Bible Studies Post and discuss short Bible studies.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-16-2009, 12:56 PM
boaz212 boaz212 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 88
Default Ezk 43:3 Question

Eze 43:3 And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face.

I use a New Scofield KJV(one with the changes back in the columns). I usually don't use the notes and I cross out the ones that put doubts on the word of God. The footnote on this verse bothers me because I haven't found the answer to the attack.
The note says "According to the KJV and another version the text reads "when I came to destroy the city". Obviously it was not Ezekiel who came to destroy the city of Jerusalem for her sins, but the LORD Himself. On the basis of the requirements of the context, the reading in some six manuscripts, the version of Theodotion and that of the Vulgate, some have suggested a reading "when he came to detroy the city." A possible redering, and perhaps preferable, would be to read the final letter of the disputed word as a well-known abbreviation for "LORD", thus giving us the reading "when the LORD came to destroy the city."

Any help will be much appreciated! Thanks.
Tim
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #2  
Old 04-16-2009, 01:15 PM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

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.]
  #3  
Old 04-16-2009, 02:04 PM
tonybones2112's Avatar
tonybones2112 tonybones2112 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Tim View Post
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
  #4  
Old 04-16-2009, 02:14 PM
Samuel's Avatar
Samuel Samuel is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 130
Default

My Old Scofield, gives no comment here. My Scofield lll, the same as your 1967 Scofield version (added by the NSRB editors).

The Thompson Chain gives reference to Eze 9:1 and 9:5-6, which gives reference to the previous vision, and judgment. In fact Ch.9 in total, gives you a pretty good view of the previous vision spoken of in 43:3

Anoint a City? - with big buckets of oil.
  #5  
Old 04-16-2009, 02:15 PM
peopleoftheway peopleoftheway is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 645
Default

Hi There Brother.

If I may shed some light on your post and question regarding the "New Scofield" reference Bible. Now As I have stated in your introduction post, I pray that you are here to further seek the truth of Gods word and How and where it has been preserved.
What I am about to address may offend you to begin with, but prayerfully by myself and other brethren on the forum we can guide you in the way more prefectly.

The NSRB was published in 1967 and Scofield was dead many years before this bible was published, and as we are about to examine I am sure he wouldn't have agreed to have his name put to a bible that changes the KJB
The NSRB changes the KJB with "better readings" in over 6,500 places. And In the footnotes of Acts 8 Baptism is referred to as a sacrament which I am quite sure Dr Scofield wouldn't have approved of (feel free of course to look these things up, not just rely on what I say)
There are quite a few areas of the New Scofield that agree with the new modern translations and their underlying false txts, for example in Daniel 3:25
"a son of the gods" rather than the KJB "The Son of God"
It also agrees with the American Standard version in places like I Timothy 6:20, Acts 4:27, and Romans 1:25.

Below is a quote from William R Gradys Book Final Authority.

Quote:
Dr. William Grady addresses the NSRB in his book, Final Authority. His research includes the following on page 316: "A random survey of the NSRB margins in Philippians alone revealed a total of 29 changes from the King James Bible. Of these, twenty-one (72%) were traced to either the RSV or the NASV. The skeptic can ckeck it out for himself: Philippians 1:7, 8, 23, 27; 2:1, 15, 25, 27, 28; 3:1, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21; 4:3, 6, 14, 15, 21, and 22." The "New Scofield Reference Bible" in the "King James Version" is NOT new, is NOT a Scofield Bible, and it is certainly NOT a King James Version.
I pray that other Brothers may show you that are more learned, but the txt of the NSRB is not a KJB, but derived from modern false txts and disguised as a KJB. The Old Scofield (Which I posses) is the KJB you may wish to switch to that God Willing.
  #6  
Old 04-16-2009, 02:23 PM
Winman Winman is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 464
Default

I am no Bible scholar, but couldn't Eze 43:3 be the fullfillment of Eze 3:22 thru Eze 4:3 ??

Eze 3:22 And the hand of the LORD was there upon me; and he said unto me, Arise, go forth into the plain, and I will there talk with thee. 23 Then I arose, and went forth into the plain: and, behold, the glory of the LORD stood there, as the glory which I saw by the river of Chebar: and I fell on my face. 24 Then the spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet, and spake with me, and said unto me, Go, shut thyself within thine house. 25 But thou, O son of man, behold, they shall put bands upon thee, and shall bind thee with them, and thou shalt not go out among them: 26 And I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be dumb, and shalt not be to them a reprover: for they are a rebellious house. 27 But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house.

Eze 3:1 Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: 2 And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. 3 Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.

Last edited by Winman; 04-16-2009 at 02:29 PM.
  #7  
Old 04-16-2009, 02:29 PM
Samuel's Avatar
Samuel Samuel is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 130
Default

The 1967 Scofield is definitely not! a Scofield, or a KJV. I have one of course, as I have many versions of the Bible. The word changes are not all that differs in the 67 version, it has alternate readings in places, you only discover by comparing with a real KJV.

My Scofield lll, while being a unspoiled KJV text, has got all the notes of the 67 version, plus Scofields. That's somewhat better; but you could not call it Scofield, because it is not the edition he published.

My Old Scofield, is just as Scofield finished his work in 1917. It only includes his original notes, and does not have the confusing notes of the Scofield lll, or the 1967 version.
  #8  
Old 04-16-2009, 02:59 PM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

Excellent, Winman. I didn't take the time to do any searching when I interpreted "on the fly" above, but it certainly looks to me like the "visual" prophecy that you quoted was the predecessor for the 43:3 passage.
  #9  
Old 04-16-2009, 04:25 PM
boaz212 boaz212 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 88
Default

I am no Bible scholar, but couldn't Eze 43:3 be the fullfillment of Eze 3:22 thru Eze 4:3 ?? Winman, thanks for your insight. I put the scripture reference next to the verse now. The scholars are wrong again, their footnote has been crossed off.
Thank you all for your responses to my question!

What I am about to address may offend you to begin with, but prayerfully by myself and other brethren on the forum we can guide you in the way more prefectly.

peopleoftheway, I meant what I said about learning and seeking help in understanding the word of God in my quick intro. And your comment about the bible I am using is definitely not offensive. You addressed the warning in a personal and caring way and I appreciate that also. I will try to save up and get a real KJV.
  #10  
Old 04-16-2009, 04:47 PM
peopleoftheway peopleoftheway is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boaz212 View Post
I am no Bible scholar, but couldn't Eze 43:3 be the fullfillment of Eze 3:22 thru Eze 4:3 ?? Winman, thanks for your insight. I put the scripture reference next to the verse now. The scholars are wrong again, their footnote has been crossed off.
Thank you all for your responses to my question!

What I am about to address may offend you to begin with, but prayerfully by myself and other brethren on the forum we can guide you in the way more prefectly.

peopleoftheway, I meant what I said about learning and seeking help in understanding the word of God in my quick intro. And your comment about the bible I am using is definitely not offensive. You addressed the warning in a personal and caring way and I appreciate that also. I will try to save up and get a real KJV.
Brother when I see another member of Christ's Body sincerely seeking truth, I will do all I can to show that Brother or Sister as much care, Christian love and longsuffering as Christ would have me to.
I will pray about you getting a KJB, where are you from ?
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com