hi Jason, and anybody else that wants to respond... I'm glad you're here! I wanted to hear your views of this... Isaiah 61 is quoted in Luke 4, though differently... to me, it says that the bible is really good, but not perfect... or maybe the perfection is about something besides the words... what's your take? thanks
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
In other words, I can prove my position Biblically with the Bible. Folks who do not believe God's Word is perfect or perserved for our day (That we can easily know) cannot back up their position Biblically. This deception takes place at seminaries or Bible colleges. They deceive their students into buying into the lie that there is no Word of God that they can trust 100%. They just have close to the Word of God or they have a Bible today that is like the Tower of Babel whereby they can speak fancy words that nobody really knows but themselves. Religious men who seek to corrupt and change God's Word. That is what is going on here. For their goal is to get you to doubt God's Word as being 100% trust worthy.
Your trust in God's Word is a spiritual matter.
Shouldn't this matter be spoken about in God's Word?
Your trust in God's Word is a spiritual matter.
Shouldn't this matter be spoken about in God's Word?
Who is standing on the seashore in Revelation 13:1? John or the dragon. A lot of your Modern Translations say "dragon."
This is important to understand because to stand on something, means that you own it. And the devil wants to own you. In Genesis 22:17, God makes a promise to Abraham that his seed shall be as the stars of the sky and the sand on the seashore and that his seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. I believe it is John standing on the seashore and who is possessing the gate of Abraham's enemies. Not the dragon (the devil). So not all Bibles are "good." Some are clearly corrupted and could mislead a believer to think the wrong thing and corrupt his faith.
In Luke 4:17, Jesus said he opened the book (scroll) and FOUND the place where Isaiah 61 was written. Luke 4:17 does not say Jesus quoted from this passage verbatim.
John Gill remarks: "To set at liberty them that are bruised:
these words are not in Isaiah 61 but...(possibly) from Isaiah 42:7,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."
The Lord Jesus Christ combined several Scriptural ideas and explained the sense of the passage in His own words - He was not quoting directly from Isaiah 61.
This would be in accord with the Biblical pattern recorded in the days of Nehemiah. We read in Nehemiah 8:8: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, AND GAVE THE SENSE, and caused them to understand the reading."
Source Used:
Luke 4:16-21 COMPARED TO Isaiah 61:1-3 - The Bible - Online Baptist
This is important to understand because to stand on something, means that you own it. And the devil wants to own you. In Genesis 22:17, God makes a promise to Abraham that his seed shall be as the stars of the sky and the sand on the seashore and that his seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. I believe it is John standing on the seashore and who is possessing the gate of Abraham's enemies. Not the dragon (the devil). So not all Bibles are "good." Some are clearly corrupted and could mislead a believer to think the wrong thing and corrupt his faith.
In Luke 4:17, Jesus said he opened the book (scroll) and FOUND the place where Isaiah 61 was written. Luke 4:17 does not say Jesus quoted from this passage verbatim.
John Gill remarks: "To set at liberty them that are bruised:
these words are not in Isaiah 61 but...(possibly) from Isaiah 42:7,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."
The Lord Jesus Christ combined several Scriptural ideas and explained the sense of the passage in His own words - He was not quoting directly from Isaiah 61.
This would be in accord with the Biblical pattern recorded in the days of Nehemiah. We read in Nehemiah 8:8: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, AND GAVE THE SENSE, and caused them to understand the reading."
Source Used:
Luke 4:16-21 COMPARED TO Isaiah 61:1-3 - The Bible - Online Baptist
Last edited:
In other words, it would be like a Pastor at your church partially quoting from a verse in the Bible while also drawing upon other verses to tie it all in together for the sermon he wants to present. The pastor is not required to directly quote verbatim from Scripture. The pastor can easily expound upon what is in the passage and bring in other parts of Scripture to flesh it out so as to help his congregation understand the Word of God better.
Last edited:
However, the point I want to make is that if you can't trust one word in your Bible, then what makes you trust the rest of it?
If the Word is corrupted, then how can the Spirit properly teach a person the correct understanding if they diligently study His written Word if it says something that God did not intend?
Let me give you an example:
Let's say I write a letter to you and your future family (i.e. your descendants) about an important matter that can effect both you and your future family in a good way. Now, let's say this letter got lost for a short while and one of your children had tried to re-write the letter from memory. However, they only get portions of the letter written and they have left out many key important sentences that were within that letter. The general message is still there but the details in key points have now changed. Yes, the words that they remembered correctly are still true, but those words that can't be remembered or those words that have been re-worded have changed the precise meaning of the letter now. It is not the same letter anymore.
God's Word (not many different conflicting Words) have been preserved thru out all generations. This is what the Word of God teaches. It teaches that His Word (singular) has been preserved for all generations and that it is perfect (To see a list of passages: Click here). Granted, His Word has been preserved thru different languages, but that does not mean that God's Word or message has been changed, though.
However, if God's Word wasn't preserved and if it wasn't perfect (and reliable) then it would clearly teach otherwise. Also, if His Word had not been preserved and or if it turned out to be not perfect, then the Scriptures would be lying to us. But, we simply know that is not true, though; For the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). For they are 100% trust worthy, true, and without error. Now, how does a true believer know this? Well, thru experience.
For our faith rests on our experience in the Word of God. In fact, even the beginning of our faith cometh by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For if one word, I mean just one word proved to be untrue, then it would put in doubt those words in Scripture about Jesus Christ dying and raising from the dead to redeem us from our sins (1 Corinthians 15:4).
If the Word is corrupted, then how can the Spirit properly teach a person the correct understanding if they diligently study His written Word if it says something that God did not intend?
Let me give you an example:
Let's say I write a letter to you and your future family (i.e. your descendants) about an important matter that can effect both you and your future family in a good way. Now, let's say this letter got lost for a short while and one of your children had tried to re-write the letter from memory. However, they only get portions of the letter written and they have left out many key important sentences that were within that letter. The general message is still there but the details in key points have now changed. Yes, the words that they remembered correctly are still true, but those words that can't be remembered or those words that have been re-worded have changed the precise meaning of the letter now. It is not the same letter anymore.
God's Word (not many different conflicting Words) have been preserved thru out all generations. This is what the Word of God teaches. It teaches that His Word (singular) has been preserved for all generations and that it is perfect (To see a list of passages: Click here). Granted, His Word has been preserved thru different languages, but that does not mean that God's Word or message has been changed, though.
However, if God's Word wasn't preserved and if it wasn't perfect (and reliable) then it would clearly teach otherwise. Also, if His Word had not been preserved and or if it turned out to be not perfect, then the Scriptures would be lying to us. But, we simply know that is not true, though; For the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). For they are 100% trust worthy, true, and without error. Now, how does a true believer know this? Well, thru experience.
For our faith rests on our experience in the Word of God. In fact, even the beginning of our faith cometh by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For if one word, I mean just one word proved to be untrue, then it would put in doubt those words in Scripture about Jesus Christ dying and raising from the dead to redeem us from our sins (1 Corinthians 15:4).
Last edited:
What OT manuscripts do you say Paul used, exactly?
What Hebrew manuscripts did Paul use?
What Greek manuscripts did Paul use?
And you believe that those manuscripts were perfect?
So far you have said the KJV is perfect.
And on a previous thread you said the Latin Vulgate is perfect, correct?
I'm just wondering what else, exactly, are you saying is perfect.
What Hebrew manuscripts did Paul use?
What Greek manuscripts did Paul use?
And you believe that those manuscripts were perfect?
So far you have said the KJV is perfect.
And on a previous thread you said the Latin Vulgate is perfect, correct?
I'm just wondering what else, exactly, are you saying is perfect.
I don't believe History like you do. I believe in proposed versions of History as possibilties and not as 100% fact. The Word of God is my one and only final Word of authority for discussing these matters. But if you are looking for a proposed (possible) version of what might have happened in History, then check out the follow article below.
Question: How did God preserve His words to this day?
Answer: God preserved copies of His words down through time, using four main languages He chose for that purpose. All through history, God made several choices as to the languages in which He would communicate His message.
Choice 1: Hebrew
From at least as far back as Abraham (around 2000 BC) to the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, God chose the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew, to communicate to His chosen people. God gave His law in Hebrew to teach men that they were sinners, and in need of a Saviour.
Choice 2: Greek
But in the first century AD, God made a second choice. The main language of the world for three centuries had been Greek. God used that language to give the New Testament for the world to read. And it spread like wildfire. In the first century AD, God made a second choice. The main language of the world for three centuries had been Greek. God used that language to give the New Testament for the world to read. And it spread like wildfire. The devil recognized the huge potential of God’s Word in a “world” language, so he moved quickly to counter it. He prepared a fake “Bible” in Alexandria, Egypt. The Old Testament portion is commonly called the “Septuagint”[SUP]1[/SUP] and the New Testament portion is called the “Alexandrian text.” This corruption was a “Greek” Bible, but with the poison of the Apocrypha mixed in, made to look like real scripture. The Alexandrian “Bible” also perverted the New Testament[SUP]2[/SUP], taking out many of God’s words and substituting man’s ideas. This laid the groundwork for Satan’s plan to spread religious lies, and subvert the true faith.
Choice 3: Old Latin
From about 120 AD until the 1500s, God used a third language to communicate His truths, in addition to Hebrew and Greek. While the first copies of the New Testament in Greek were being made and passed around, God directed other Christians to translate His preserved words into Old Latin. This language was being spoken more and more in Europe, and became an “international” language as Greek had been. The Old Latin Bible was known as the “Vulgate,” which means “common Bible.” Once again, God’s words were spreading, and many Europeans began translating these Old Latin scriptures into their own languages.[SUP]3[/SUP]
The devil responded by preparing a counterfeit “Vulgate” in Rome. By the 300s, the Roman religion claimed to be true Christianity, and a new “Bible” was made from the perverted Alexandrian writings. It included the Apocryphal books that the early church had rejected. But to make it convincing, they also put in some scriptures that were like the preserved Old Latin Bible as well. There were now two Latin “Vulgates,” dramatically different from one another. The true Christians knew the difference between the true and the false “Vulgates.”[SUP]4[/SUP]
The devil knew what he had to do next. He had to destroy the true Latin Vulgate, and the people who held it so dearly. The Roman Catholic armies hunted down and martyred those who were caught possessing the true Latin Vulgate. But they were never able to completely replace the true Latin Vulgate with the corrupted Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. God was preserving His words.
Choice 4: English
Around 700-800 AD, English, a new “world” language began to develop. God began laying the groundwork to use this language to trigger a massive missionary movement. In the 1500s William Tyndale worked to translate the Bible from the accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that God had so carefully preserved. English-speaking people after him continued the effort to translate and perfect a Bible that matched the ancient scriptures.[SUP]5[/SUP] One of the best of these is the Geneva Bible.
English was a language in the midst of change. But by 1604 God used King James I[SUP]6[/SUP]of England to commission a group of learned men[SUP]7[/SUP] to accumulate scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English as well as other languages. Their assignment was to translate[SUP]8[/SUP] God’s words into the most accurate English possible. In early 1611 they published the Authorized Version, also known as the King James Bible. From the day it was published, the King James Bible circulated around the world, and missionaries translated Bibles from this precious book.[SUP]9[/SUP]
The devil pulled out all the stops on this one. By the 1800s he had inspired a whole movement to discredit and destroy the King James Bible. Today, we have a multitude of translations that change, remove and add to God’s preserved words. But God has always kept the true scriptures in the hands of his people.
In making the four choices of language as described above, God was not trying to indicate that any single language was more expressive or better than another. Rather, He chose these languages because they suited His purpose at a particular time in history to carry out His plan. The choices were God’s. Outside of Israel, Hebrew was never a universal language. Ancient Greek is no longer a universal language, nor is Latin. But by guiding the production of a perfect Bible in English, God kept His promise. For our time, in a language read around the world, God preserved His words.
Source:
How did God preserve His words to this day?
Question: How did God preserve His words to this day?
Answer: God preserved copies of His words down through time, using four main languages He chose for that purpose. All through history, God made several choices as to the languages in which He would communicate His message.
Choice 1: Hebrew
From at least as far back as Abraham (around 2000 BC) to the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, God chose the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew, to communicate to His chosen people. God gave His law in Hebrew to teach men that they were sinners, and in need of a Saviour.
Choice 2: Greek
But in the first century AD, God made a second choice. The main language of the world for three centuries had been Greek. God used that language to give the New Testament for the world to read. And it spread like wildfire. In the first century AD, God made a second choice. The main language of the world for three centuries had been Greek. God used that language to give the New Testament for the world to read. And it spread like wildfire. The devil recognized the huge potential of God’s Word in a “world” language, so he moved quickly to counter it. He prepared a fake “Bible” in Alexandria, Egypt. The Old Testament portion is commonly called the “Septuagint”[SUP]1[/SUP] and the New Testament portion is called the “Alexandrian text.” This corruption was a “Greek” Bible, but with the poison of the Apocrypha mixed in, made to look like real scripture. The Alexandrian “Bible” also perverted the New Testament[SUP]2[/SUP], taking out many of God’s words and substituting man’s ideas. This laid the groundwork for Satan’s plan to spread religious lies, and subvert the true faith.
Choice 3: Old Latin
From about 120 AD until the 1500s, God used a third language to communicate His truths, in addition to Hebrew and Greek. While the first copies of the New Testament in Greek were being made and passed around, God directed other Christians to translate His preserved words into Old Latin. This language was being spoken more and more in Europe, and became an “international” language as Greek had been. The Old Latin Bible was known as the “Vulgate,” which means “common Bible.” Once again, God’s words were spreading, and many Europeans began translating these Old Latin scriptures into their own languages.[SUP]3[/SUP]
The devil responded by preparing a counterfeit “Vulgate” in Rome. By the 300s, the Roman religion claimed to be true Christianity, and a new “Bible” was made from the perverted Alexandrian writings. It included the Apocryphal books that the early church had rejected. But to make it convincing, they also put in some scriptures that were like the preserved Old Latin Bible as well. There were now two Latin “Vulgates,” dramatically different from one another. The true Christians knew the difference between the true and the false “Vulgates.”[SUP]4[/SUP]
The devil knew what he had to do next. He had to destroy the true Latin Vulgate, and the people who held it so dearly. The Roman Catholic armies hunted down and martyred those who were caught possessing the true Latin Vulgate. But they were never able to completely replace the true Latin Vulgate with the corrupted Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. God was preserving His words.
Choice 4: English
Around 700-800 AD, English, a new “world” language began to develop. God began laying the groundwork to use this language to trigger a massive missionary movement. In the 1500s William Tyndale worked to translate the Bible from the accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that God had so carefully preserved. English-speaking people after him continued the effort to translate and perfect a Bible that matched the ancient scriptures.[SUP]5[/SUP] One of the best of these is the Geneva Bible.
English was a language in the midst of change. But by 1604 God used King James I[SUP]6[/SUP]of England to commission a group of learned men[SUP]7[/SUP] to accumulate scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English as well as other languages. Their assignment was to translate[SUP]8[/SUP] God’s words into the most accurate English possible. In early 1611 they published the Authorized Version, also known as the King James Bible. From the day it was published, the King James Bible circulated around the world, and missionaries translated Bibles from this precious book.[SUP]9[/SUP]
The devil pulled out all the stops on this one. By the 1800s he had inspired a whole movement to discredit and destroy the King James Bible. Today, we have a multitude of translations that change, remove and add to God’s preserved words. But God has always kept the true scriptures in the hands of his people.
In making the four choices of language as described above, God was not trying to indicate that any single language was more expressive or better than another. Rather, He chose these languages because they suited His purpose at a particular time in history to carry out His plan. The choices were God’s. Outside of Israel, Hebrew was never a universal language. Ancient Greek is no longer a universal language, nor is Latin. But by guiding the production of a perfect Bible in English, God kept His promise. For our time, in a language read around the world, God preserved His words.
Source:
How did God preserve His words to this day?
Last edited:
No one calls the Westcott & Hort text the Majority Text. No one even USES the Westcott and Hort Text anymore. You're simple demonstrating your complete ignorance of the subject, which in itself is nothing bad. But when it is from that ignorance that you look to make sweeping, 'authoritative' statements about the singular status of the KJV on the basis of an imagined agnosticism (which is in reality personal incredulity) about the manuscript tradition, that is a problem.
The rest of what you are saying is just rambling - the whole exercise of textual criticism is to do exactly what you describe - find out the earliest versions of what the NT scriptures said, in order to find out exactly what it is the apostles wrote.
Ah, so that's what you wanted to ask. Well, I guess I would first of all just refer to what I said before - in the NT, you have Jesus and Paul, in particular, quoting from both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts (i.e. one of the Hebrew and the Greek versions), both of which are very slightly different when translated out into English.
I believe that the Word of God is perfect. However, it simply does not follow therefore that there must always be a single perfect unadulterated copy of the autograph in existence at all times throughout history, just as it does not follow that everyone who copies the Scriptures must do so infallibly. I do not believe the text of the KJV and the text of, say, the NASB are two different 'words', rather they both reliably contain God's word - as virtually every Christian from Paul, all the way up to the translation committee of the KJV (as indicated in their preface) did not define inerrancy in terms of the extant manuscripts, or even in terms of this or that particular word determining if something was or was not a reliable copy. They define inerrancy in terms of the fact that God does not err when speaking, and the apostles did not err when writing down what they wrote under inspiration.
And I do not require Christians to study another language, so stop saying that I do. Virtually any English translation is fine for most Christians to read, use, and be nourished. Most Christian will never need or want to learn to read the Greek (or Hebrew, for that matter), and that's 100% ok.
But you lose all credibility in commenting on the text critical process and on the extant manuscripts when you declare you have zero interest in trying to understand the language and how it works (especially given it was the language of Jesus and the disciples).
The rest of what you are saying is just rambling - the whole exercise of textual criticism is to do exactly what you describe - find out the earliest versions of what the NT scriptures said, in order to find out exactly what it is the apostles wrote.
Ah, so that's what you wanted to ask. Well, I guess I would first of all just refer to what I said before - in the NT, you have Jesus and Paul, in particular, quoting from both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts (i.e. one of the Hebrew and the Greek versions), both of which are very slightly different when translated out into English.
I believe that the Word of God is perfect. However, it simply does not follow therefore that there must always be a single perfect unadulterated copy of the autograph in existence at all times throughout history, just as it does not follow that everyone who copies the Scriptures must do so infallibly. I do not believe the text of the KJV and the text of, say, the NASB are two different 'words', rather they both reliably contain God's word - as virtually every Christian from Paul, all the way up to the translation committee of the KJV (as indicated in their preface) did not define inerrancy in terms of the extant manuscripts, or even in terms of this or that particular word determining if something was or was not a reliable copy. They define inerrancy in terms of the fact that God does not err when speaking, and the apostles did not err when writing down what they wrote under inspiration.
And I do not require Christians to study another language, so stop saying that I do. Virtually any English translation is fine for most Christians to read, use, and be nourished. Most Christian will never need or want to learn to read the Greek (or Hebrew, for that matter), and that's 100% ok.
But you lose all credibility in commenting on the text critical process and on the extant manuscripts when you declare you have zero interest in trying to understand the language and how it works (especially given it was the language of Jesus and the disciples).
You're making historical assertions, Jason. Do you have any proof (ideally observable, because OBVIOUSLY we simply can't trust historical evidences 
). Which Christians were using the false Vulgate, and which Christians were using the true Vulgate? What was in the false Vulgate that made it false? Are either of these versions extant today? How did Christians at that timeknow which one was which?
Also, can you actually read for me pages pp. 52-53 of David W Daniel's book 'Did the Catholic Church give us the Bible'?, please? I assume you have access to a copy - I specifically what those pages because that's where, in a footnote, he says he lays out his own proof for their being a false Vulgate. It would be helpful to see how he addresses the point.
). Which Christians were using the false Vulgate, and which Christians were using the true Vulgate? What was in the false Vulgate that made it false? Are either of these versions extant today? How did Christians at that timeknow which one was which?Also, can you actually read for me pages pp. 52-53 of David W Daniel's book 'Did the Catholic Church give us the Bible'?, please? I assume you have access to a copy - I specifically what those pages because that's where, in a footnote, he says he lays out his own proof for their being a false Vulgate. It would be helpful to see how he addresses the point.
Sorry, after stepping away from the thread for a bit, I realised that this is really the heart of your position, and I should really have responded to this post moreso than any of the others. My apologies. Let me try and give you a cogent reply for why I think my position is tenable, and your characterisation of my position (and that of a great many evangelicals) is false. Put simply, I have a high degree of trust in the text of any number of translations, including the KJV, but any doubt I may have about this or that reading that comes from copies of the text does not logically mean that the rest of the text must be cast into doubt.
First things first - your analogy isn't entirely applicable, because your idea of the 'letter' being lost, and then copies having to be written from memory, is not the case with the biblical manuscripts. In many cases, it is quite possible to discern the genealogy of texts (that is, which texts are descended either from which specific texts or which type of texts), which is indicative of copies being made from earlier copies, not from memory, but from visual inspection of an earlier MS. In fact, some of the changes in the text are demonstrably transcriptional in nature - that is, words are changed because the original word and the changed word appear very similar in the Greek, have no clear theological objective that would indicate an intentional change, and only really make sense if we assume the scribe was looking at an earlier manuscript when they made the copy, and simply got it wrong.
The second problem is related - your analogy assumes there is only one copy, with one stream of transmission (parent-child). The reality of the Greek MSS of the New Testaments is that we have thousands of copies, and these are not all in a single linear line. Rather, there is a multiplicity of MSS descended from the autographs in the same way that branches move from a single trunk. Thus, it is often quite simple to compare the different 'branches', and see what words remain the same, and which ones change. This allows you to compare and see where the text differs from earlier readings in a way not possible in your analogy.
Thirdly, those words that ARE different (and we can clearly see WHICH readings are different and thus additions/subtractions) are not 'key parts of the text'. Simply put, there is doctrine, no key belief, affected by variant readings among the MSS. It's telling that the key facts of the gospel, the death and resurrection of Jesus, are simply not affected by these variants. Your use of 'key points' in your analogy is disingenuous.
By your argument and your very specific idea of preservational infallibility, we must assume one of three things. Either: 1) God has preserved at all times in history the correct NT in all manuscripts. 2) God has preserved at all times in history the correct NT in a specific group or subset of all the MSS, none of which contain any textual differences or corruptions, or 3) God has preserved at all times in history the correct NT in one specific manuscript.
Which of these three options is the one you think is true, and if so, can you identify which document(s) are the correct ones?
Simply, no. If I said "The sky is blue. The grass is fluorescent pink", the falsity of one does not prove the truth of the other. That a MSS might contain words that are not genuine does not affect anything else that MSS may say prima facie, and certainly and assuredly DOES NOT impinge on the original text of the autographs at all (that is, if we both accept that it is the words of the apostles that actually matters - you may not believe that, I'm not sure. Some KJVO believe it doesn't matter what the apostles wrote).
And, again, it doesn't matter what MSS you pick up, there is nothing in them that puts into doubt the attestation of the NT to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Are you a carpenter like Jesus was? Because you keep hitting the nail on the head with respect to these issues. And Jason0047 keeps hitting his thumb.
His comments on Revelation 13:1 are absurd. Some of the manuscripts indicate "I" and some indicate "the dragon" or "he" (meaning the dragon). And as I recall Erasmus back-translated from the Latin Vulgate to the Greek to get much of Revelation, which then made it's way to KJV. Whether its "I" or "he" makes little difference in the interpretation, unless you spin it in some bizarre fashion as Jason0047 did.
I don't know whether this verse has been brought up, but what about Hebrews 4:8? "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." (KJV)
The evidence is overwhelming that it should read Joshua instead of Jesus in that verse.
With respect to your statement I quoted, it seems to me that the Great Isaiah Scroll discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the most significant manuscript discovery to date. It is dated to several hundred years before Christ, which means that the messianic prophecies concerning Christ in Isaiah were written before the time of Christ.
The nonsense in that Chick Publications article that Jason0047 copy and pasted from and linked to is just that, nonsense. Laughable, really, that God created these "fake" Bibles.
His comments on Revelation 13:1 are absurd. Some of the manuscripts indicate "I" and some indicate "the dragon" or "he" (meaning the dragon). And as I recall Erasmus back-translated from the Latin Vulgate to the Greek to get much of Revelation, which then made it's way to KJV. Whether its "I" or "he" makes little difference in the interpretation, unless you spin it in some bizarre fashion as Jason0047 did.
I don't know whether this verse has been brought up, but what about Hebrews 4:8? "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." (KJV)
The evidence is overwhelming that it should read Joshua instead of Jesus in that verse.
With respect to your statement I quoted, it seems to me that the Great Isaiah Scroll discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the most significant manuscript discovery to date. It is dated to several hundred years before Christ, which means that the messianic prophecies concerning Christ in Isaiah were written before the time of Christ.
The nonsense in that Chick Publications article that Jason0047 copy and pasted from and linked to is just that, nonsense. Laughable, really, that God created these "fake" Bibles.
well, with Rev 13,I think first the text should be decided, then doctrines built on it... if we start with the doctrines we already hold, and change the words to fit what we already think, how will we grow? ... there were times in history when Israel did not possess the gate of its enemies... so, in Luke it just says he found the place where it was written... there no place in Isaiah where that's written... Luke says spirit of the Lord, Isaiah says spirit of the Lord God... is it OK to leave out words?
To be clear, Erasmus only translated the last six verses of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate, and I am not certain he continued to do so after the third edition of the TR. The rest of the text of Revelation in the TR comes from the Riga Codex, which is usually dated no earlier than the 10th century AD.
Jesus is an anglicisation of Ἰησοῦς, itself a hellenisation of ישוע (yeshua), which is also equivalent to our Joshua. In other words, Joshua and Jesus are essentially the same name if you trace them back, but one comes to us from the Hebrew, while the other is via the Greek. In fact, John Gill makes this exact point in his commentary on Hebrews 4:8, saying:
I find Gill's commentary perfectly agreeable at this point, he seems to be across the textual issues and, if nothing else, shows that people contemporary with the language and text of the KJV did not interpret it to be indicating the Lord. I haven't seen Jason argue this, so I'm not sure it's relevant. Either way, if anyone did try to argue it is Jesus in Hebrews 4:8, they're patently wrong.
This is true, but I'm not sure how significant this is, as the Masoretic Text and the LXX are themselves usually dated earlier than Christ, usually by at least a century. Or have I misread your comment?
Otherwise, I'm in general agreement with what you have said, you have made some quality remarks, and thank you for your kind feedback.
Jesus is an anglicisation of Ἰησοῦς, itself a hellenisation of ישוע (yeshua), which is also equivalent to our Joshua. In other words, Joshua and Jesus are essentially the same name if you trace them back, but one comes to us from the Hebrew, while the other is via the Greek. In fact, John Gill makes this exact point in his commentary on Hebrews 4:8, saying:
I find Gill's commentary perfectly agreeable at this point, he seems to be across the textual issues and, if nothing else, shows that people contemporary with the language and text of the KJV did not interpret it to be indicating the Lord. I haven't seen Jason argue this, so I'm not sure it's relevant. Either way, if anyone did try to argue it is Jesus in Hebrews 4:8, they're patently wrong.
This is true, but I'm not sure how significant this is, as the Masoretic Text and the LXX are themselves usually dated earlier than Christ, usually by at least a century. Or have I misread your comment?
Otherwise, I'm in general agreement with what you have said, you have made some quality remarks, and thank you for your kind feedback.
Yes, certainly the Masoretic Text and LXX are dated earlier than Christ by convincing evidence, in terms of when they were written. But only a few fragments of the LXX, which are of the Torah, can be dated by examining the document itself to be written prior to Christ on earth.
The Great Isaiah Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls is dated by examining the document itself to have been written a couple hundred years before Christ.
This makes it so much more difficult for some to say that the messianic prophecies about Christ in the Book of Isaiah were written after Christ was on earth.
The point being it's much easier to predict the future if you do it after the events in question have occurred.
The Great Isaiah Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls is dated by examining the document itself to have been written a couple hundred years before Christ.
This makes it so much more difficult for some to say that the messianic prophecies about Christ in the Book of Isaiah were written after Christ was on earth.
The point being it's much easier to predict the future if you do it after the events in question have occurred.