Version Difference Question
- Thread starter KJV1611
- Start date
-
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.
The KJO crowd also never research what a wretch King James really was. They think he was some saint, but nothing was farther from the truth. Besides, the 1599 Geneva beat the 1611 KJ as the first English translated Bible anyway.
Something also the KJO crowd completely ignores or do not know.
As far as I am concerned the KJO crowd have made the KJV of the Bible a antichrist and idol above Jesus Christ.
IOW, they exalt the version and book over the living word. Dangerous ground to be treading on.
Last edited:
The word captivity is NOT what changed. The word again changed.
Read the entire verse and you will see that it speaks of restoration.
Question... how do you know whether God intended captivity to be a noun or verb?
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
One, as I already mentioned, if you make "captivity" a verb, there is no subject to the sentence. Therefore, the sentence is meaningless. Does God inspire gibberish?
Amos was a sod-busting, sheep-wrestling good ol' boy from Judah, If he were prophesying today, he'd show up in front of the White House with a John Deere cap, Oshkosh overalls, and a well-worn pair of Justin ranch boots on his feet, and still sound like an eloquent. learned speaker in the face of overwhelming odds against being heard by the nation's leadership. Perhaps even more overwhelming today than the ones Amos faced in Israel.
In other words, he wouldn't write or speak a meaningless sentence. God wouldn't let him. So "captivity" is a noun. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It has to be. There is no other way.
For another thing, it is constantly used of Israel in the latter part of the Old Testament as a descriptive noun -- remember, a name or pronoun was more than just a name or a pronoun in the Hebrew culture. The name was the character of the subject so named.
I think that only God is capable of translating his word. It is very evident that God was not behind the NIV and ESV translators. Those translations are full of contradictions. They were at best guessing and at worst purposely changing the word of God.
Posthuman if you know the answer to even one of the questions below, then you know exactly when the Lord sent Israel back into exile.
When was the tabernacle of David raised up? Hint... the tabernacle of David was a foreshadow of the body of Christ.
When did the tabernacle of David possess the remnant of Edom and the heathen which are called by God's name?
When did the plowman overtake the reaper?
When did the mountains drop sweet wine?
Sure there's a subject, Israel is the subject and captivity is the verb. Even the Hebrew agrees.
ת! ב"ְ
shbuth
captivity-of
The word "again" is used 672 times in the KJV. I didn't check every one of them, but of the many I did look at, again meant again.
alright then, seeing that you hate context, look at it this way:
did He come preaching further exile to those in bondage, or proclaiming freedom, loosing chains and accomplishing deliverance?
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, 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.
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
(Luke 4:17-19)
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.
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
(Luke 4:17-19)
"captivity" is not a verb. not in English, and not in the verse you're struggling over.
[TABLE="class: maintext, width: 802"]
[TR]
[TD="class: top"]Str[/TD]
[TD="class: top"]Translit[/TD]
[TD="class: top"]Hebrew[/TD]
[TD="class: top, width: 25%, bgcolor: #0099FF"]English[/TD]
[TD="class: top, width: 18%, bgcolor: #0099FF"]Morph[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]7622 [e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]šə-ḇūṯ[/TD]
[TD="class: hebrew2"]שְׁב֣וּת[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]the captivity[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]Noun[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
i don't know Hebrew, but it sure says "noun" there. plainly.
if you can't understand, or do understand but won't accept, that this is talking about restoration - even if it hasn't been physically realized, and even if it is meant spiritually - and it is not talking about bondage, then i really don't think that wherever you are trying to take this thread is a place i need to go.
I think it is important to remember that Jesus deliberately misquoted Isaiah when He spoke in the temple in Matthew.... Remember, He left out "the day of vengeance?"
And He also misquoted Scripture again when he described the Greatest Commandment. It that case, He added a few words... "with all your mind."
I firmly believe He made both those misquote on purpose, to show us not to follow violence, and to THINK, instead of just by rote, following Scripture.
We need to be a little less hung up on words.... so much so that we sometimes will miss the entire point of a passage. I'm surprised God doesn't give some of us an NCIS head slap.
And He also misquoted Scripture again when he described the Greatest Commandment. It that case, He added a few words... "with all your mind."
I firmly believe He made both those misquote on purpose, to show us not to follow violence, and to THINK, instead of just by rote, following Scripture.
We need to be a little less hung up on words.... so much so that we sometimes will miss the entire point of a passage. I'm surprised God doesn't give some of us an NCIS head slap.
Well seeing how Jesus is the WORD, gave the WORD and is the Word that came to be flesh, I don't think I would use the word misquote, but rather that he chose to use the words that he used on purpose and had a reason to leave out and or add to the quote....After all, is was and is his prerogative and he was well within his right to do so..
And yet we will choose some scripture and fight to the death over it.... what if one of those scriptures was one He chose for us to understand better than as it had been for thousands of years...... as it was in just these two cases?Well seeing how Jesus is the WORD, gave the WORD and is the Word that came to be flesh, I don't think I would use the word misquote, but rather that he chose to use the words that he used on purpose and had a reason to leave out and or add to the quote....After all, is was and is his prerogative and he was well within his right to do so..
I look at it like this....Jesus came to seek and save that which had been lost...the days of vengeance would not be here until the end of the age.....he chose to leave that out because the first part of his mission was to do the first part and fulfill the first part of the verse you quoted........I am not saying I disagree with your premise, just that I don't think he misquoted....
First of all Jesus came to preach the gospel to the poor and we all are poor no matter how much money we have, Secondly to take the captivity captive. That means that we must rely on His work and not our own. The second part means that He set free all the OT saints that satan held captive. Yeah I know but read it again and again and pray.
You seem to be getting a little bit hung up on me using the word, "misquoted", as though you think I am saying Jesus made a mistake, or was wrong.
I meant nothing of the kind. I meant that Jesus did not relate those verses as the listeners had learned to understand them meaning. He gave the more accurate rendering. Very similar to all the Sermons on The Mt. comments when He said, "You have heard it said, BUT I say unto you.......... " He was not saying something different, just elaborating and expanding the meaning of things they had limited in scope through their insistence of literally containing the Scriptures to a confined and narrow interpretation.
"Do not steal!" "Well' I didn't "exactly" steal... I just sort of slicked Abe out of that donkey in a manipulated and contrived business deal where I took advantage of him." (So, they could claim they kept the law by adhering to the letter of it, rather than the spirit.) But when Jesus spoke of things, He went past all that, right to the heart of the matter.
D
DesiredHaven
Guest
I dont understand that so much because Isaiah is bearing witness to who this is, and we know it bears witness to Jesus Christ, it reads (and Christ was also reading) saying
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;
This is shown in Luke 4:18 & 21 as fulfilled*** but only in respects to the first part of Isaiah 61:2 which pertains to proclaiming the acceptable year alone
Jesus stops reading from Isaiah in Luke 4:20 closing the book, he hands it back to the minister because this is himself he is reading about (to them), and its This day that this (particular) scripture is fulfilled in your ears.
In otherwords, thats "me" Isaiah is speaking of
But Isaiah 61:2 continues as the prophecy states he is...
Isaiah 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
(((( and )))) the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Proclaiming the days of vengeance is simply fulfilled in Luke 21:22 because the days of vengeance were not going to be discussed until later on (which he did) but he needed to fulfill proclaiming both the acceptable year and the day of vengeance which are two different things and are shown as fulfilled in two different place which is why he left out quoting the later as he is fulfilling the first.
The second part of Isaiah speaks to his proclaiming the day of vengeance was fulfilled here in Luke 21:22
Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance,that all things*** which are written may be fulfilled***.
And so if anyone is wondering what the days of vengeance are they just look there and find Jesus fulfilled Isaiah in proclaiming these for us in Luke,
I dont follow you on your thought there or how it the days of vengeance could mean not to follow violence though.
You lost me there.
Last edited:
I don't understand why you say I hate context, that's the hole point of my argument. Context starts at verse 8.
Amo 9:8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD.
God looked upon the sinful kingdom (Israel) and said I will destroy it from off the face of the earth. The only part of Israel that won't be destroyed is the house of Jacob. The house of Jacob represents saved Jews.
Amo 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
Verse 9 describes how God will destroy Israel and save Jacob. All the nations will sift Israel until all the lumps are removed.
Amo 9:10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.
Verse 10 further describes how God will destroy Israel. All the sinners will die by the sword.
When will the above happen?
Amo 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
It will happen when God raises up the tabernacle of David. When was the tabernacle of David raised up? When Jesus rose from the dead. Israel was in the land when the tabernacle of David was raised up, then in 70 AD God once again brought about the captivity of Israel, this time it was forever. The kingdom was taken from Israel and given to Jesus Christ.
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
He left out the day of vengeance because "the day of vengeance" was not fulfilled that day. That was not fulfilled until AD 70.
D
DesiredHaven
Guest
Hi KJV1611, I dont believe that can be so either my brother because our Lord was (( to proclaim )) the same.
Jesus was to proclaim/preach the acceptable year (the first part of Isaiah 61:2) which contained two proclamations which he was to perform. The first (even the acceptable year) is proclaimed by him in Luke 4:17-21.
The day of vengeance (or the second part of Isaiah 61:2) is proclaimed by him in Luke 21:22 where he states (accordingly) that all he had just preached concerning the specific time (there) are the days of vengeance (which Isaiah had prophesied that he would preach) and so he did.
So the second part of Isaiah was fulfilled by Jesus 17 chapters up further ( in Luke 21:22) where it is written he proclaimed the same days thereof.
This was not left out (at all) but fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Just fulfilled in a divided sort of way, in Luke 4:17-21 (where the first part of the proclamation in Isaiah is) and Luke 21:22 ( where the second part of Isaiah's proclamation is) which he had to fulfill and he did so.