Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

[rossh]

Is there scriptural support for modern versions ? Book chapter and verse please.

Please forgive me IF this is the wrong section ( board ? ) for my reply. Thanks for your post. I think we all need to remember/think about Moses. We all know that he penned the first 5 Books of the present day arrangement of our Bibles, am I right ?
Now we also already know of Moses as, being the " son of the Kings Daughter. " and in that, I/we may assume that he was well educated for the times back then. He would have been well suited to write the Books.
Now, we must always consider Moses while he wrote those 5 books. When a prophecy or a future predicting was given to him we need to understand the language that God gave him ? Regarding future events as in today's time for example, God could not tell Moses about an Aircraft Carrier for example, nor of a man sitting the seat of Harrier Jump Jet not a Rocket to the Moon ? How would he have handled that huge scifi stuff ? No way, he would not have, is my opinion ?
This is why a lot of the " language " in scripture is a bit hard to follow at times. Your thoughts ?

 

[Leatherneck0311]

Nas/Esv/Njkv teach Sacramentalism, Papacy, and water baptism now saves?

Firstborn removed from mist MV’s playing into false RCC doctrine of Mary

Please forgive me IF this is the wrong section ( board ? ) for my reply. Thanks for your post. I think we all need to remember/think about Moses. We all know that he penned the first 5 Books of the present day arrangement of our Bibles, am I right ?
Now we also already know of Moses as, being the " son of the Kings Daughter. " and in that, I/we may assume that he was well educated for the times back then. He would have been well suited to write the Books.
Now, we must always consider Moses while he wrote those 5 books. When a prophecy or a future predicting was given to him we need to understand the language that God gave him ? Regarding future events as in today's time for example, God could not tell Moses about an Aircraft Carrier for example, nor of a man sitting the seat of Harrier Jump Jet not a Rocket to the Moon ? How would he have handled that huge scifi stuff ? No way, he would not have, is my opinion ?
This is why a lot of the " language " in scripture is a bit hard to follow at times. Your thoughts ?

I agree God used language so those at the time it was given would understand the prophecy given, and now with the Holy Spirit teaching us it is pertinent in our day and time.

 

[imJRR]

Yet you have not produced even one thing in the KJV that supports any Roman or Anglican doctrine not even one, and yet most modern versions align with Romes theology.

There is no proof whatsoever to support your accusation.

In other words - "the usual".

Your outrageously dishonest thread about MVs supporting the RCC belief that Mary had no other children has been completely refuted - With multiple Scriptures.

 

[rossh]

Firstborn removed from mist MV’s playing into false RCC doctrine of Mary

I agree God used language so those at the time it was given would understand the prophecy given, and now with the Holy Spirit teaching us it is pertinent in our day and time.

Thank you.. I also believe that God can take care of Himself, His Word and us true believers.. God pushed me out of the RCC and into a local Baptist style Church with ordinary congregations and married Pastors who knew their Scriptures.. One Sunday morning with nothing to do. Suddenly? I had an idea to go visit the local Baptist church, still wearing my yard work cloths but of course clean. No one at the church cared and I was greeted with huge smiles and a warm welcome. I sat down and listened to the wise Sermons being delivered. I was, a few months later baptised with other Adults on a Sunday Service... Praise God and His Lord Yeshua..

 

[Leatherneck0311]

Thank you.. I also believe that God can take care of Himself, His Word and us true believers.. God pushed me out of the RCC and into a local Baptist style Church with ordinary congregations and married Pastors who knew their Scriptures.. One Sunday morning with nothing to do. Suddenly? I had an idea to go visit the local Baptist church, still wearing my yard work cloths but of course clean. No one at the church cared and I was greeted with huge smiles and a warm welcome. I sat down and listened to the wise Sermons being delivered. I was, a few months later baptised with other Adults on a Sunday Service... Praise God and His Lord Yeshua..

Amen , God is good.

 

[rossh]

The 1611 translators could have very well chosen Immersion, but their Church of England theology precluded that!

or maybe " dunking " as it were.. Immersions implies full body dunking but briefly of course, would not want to drown every candidate.

NB:
The Jewish laws which had been passed down orally from generation to generation had several things to say about the need for ritual washing, and the most desirable places to do it.[1] There are six different options suggested that satisfy the requirements, starting with pits or cisterns of standing water as acceptable but least desirable, moving up to pits that are refreshed by rainwater as slightly more desirable, then the custom-built ritual bath, or “mikveh” with 40 se’ahs (300 liters) or more of water, then fountains, then flowing waters.
But “living waters” (as found in natural lakes and rivers) which were considered to be the best possible situation.

Yochanan was in fact Yeshua's first cousin.. The baptism bath we had at Ettalong NSW was full walk in chest high pool, but is fits no more that 2 people..

 

[RiJoRi]

... most modern versions align with Romes theology.

Which is why many non-Catholic posters on the RC forum quote MVs to refute Catholic doctrine.

 

[Leatherneck0311]

Which is why many non-Catholic posters on the RC forum quote MVs to refute Catholic doctrine.

The deceived and confused have no clue how butchered the MV’s actually are.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

The KJV translators translated baptizo into baptize, which means immersion . 100% nonsense the MV’s lean toward RCC doctrine ,and I do not see those influences in the KJV.

Where does the Bible say that baptism means immersion?

Not so, according to Matt Slick.

Does the word baptism mean immersion or sprinkling?​

by Matt Slick | Aug 22, 2013 | Baptism, Questions
Share this article via:

No, the word “baptism” does not always mean immersion. There are several New Testament usages that clearly have different meanings. Let’s take a look.

• Mark 10:38, “But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
• Mark 10:39, “And they said to Him, ‘We are able.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.'”
• Luke 12:50, “I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!”

These next verses speak of being baptized with the Spirit. This isn’t an immersion. It is a pouring upon because the Holy Spirit is always poured upon a person. If the Scriptures tell us that the Spirit is poured upon us and we are baptized with the Spirit, then it makes sense to say that baptism here means pouring upon.

• Pour upon with the Holy Spirit
  • Isaiah 44:3, “I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring, and My blessing on your descendants.”
  • Joel 2:28, And it will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind . . . “
  • Joel 2:29 “And even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.”
  • Acts 2:17, “And it shall be in the last days,” God says, “That I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind.”
  • Acts 2:18, “Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit and they shall prophesy.”
• Baptized with the Holy Spirit
  • Matt. 3:11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
  • Mark 1:8, “I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
  • Luke 3:16, “John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
  • John 1:33, “And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’
  • Acts 1:5, “for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Washings and Sprinkling​

If that isn’t enough to show that the word baptize does not always mean immersion, there are derivations of the word that also show it can mean washing and sprinkling. But first, let’s take a very short look at the word “baptize” in Greek.
In Greek, nouns change their spelling depending on their usage. In English, for example, we have the word actor, actors, actresses, actresses. These words are “cognates”; that is, they are related to each other in form. The word “actor” changes form and with it plurality and gender is expressed, but the root of the word is “act.” The same thing goes with baptismois, baptismon, baptismous, etc. The root of the word is bapt, and the word as a whole changes form depending on usage. Here are a few cognates.

• βαπτίζω, baptidzo, baptize (Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:7; John 1:25; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3)
• βαπτιστής, baptistas, baptist (Matt. 3:1; 14:2; Luke 7:20; 9:19)
• βάπτισμα, baptisma, baptism (Matt. 3:7; Mark 1:4; Luke 12:50; Acts 1:22; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:12)
• βαπτίζοντες, baptizontes, baptizing (Matt. 28:19; John 1:25; 3:22; 4:1; 10:40)
• βαπτισμῶν, baptismon, washings (Heb. 6:2)
• βαπτισμοῖς, baptismois, washings (Heb. 9:10)

So, that is how Greek works. The one word has different forms, the same as English: baptize, baptizing, baptized, baptist, etc. This is important because we find a baptism cognate in two particular verses that cannot mean immersion but instead means washings and/or sprinkling.
Hebrews 6:2, “of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.”
The word “washings” is baptismon in Greek. Here is another.

• Heb. 9:7-13, “but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings [baptismois], regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. 11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,

If you read the context, you will see that the “washings” (baptisms) refer to the Old Testament rituals which included the sprinkling of blood (v. 13). That is the context. This makes sense since anointings and atonements were done by sprinkling–not by immersion.
So, automatically saying that baptism means immersion is wrong. Words mean what they mean in context; and sometimes it means trouble, pour upon, or washings.


You should at least give the subject you want to talk about a cursory research. I don't know why you fail to do this over and over.

Your credibility takes a hit each and every time you do this. Ultimately, your KJVO stance is completely off topic in this thread.

Do a bit of study before you come out swinging. It will help you learn to stop saying things that aren't true. Most of the time, a cursory look would save your chops.

 

[rossh]

Which is why many non-Catholic posters on the RC forum quote MVs to refute Catholic doctrine.

well it is NOT so much the Doctrines that are debated but it the RCC that does not of itself follow .

1 Cor 7:
1 Now to deal with the questions you wrote about: "Is it good for a man to keep away from women?"

2 Well, because of the danger of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

3 The husband should give his wife what she is entitled to in the marriage relationship, and the wife should do the same for her husband.

4 The wife is not in charge of her own body, but her husband is; likewise, the husband is not in charge of his own body, but his wife is.

5 Do not deprive each other, except for a limited time, by mutual agreement, and then only so as to have extra time for prayer; but afterwards, come together again. Otherwise, because of your lack of self-control, you may succumb to the Adversary's temptation.

6 I am giving you this as a suggestion, not as a command.

7 Actually, I wish everyone were like me; but each has his own gift from God, one this, another that.

8 Now to the single people and the widows I say that it is fine if they remain unmarried like me;

9 but if they can't exercise self-control, they should get married; because it is better to get married than to keep burning with sexual desire.

10 To those who are married I have a command, and it is not from me but from the Lord: a woman is not to separate herself from her husband

11 But if she does separate herself, she is to remain single or be reconciled with her husband. Also, a husband is not to leave his wife.

Well, it is all very plain and simple yet, so many want to " change and alter " issues to suit their needs and situation..

well, and a s for the cults of old and or new..

1 Cor 1:
17 For the Messiah did not send me to immerse but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power.

18 For the message about the execution-stake is nonsense to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved it is the power of God.

19 Indeed, the Tanakh says, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."

20 Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher, or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's wisdom look pretty foolish?

21 For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would not come to know him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as his means of saving those who come to trust in it.

Where does the Bible say that baptism means immersion?

Not so, according to Matt Slick.

Does the word baptism mean immersion or sprinkling?​

by Matt Slick | Aug 22, 2013 | Baptism, Questions
Share this article via:

No, the word “baptism” does not always mean immersion. There are several New Testament usages that clearly have different meanings. Let’s take a look.

• Mark 10:38, “But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
• Mark 10:39, “And they said to Him, ‘We are able.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.'”
• Luke 12:50, “I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!”

These next verses speak of being baptized with the Spirit. This isn’t an immersion. It is a pouring upon because the Holy Spirit is always poured upon a person. If the Scriptures tell us that the Spirit is poured upon us and we are baptized with the Spirit, then it makes sense to say that baptism here means pouring upon.

• Pour upon with the Holy Spirit
  • Isaiah 44:3, “I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring, and My blessing on your descendants.”
  • Joel 2:28, And it will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind . . . “
  • Joel 2:29 “And even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.”
  • Acts 2:17, “And it shall be in the last days,” God says, “That I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind.”
  • Acts 2:18, “Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit and they shall prophesy.”
• Baptized with the Holy Spirit
  • Matt. 3:11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
  • Mark 1:8, “I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
  • Luke 3:16, “John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
  • John 1:33, “And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’
  • Acts 1:5, “for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Washings and Sprinkling​

If that isn’t enough to show that the word baptize does not always mean immersion, there are derivations of the word that also show it can mean washing and sprinkling. But first, let’s take a very short look at the word “baptize” in Greek.
In Greek, nouns change their spelling depending on their usage. In English, for example, we have the word actor, actors, actresses, actresses. These words are “cognates”; that is, they are related to each other in form. The word “actor” changes form and with it plurality and gender is expressed, but the root of the word is “act.” The same thing goes with baptismois, baptismon, baptismous, etc. The root of the word is bapt, and the word as a whole changes form depending on usage. Here are a few cognates.


You should at least give the subject you want to talk about a cursory research. I don't know why you fail to do this over and over.

Your credibility takes a hit each and every time you do this. Ultimately, your KJVO stance is completely off topic in this thread.

Do a bit of study before you come out swinging. It will help you learn to stop saying things that aren't true. Most of the time, a cursory look would save your chops.

From the CJB Mary 10:Ya‘akov and Yochanan, the sons of Zavdai, came up to him and said, “Rabbi, we would like you to do us a favor.” 36 He said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 They replied, “When you are in your glory, let us sit with you, one on your right and the other on your left.” 38 But Yeshua answered, “You don’t know what you’re asking! Can you drink the cup that I am drinking? or be immersed with the immersion that I must undergo?” 39 They said to him, “We can.” Yeshua replied, “The cup that I am drinking, you will drink; and the immersion I am being immersed with, you will undergo. 40 But to sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give. Rather, it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
NB He replied with, " immersed WITH " umm ? interesting// How ever, same result in the end, through Him alone we are saved, if we believe.

 

[kiwimac]

The gospel writers often quote from the LXX, but that is not the same thing as the historical Jesus doing so... that claim is rather dubious considering he taught in first century Palestine where Aramaic was the language of the masses.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Sorry I missed this. Let me simply answer: Archer and Chirichigno list around 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text. [1] As examples : in Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” [Reading in the Masoretic] "...Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men..."

Again in Luke 4-18 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, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61:1-2:
1The 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; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.


[1]: (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, ISBN: 978-1597520409., pp. 25-32).

 

[rossh]

The 1611 translators could have very well chosen Immersion, but their Church of England theology precluded that!

and we all have to remember that the RCC changed the way baptisms are performed. They mad a very large change which we MUST really ask questions about ? The the RCC baptize INFANTS!! these babies grow up NOT knowing anything at all about baptism nor the reason why we are even baptized!! Very bad and sad indeed..
Matt 18:4 So the greatest in the Kingdom is whoever makes himself as humble as this child. 5 Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me; 6 and whoever ensnares one of these little ones who trust me, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the open sea! 7 Woe to the world because of snares! For there must be snares, but woe to the person who sets the snare!

 

[rossh]

Sorry I missed this. Let me simply answer: Archer and Chirichigno list around 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text. [1] As examples : in Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” [Reading in the Masoretic] "...Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men..."

Again in Luke 4-18 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, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61:1-2:
1The 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; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.


[1]: (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, ISBN: 978-1597520409., pp. 25-32).

Why not just go to a Jewish/Hebrew person, who has recently translated those Scriptures from Hebrew into English ? Dr. David H Stern, is just one of them.. Make sure you search for the name with the " H ".

 

[En Hakkore]

Sorry I missed this. Let me simply answer: Archer and Chirichigno list around 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text. [1]

[1]: (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, ISBN: 978-1597520409., pp. 25-32).

We are in agreement that New Testament citations of Israel's sacred writings often follow the Septuagint or reflect its influence. Where we are not in agreement is how this textual fact corresponds to historical reality. By claiming that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you appear to advance a direct correspondence between text and reality... the relationship, however, is not that simple.

Let's consider Acts 21:40 where Paul is said to address a Jerusalemite crowd in a Northwest Semitic language... the Greek reads τη Εβραιδι διαλεκτω (in the Hebrew dialect), which is presumed by most scholars to be a reference to Aramaic, the common language of first-century Palestine. When Paul begins speaking in 22:1 the words continue in Greek... the reader must imagine him speaking this other language --- Paul's words at the layer of the text are in Greek, but in the historical reality assumed behind the text they are in Aramaic.

Now let's apply this same principle to the narrative of Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll in Nazareth's synagogue, setting aside more complex questions of historical reconstruction not germane to the issue of language. The Septuagint originated within Jewish communities of the Diaspora, to provide them with a version of their sacred writings in their everyday language. While it is not hard to imagine the scribal elite of Jerusalem with access to Greek translations, that the scrolls in a small Galilean village would be in Greek lacks historical verisimilitude. When the reader imagines the historical reality assumed behind the text of Luke written in Greek, it is of a man reading from a Hebrew scroll... reciting in this language or perhaps offering a paraphrase to his audience in Aramaic, a practice standing behind the Targums. The influence of the Septuagint in citations within the gospels owes to this being the version of Israel's sacred writings known to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Roman Empire rather than the version that Galilean peasants and artisans would be familiar with.

One discussion point from the above that I think is relevant to KJV Onlyism and its proponents' misguided commitment to a flawless text is that we no more have the exacting words of the New Testament authors than they themselves wrote the ipissima verba of Jesus... in both cases they are sufficient approximations so we can reconstruct to a high degree what the New Testament authors wrote and what the historical Jesus taught respectively. A further talking point would be to consider how the differences between the Septuagint, whether generally or specifically those embedded within the New Testament, and the extant Hebrew texts relate to this same principle of sufficient approximation. Recent discussion has been focused on the New Testament, but I would be interested to see how proponents of KJV Onlyism navigate the text-critical problems posed by those readings in the Septuagint that arguably preserve a better reading than the Hebrew manuscripts on which the KJV is based.

Hope this helps clarify my critique, which was offered constructively, and its potential for further discussion on this particular forum...

Have a good weekend.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[kiwimac]

We are in agreement that New Testament citations of Israel's sacred writings often follow the Septuagint or reflect its influence. Where we are not in agreement is how this textual fact corresponds to historical reality. By claiming that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you appear to advance a direct correspondence between text and reality... the relationship, however, is not that simple.

Let's consider Acts 21:40 where Paul is said to address a Jerusalemite crowd in a Northwest Semitic language... the Greek reads τη Εβραιδι διαλεκτω (in the Hebrew dialect), which is presumed by most scholars to be a reference to Aramaic, the common language of first-century Palestine. When Paul begins speaking in 22:1 the words continue in Greek... the reader must imagine him speaking this other language --- Paul's words at the layer of the text are in Greek, but in the historical reality assumed behind the text they are in Aramaic.

Now let's apply this same principle to the narrative of Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll in Nazareth's synagogue, setting aside more complex questions of historical reconstruction not germane to the issue of language. The Septuagint originated within Jewish communities of the Diaspora, to provide them with a version of their sacred writings in their everyday language. While it is not hard to imagine the scribal elite of Jerusalem with access to Greek translations, that the scrolls in a small Galilean village would be in Greek lacks historical verisimilitude. When the reader imagines the historical reality assumed behind the text of Luke written in Greek, it is of a man reading from a Hebrew scroll... reciting in this language or perhaps offering a paraphrase to his audience in Aramaic, a practice standing behind the Targums. The influence of the Septuagint in citations within the gospels owes to this being the version of Israel's sacred writings known to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Roman Empire rather than the version that Galilean peasants and artisans would be familiar with.

One discussion point from the above that I think is relevant to KJV Onlyism and its proponents' misguided commitment to a flawless text is that we no more have the exacting words of the New Testament authors than they themselves wrote the ipissima verba of Jesus... in both cases they are sufficient approximations so we can reconstruct to a high degree what the New Testament authors wrote and what the historical Jesus taught respectively. A further talking point would be to consider how the differences between the Septuagint, whether generally or specifically those embedded within the New Testament, and the extant Hebrew texts relate to this same principle of sufficient approximation. Recent discussion has been focused on the New Testament, but I would be interested to see how proponents of KJV Onlyism navigate the text-critical problems posed by those readings in the Septuagint that arguably preserve a better reading than the Hebrew manuscripts on which the KJV is based.

Hope this helps clarify my critique, which was offered constructively, and its potential for further discussion on this particular forum...

Have a good weekend.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Jesus and his family lived close to the Decapolitan cities and, given he and Joseph worked as wrights they possibly found work there. If so Jesus would have had at least a passing familiarity with Greek

 

[En Hakkore]

Jesus and his family lived close to the Decapolitan cities and, given he and Joseph worked as wrights they possibly found work there. If so Jesus would have had at least a passing familiarity with Greek

That Jesus may have had some "passing familiarity with Greek" in order to secure possible work in the Hellenized cities in the region is a very different claim than Jesus was reading from Septuagint scrolls in a Galilean village. I would grant the first is possible, provided we are primarily referring to oral rather than literate knowledge, while the second is highly improbable for the reasons I've already laid out...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[rossh]

We are in agreement that New Testament citations of Israel's sacred writings often follow the Septuagint or reflect its influence. Where we are not in agreement is how this textual fact corresponds to historical reality. By claiming that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you appear to advance a direct correspondence between text and reality... the relationship, however, is not that simple.

Let's consider Acts 21:40 where Paul is said to address a Jerusalemite crowd in a Northwest Semitic language... the Greek reads τη Εβραιδι διαλεκτω (in the Hebrew dialect), which is presumed by most scholars to be a reference to Aramaic, the common language of first-century Palestine. When Paul begins speaking in 22:1 the words continue in Greek... the reader must imagine him speaking this other language --- Paul's words at the layer of the text are in Greek, but in the historical reality assumed behind the text they are in Aramaic.

Now let's apply this same principle to the narrative of Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll in Nazareth's synagogue, setting aside more complex questions of historical reconstruction not germane to the issue of language. The Septuagint originated within Jewish communities of the Diaspora, to provide them with a version of their sacred writings in their everyday language. While it is not hard to imagine the scribal elite of Jerusalem with access to Greek translations, that the scrolls in a small Galilean village would be in Greek lacks historical verisimilitude. When the reader imagines the historical reality assumed behind the text of Luke written in Greek, it is of a man reading from a Hebrew scroll... reciting in this language or perhaps offering a paraphrase to his audience in Aramaic, a practice standing behind the Targums. The influence of the Septuagint in citations within the gospels owes to this being the version of Israel's sacred writings known to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Roman Empire rather than the version that Galilean peasants and artisans would be familiar with.

One discussion point from the above that I think is relevant to KJV Onlyism and its proponents' misguided commitment to a flawless text is that we no more have the exacting words of the New Testament authors than they themselves wrote the ipissima verba of Jesus... in both cases they are sufficient approximations so we can reconstruct to a high degree what the New Testament authors wrote and what the historical Jesus taught respectively. A further talking point would be to consider how the differences between the Septuagint, whether generally or specifically those embedded within the New Testament, and the extant Hebrew texts relate to this same principle of sufficient approximation. Recent discussion has been focused on the New Testament, but I would be interested to see how proponents of KJV Onlyism navigate the text-critical problems posed by those readings in the Septuagint that arguably preserve a better reading than the Hebrew manuscripts on which the KJV is based.

Hope this helps clarify my critique, which was offered constructively, and its potential for further discussion on this particular forum...

Have a good weekend.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

well better still why don't you just sit down and write your own bible version, like the JWs and the Mormons and the SDA etc; etc; have done. Also, anyone who sits down to read Gods Word, the Bible, usually ask God Help for clarity while reading Hos Holy Word, I do and I admit that I need to, but do you ? Changing the words of the Bible does not change the truth...

 

[En Hakkore]

Changing the words of the Bible does not change the truth...

It is your prerogative to evaluate changes -- whether accidental or deliberate -- to the biblical text negatively, but that does not alter the fact that such changes are evident in all the extant manuscripts, including those underlying the KJV...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Leatherneck0311]

It is your prerogative to evaluate changes -- whether accidental or deliberate -- to the biblical text negatively, but that does not alter the fact that such changes are evident in all the extant manuscripts, including those underlying the KJV...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Wrong ! Just take sodomite in the majority text changed to temple prostitute in the minority text. Sodom-sodomy- sodomite. It isn’t rocket science.

 

[rossh]

It is your prerogative to evaluate changes -- whether accidental or deliberate -- to the biblical text negatively, but that does not alter the fact that such changes are evident in all the extant manuscripts, including those underlying the KJV...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I believe that the Lord will assist us all, if we ask for assistance of course. Also, I believe that too many bible reading adults do NOT understand the underlying message/context of the Word of God! Yes His Word is a narrative and it is an historical account of the past and more over of Gods workings in our past...
As God is capable of creating atoms which are way to small to see but are pack with such enormous power at the same time, then surly He is able to preserve His Word for ions...
So how many of us bible readers even know, that the Word of God saves and is for salvation of our very immortal souls ?
Unlike a well written Novel, the Word of God hits the nail on the head right from the start, that being, the fall of all mankind which sends us all to eternal doom in hell. Better still, as bonus, He also shows us at the same and tells us how!! we are to be save..