you're doing is confirming the KJB to be the actual Words of God to even surmise your thinking that He allowed other versions.

Thanks !

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Precepts: " . . don't like what God said in the KJB/His actual Words; in English."

Hi precepts. My name is Bob. I wanted to "cyber-shake" your hand.

I have seen many proponents of the KJVo sect on the BB and elsewhere, but never had one openly and completely admit to the Ruckman philosophy that God's actual words were the King James.

Since there are 5500+ differences in all of the various KJV revisions, WHICH ONE has the "actual words" of God in English? Want to be sure I get the correct one.

Thanks.

O.K. "BOB" let's shake! If you'll stop off at the AV 1611 and allow the editions in the updating of spelling, punctuation and the correxction of printer's errors, you can stop off around 1762, in the Cambidge EDITION.

If the KJB isn't the actual Words of God, in English, then whose are they? Not yours, not mine, not men's, God's! Uh, they're His! They're INSPIRED!
We've got the Inspired Bible!
We've got the Inspired Bible!
We've got the Inspired Bible!

and We've all got the Inspired Bible! In the KJB!

I know Peter Ruckman can't be right about everything, he was just a man, so we both are too, but he is right about some things, so are we.

Hey! Thanks for the repsonse!

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yall are demanding a word for word quotation and that is NEVER even hinted to.

Good, then that means the NIV is kosher.

Ed, double standard alert!!

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]

"Kosher!"

Sour maybe, "kosher"?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Precepts:
O.K. "BOB" let's shake! If you'll stop off at the AV 1611 and allow the editions in the updating of spelling, punctuation and the correxction of printer's errors, you can stop off around 1762, in the Cambidge EDITION.

I don't have that edition.
I've got as many copies of your Bible
as i do of the "inspired original autographs".

Though i'll cut you some slack, i can
get ahold of a KJV1792: Cabridge Edition

It is interesting though, counting my
wifes, i've got a dozen books that
say "King James Version" and none of them
are the King James Bible

 

[robycop3]

Cranston:"But OF COURSE He can! But remember, Jesus was reading to a skeptical audience, as the rest of Luke 4 clearly shows. These people did not believe Jesus is God. Had He changed one jot or tittle of what was written, this crowd would've instantly gone ballistic."

Precepts:You're the only one going ballistic here. You seem to try and deny that the ones in attendence weren't as you like to describe them.

Simply read the entire chapter 4.


Also taking this passage and trying to justify other versions is more than a simple stretchy of the imagination. You seem to be trying to FORCE Jesus to be saying something He never said.

ON THE CONTRARY-
I quoted what's in the KJV. Did Jesus say what's rendered into English in the KJV or not? Did He read aloud or not? Did He say, "this Scripture" or not? Do you believe your KJV as written, or not?

These Jews didn't know the scripture all too well. They often added to, or took away from the letter of the Law.

Many of those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah were so 'religious' that they couldn't see the forest for the trees. many of them knew the Scriptures so well that they overlooked their MEANING. For example, one excuse that they used to reject Jesus was that Scripture says the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and they believed He was born in Nazareth, and that the Scriptures did NOT indicate that any prophet would come from Nazareth. And WHAT PROPHETS said, "He shall be called a Nazarene"?(Matt.2:23)Evidently, these prophets' sayings weren't included in Scripture.


Even the pharisees only boasted a working knowledge of the scriptures Jesus often had to reprove them and correct their traditions adopted by men and show them the real meaning of scripture, just like He is trying to show yall now.

Yes, He is-by providing His word in our current language, by allowing us to discover hitherto-forgotten ancient mss which contain His word.

Yall keep adding meaning to this scripture that just isn't there, sorry.

Isaiah has a certain set of Hebrew words rendered into English by the AV translators. Luke has a certain set of Greek words rendered into English by the AV translators. The words between certain verses of Luke which include words of Isaiah read aloud by Jesus from a scroll of the words of Isaiah differ from the words of Isaiah as found in the Masoret. That IS there, and we can only conclude only these things: That Jesus didn't read the actual words in the scroll aloud, but called them "this Scripture" anyway, that Luke got it wrong, ot that Jesus read verbatim from the scroll handed to Him, which was NOT from the Masoret. This last thing is what I believe, from the context of the surrounding Scriptures, as they're written in the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:If you believe that the Bible does not contain the very words of God, then you are not believing and trusting his promise to you, and others. I believe him, and not you, or any other scholar or person.

If you believe the KJV contains the exact words of God as rendered into 17th century English, then why deny that what was written in Luke 4;16-21 doesn't mean just what it says/ There are a few assumptions there that should be automatic. For example, V.21 says He BEGAN to say... We can safely assume He said what's written in the remainder of the verse! And when preceeding words say,"He found the PLACE..." we should know that He already knew what He was going to read, and that He read it verbatim from a scroll that everyone in the synagogue knew was a portion of the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES, so that no one could accuse Him of adding to the Scriptures already written.


I know that God Almighty himself is faithful and true and keeps his promise, and when he tells us repeatedly in his word of truth that man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD, then I will with all my heart and strength believe it, share it, and live it and stand for it. It is up to you, to believe him or not. Apparently you don't.

ON THE CONTRARY-
I believe what is written. There are certain words written in the Book of Isaiah as translated from the Hebrew Masoret into the KJV. There are certain words written in the Book of Luke as translated into English from the Textus Receptus or from certain ancient Greek-language manuscripts by the KJV translators. These words in Luke are not the same as those found in Isaiah. But the text of Luke shows Jesus READ these words. He called them, "this Scripture". Now, how would the crowd have known just which Scripture Jesus was referring to if He hadn't read it aloud to them? Only HE had the scroll, so they couldn't read along with Him. But when He was finished with the scroll, any one of them that could read could check the veracity if His words from that scroll.

It's not a matter of believing us, or not-it's a matter of believing the Scriptures as written; you've said so yourself. Now, why not read them and believe Jesus read from a different version of Isaiah than the Masoret, from which the KJV translates Isaiah?

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:God is the creator of all things. Yes, this also includes LANGUAGES. God has preserved his word, and I can hold his VERY WORDS in the english language that he meant for me, in my very hands, and not DOUBT ANY OF IT for one moment.

But you seem to be doubting Luke 4:16-21. Did Jesus read aloud, or not. If not, why did He say, "this Scripture"? Or, do you think Luke misquoted the OT Scripture? Are there any passages in Isaiah that match what Jesus read?

This isn't anything new. I'm sure that Bible readers noted these differences hundreds of years ago and simply assumed that Jesus read from a later edition of Isaiah, which is the sensible, logical conclusion. Remember, this thing didn't merit any commentary till someone began telling someone else he/she didn't have a valid BV because it wasn't the KJV.This isn't saying the KJV is wrong; its translators merely rendered the materials available to them into English. But it IS a reminder from Jesus that He is NOT limited to providing His word in just one version.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

I do believe what Luke says exactly as it says. I am not the one trying to prove that Jesus Christ used another version to read from other than the Hebrew like you are. I take it as it says, and the only thing that says, and don't add to the scriptures that he read "exactly" what was written. I am not the one limiting the Lord Jesus Christ and his authority and his word. It is you, and all others who have added to what the plain text reads. It is plain to see, when you reference back to the book of Isaiah that he read from where the scripture is, that he included Isaiah 49:8,9 in his reading. It is a great leap from the plain truth in the scriptures, to say that Jesus was reading from any other version than the Hebrew.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
O.K. "BOB" let's shake! If you'll stop off at the AV 1611 and allow the editions in the updating of spelling, punctuation and the correxction of printer's errors, you can stop off around 1762, in the Cambidge EDITION.

I don't have that edition.
I've got as many copies of your Bible
as i do of the "inspired original autographs".

Though i'll cut you some slack, i can
get ahold of a KJV1792: Cabridge Edition

It is interesting though, counting my
wifes, i've got a dozen books that
say "King James Version" and none of them
are the King James Bible </font>[/QUOTE]Ed, sorry, gotta disagree here. These guys are saying they can "hold" the Inspired Words of God in their hands with NO mistakes or misprints, etc. If that is the case, they MUST be talking about the very latest revision (uh, when was that, there have been sooooo many ) They can't be talking about one that is somewhat rare, unless all of the KJVO's on this site have snatched up the few "true" Bibles and are holding them hostage.

I must be a devil worshipper, THAT is really scary. I read from my NASB this morning before I got out of bed. ....started my day all wrong, I guess.

Well, I'm going to go view a few stereo 3d pictures of mars with my new set of 3d glasses. I guess they'll find some reason to say I'm evil because I just happen to be interested in seeing what another planet (from God's creation) looks like. Just watch, somebody will say I shouldn't do it.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Phillip,

God's word is preserved for the english speaking people and you can put your whole trust in EVERY WORD, misprinted or not, in it and claim that you hold the very word of God in your hands with the KJV. The same cannot be said of your beloved NASB. It has corrupted the pure word of God, by its ommissions. You are relying upon a dull sword, rather than a sharp one.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by michelle:
It is plain to see, when you reference back to the book of Isaiah that he read from where the scripture is, that he included Isaiah 49:8,9 in his reading.

If as you say, then the KJV1611 edition has an
error. The KJV1611 does NOT note that part
of Isaiah 49:9 was read.

BTW, anybody claim that the "jot and tittle"
prophecy of Jesus means that there
is a KJV letter for letter, number for number,
comma for comma is just like God wants
it to be? That would sure make it easiter for
him to hid hidden message for us.
("occult" means "hidden").

 

[HankD]

"Kosher!" Sour maybe, "kosher"?

I thought you'de get a chuckle out of that Precepts.

HankD

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ our lord and Saviour!

Ed,

It is in my Bible which is the KJV. Besides, we should all aspire to learn all of God's word, and would recognize, that this is also in the book of Isaiah.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Precepts:

I conclude that I don't believe what you try to say the KJB says. I know what it says abnd you are trying to add something to what the KJB specifically says. There is nothing in either of these two passages that say what yall are insinuating.

Yes, there is -- the clear, plain, obvious and incontrovertible *fact* (1) that the exact words of Isa. 61:1-2 KJV differ from the exact words of the same passage as found in the Bible Jesus read according to Lk. 4:16-21; and (2) that the exact words of Isa. 53:7-8 KJV differ from the exact words of the same passage as found in the Bible the Ethiopian eunuch read according to Ac. 8:27-35. If you can't see the differences between the two versions of these Isaiah passages in your KJV, then I'm sorry, but you truly *are* blind.

If you REALLY want to get down to brass tacks, all you're doing is confirming the KJB to be the actual Words of God to even surmise your thinking that He allowed other versions.

I've never denied that the KJV is the word of God. Nobody on this board has. However, I do have to wonder why someone like you who professes to be a "KJV Bible believer" doesn't actually *believe* what his own KJV is clearly telling him -- namely, that both Jesus and the Ethiopian eunuch used a different version of Isaiah, and on both occasions these different versions are called "scripture."