Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Tim
Because Ezekiel as a prophet of God was speaking God's sentence against the city of Jerusalem, it was as though he himself were destroying the city (with his words). That is the sense that I get from the perfectly written words in the Scripture. [NEVER DOUBT the words, only seek for the true explanation of those words. If you flinch even the slightest when someone says that there might be a copyist error, or missed translation, then you will always be susceptible to doubt.]
|
I agree fully with Brother Tim, and the NSRB editors didn't do their homework either,
more than one "version" agrees with the KJV reading. The variants in the readings will depend on which underlying text you are using. The Peshitta OT agrees with the KJV, as does the 1669 Reina/Valera, the Bishops and Geneva Bibles. The Jewish Publication Society's OT in English of 1917 agrees with the KJV. The JW's NWT has a rather weak reading with the KJV "...when I came to bring ruin to the city...". The NIV, NASB, English Standard Version, RSV, the New Living, all follow the Vulgate, which substitutes "he" for "I". The CEV and Good News both paraphrase their private interpretations and tell us what they THINK it should say and substitues "God" in place of "he" or "I".
Sort of a weird one from Bretton's translation of the "LXX":
3 And the vision which I saw was like the vision which I saw when I went in to anoint the city: and the vision of the chariot which I saw was like the vision which I saw at the river Chobar; and I fell upon my face.
This raises to a new level a new thological question: How does one "annoint" a
city?
Grace and peace
Tony