[pneuby]

Again, IF every single word, not just the 'gist' of things is important, then why is there so much discrepancy when the authors and Christ reference the OT?

Just one example from Jesus....

NT-Matt. 4:10 (Then saith Jesus unto him,) Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve'.

Luke 4:8 Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve'.

OT- Deut. 6:13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

10:20 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

Now, if I were approaching this with the forensic eye of an AV'er critiquing an MV, I would ask some obvious questions. With respect to Jesus' statement, What was it, exactly, that He said? "Get thee behind me..", or, "Get thee hence.."? Or, with respect to the writing of Moses, why did he alter the prior command later on with the INSERTION OF "and to him shalt thou cleave? Was Moses violating the very command of Deut. 4:2, merely a couple chapters before?! But, such is not my point.

Jesus used the word "fear", as in 'reverence, respect', rather than "worship"? That's a CHANGE from the OT rendering. Why did Jesus INSERT the word "only", when clearly that word is absent from the OT rendering, "him shalt thou serve". Indeed, this would seem to be one of those very things the MV's do! It would appear that Jesus is Himself stating that the LORD, God the Father, is the ONLY one worthy of service. Surely this is not the case?

Thanks guys and gals, for your patience in helping me along with these.

[bibleprotector]

Bible interpretation within the inspiration is inspiration itself, that is, what we find recorded the second time is different to the first time because the second time is also an inspiration.

Moreover, various quotations of the Old Testament in the New are actually interpretative. (There is also an overlap of the sense of the meaning of "fear" and "worship".)

Likewise, multiple records or accounts of the same events are complementary.

In some cases, different parts of the event or even different events are described.

I am sure that plenty of studies are available on this subject.

[pbiwolski]

Very right, bibleprotector!

Originally Posted by pneuby

Again, Indeed, this would seem to be one of those very things the MV's do!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

If God gave it (through Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, or anyone else that quotes the OT), then it is scripture - inspired scripture. Upon examination of the alledged discrepancies, you forgot who the speaker is - Jesus Christ! If you think "changing the words is allowed by Him, so it's okay for today" you're forgetting something very important...

You (and/or all those altering the words of God) are not inspired by God to do so.

Your argument/question equates the modern apostates with those holy men of God that were used to pen the holy scriptures. The MV's (without inspiration of God) change what God gave by His Holy Spirit.

It's about who the author is - the Holy Spirit. He can add, subtract, and do whatever He wants to to His word, for He is God, and the words are His. We are commanded not to add to, subtract from, change or corrupt these words. Should we do so, we're in violation of the scripture, something a holy God cannot be accused of.

In short, the only reason they "altered" the words of the OT is because they were led (inspired) by God to do so. No one today can claim this liberty.

[pneuby]

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

Upon examination of the alledged discrepancies, you forgot who the speaker is - Jesus Christ! If you think "changing the words is allowed by Him, so it's okay for today" you're forgetting something very important...

It's about who the author is - the Holy Spirit. He can add, subtract, and do whatever He wants to to His word, for He is God, and the words are His.

In short, the only reason they "altered" the words of the OT is because they were led (inspired) by God to do so. No one today can claim this liberty.

Lates say I accept quoted scripture, in an altered form, as re-inspiration. What about when it's being read, and not merely quoted from memory? I found this pretty interesting on another site:

Excerpted from...
Jesus is NOT KJV-only
by Brian Tegart

In Luke 4:16-21, we read the account of Jesus in the synagogue, where he reads a passage of scripture aloud:

(KJV) "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. [17] 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, [18] 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, [19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. [20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. [21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

The passage that Jesus read from is Isaiah 61:1-2a. Here is that passage.. as it appears in the KJV, with significant differences:


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.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

What makes this comparison especially interesting, is 1. the differences are not simply due to translating from Hebrew versus translating from Greek, nor 2. more importantly, the differences are not due to Jesus paraphrasing nor exercising his authority as God and changing or producing scripture (as some KJV-only supporters have tried to explain this difference as). The immediately surrounding text of Luke makes it clear this is not the case, not once, but four times:

Jesus stood up to "read" (Luke 4:16), not simply orate.
Jesus read from a "book" (Luke 4:17).
Luke provides the passage, telling us it was "written" (Luke 4:17).
Jesus tells his hearers that the "scripture" (Luke 4:21) he just read was fulfilled in their ears. Scripture is, by definition, written. "Scripture", as an English word, comes from the Latin scriptura, "what is written", which in turn comes from from scriptus, the past participle of scribere, "to write".

If Jesus altered the words, if he paraphrased or introduced a new revelation of "the word of God", it would not be "scripture" as he himself called it until his words were written down later by Luke.

What Jesus stood to read, what Luke said was written, what Jesus said was scripture - is different than what the KJV has {in the Old Testament}. end excerpt

[bibleprotector]

What Luke was writing was inspired Scripture, therefore it does not matter whether it matches word for word to the Old Testament quotation, in that both passages are Scripture, have very similar sense, but are both INDEPENDENTLY inspired, and given by two different penmen hundreds of years apart in two different languages.

We allow God to provide variety within inspiration. This does not imply that variety in translation after inspiration, i.e. in modern versions, is yet acceptable. And although there has been a historical acceptable variety of translations, yet at this last, we see that there is one which has gathered from many, one which is supersuccessionary to all, which has finally and completely rendered the Word of God truly once and for all in one Bible Version for the world.

In short: variety in translation in inspiration is proper, variety in translation now is no longer acceptable.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Brian Tegart would do well to look at the scripture with faith and a heart to seek the fullness of the word of God. Jesus definitely "stood up for to read" and then read in a fashion that touched every heart listening. That is why :

"all bare him witness" and
"wondered at the gracious words".

And it would do well for those who have no pure word of God to also:
"wonder at the gracious words".

========================================

Let's first note:

John Gill
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.

========================================
Luke 4:16-22

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, (Isaiah 61:1)
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, (Isaiah 42:7)
to set at liberty them that are bruised, (isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 49:9)
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Isaiah 61:2)

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them,
This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
And all bare him witness,
and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.
And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

================================================== =======

Isaiah 61:1
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;

Isaiah 42:7
To open the blind eyes,
to bring out the prisoners from the prison,
and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

Isaiah 49:9
That thou mayest say to the prisoners,
Go forth; to them that are in darkness,
Shew yourselves.
They shall feed in the ways,
and their pastures shall be in all high places.

Isaiah 61:2
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all that mourn;

================================================== ===========

From Alfred Edersheim with insertion note by Will Kinney.

http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book311.htm
Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah

"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. ...the passages quoted formed the introductory text of Christ's discourse, such quotation and combination were not only in accordance with Jewish custom, but formed part of the favourite mode of teaching - the Charaz - or stringing, like pearls, passage to passage, illustrative of each other. "

Note: Edersheim himself was buffeted by the common Greek OT error and while skeptical of "the so-called LXX version" he was not emphasizing how the Greek had been smoothed and tampered to the NT. However his basic points on Luke and Isaiah are excellent.

As Will Kinney adds :

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/t...uagint_-_3.htm
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.

And significantly, we can use the pretensions and confusions of the "no-pure-Bible" crew as a point from which to study the word of God more excellently, wondering at the gracious words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Shalom,
Steven

[pneuby]

I'm really finding this one tough to swallow, folks. You take great pains here to point out how important the words are. Indeed, almost to the exclusion of the meaning that the words, put together, are intended to convey. Thus, this whole idea of 're-inspiration' is boggling.

If the Lord and NT authors revered each and every word, and the scriptures...as YOU assert that WE should..then why would there be such 'imperfect' quotation of those words? Sure, I can buy SOME variation. Plus, Christ expounded on nine of ten commandents with depth and breadth of new meaning that was beyond the "letter of the Law", and the substance of the words. Okay, I know, Christ is God and has the privilege to change and "re-inspire", even when He READS from SCRIPTURE.

What then, of this example from Luke 10?

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
36 He said to him, What is written in the law? how read you?
27 And he answering said, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighor as yourself.
28 And He said to him, You have answered right: this do, and you shall live.

Now, part of what the lawyer quoted was Deuteronomy 6:5. Clearly, it refers to loving God with all your "might", not 'MIND'. Yet, Jesus did not correct the man. Certainly, mind and might have different meanings. Yet, the Lord neither corrected nor reproved this man {perhaps a scribe} from mis-quoting scripture.

[bibleprotector]

Christ was not "re-inspiring" the Scripture when he stood up for to read. The fact is that Isaiah was operating under inspiration, and Luke was operating under inspiration when writing.

As for the misquotation of Luke 10, I shall give it with the proper wording and numbering:

25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

I think, as evidenced by the huge discrepencies between the real quotation and the misquotation of Luke 10 in the previous post, that we are reading someone who is insincere regarding his questioning.

Even the modern version people who believe in inspiration know full well that one rendering within inspiration does not have to literally match another one. But it is a complete illogical leap to say that this yet justifies different new translations being made today.

It is clear that the lawyer was not quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 word for word. But his answer certainly correctly interprets the spirit of the law. Jesus was not testing whether or not he had stenographic memory, but whether he knew the fundamental teaching of the law.

[pneuby]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I think, as evidenced by the huge discrepencies between the real quotation and the misquotation of Luke 10 in the previous post, that we are reading someone who is insincere regarding his questioning.

It is clear that the lawyer was not quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 word for word. But his answer certainly correctly interprets the spirit of the law.

Jesus was ..testing ..whether he knew the fundamental teaching of the law.

Greetings, bibleprotector. I don't know you, aside from your postings on this board. We have never met. A cursory review of my posting history ought to be clear. Please, do not impugn my motives here, and I will not question your's. Does that seem fair?

The scripture quoted was from the KJVER, 'Sword Bible', the subject of my first post. Lest you think the 'ER' is the niche' of this bible, it's not. You see, it's also available in the traditional KJV, replete with the Elizabethan. Despite the removal of the Olde English from the verses, there are no changes.

I highlighted that latter portion of your post which stood out at me. It would seem that you agree that, it's not so much the LETTER of the LAW, but the SPIRIT of the law that Jesus was examining. Indeed, that the lawyer may not have gotten the WORD/S exactly right; however, he didn't miss the meaning, nor the application.

Thanks.

[bibleprotector]

It is one thing to state the principle of the law, for example, if you were to quote Luke 10:25-28 from your own mind in paraphrase form, but to deliberately make a decision NOT to follow the jots and tittles of the King James Bible when you have access to it, and present it as if it is an actual quote is what suggests to me insincerity. By insincerity, I mean insincerity in regards to really believing that the King James Bible is "the law". If you viewed it as law, you would not so easily hasten to so-called "correct" it.

do not impugn my motives here

It is deceptive to put forth "Scripture", yet not follow the King James Bible especially without not one indication that you were doing something others would obviously consider suspect.

I am vindicated because you openly admit to utilising a "correction" (i.e. corruption) to the King James Bible.

the removal of the Olde English

The use of the word "Olde" is pure propaganda. Old English, i.e. Anglo-Saxon, went out before the time of Chaucer, so to claim that the KJB is such is merely a slur.

replete with the Elizabethan

To say that that the King James Bible is or contains Elizabethan language is inaccurate on two counts, first because the King James Bible appeared after Queen Elizabeth the First died, and secondly, because the King James Bible is Biblical English, not ordinary English.

the meaning, nor the application

The meaning and application can and are altered in the present day where people go from the pure Word to corruptions, even if the corruption is eliminating the word "thy".

David W. Daniels wrote, "Why do we need thee and thou? ... If the speaker is talking to one person, he uses 'thee' or 'thou'. If he is talking to many people, he says 'you' or 'your'." By removing the word "thy", there is a removal of conceptual information. It takes away from the Word of God.