Version Difference Question

[Joshua_Generation]

You're right this is not about replacement theology. This is about bringing about the captivity of Israel. The captivity is brought again when the tabernacle of David is raised up. The tabernacle of David was raised up when Christ rose from the dead... a few years later in AD 70, the captivity of Israel came about again.

If you are suggesting Jerusalem was free when Christ rose again and on it's own before 70AD you need to study more than the KJV BIble. Rome entered into Jerusalem and had control over it starting in 63BC. In 70 AD Titus, the Son of Emperor Vespasian ends the great Jewish revolt that started in 66 AD and destroys Herod's Temple.

Good Lord man, study to show yourself approved with something other than KJ bad translations.

 

[MarcR]

Your definition says the verb can mean either turn back or return.
So which did God do, did he turn back the captivity or did he return the captivity?

If you look at the sense of return in this definition; it means to return to the original state (as if it never happened).

 

[KJV1611]

If you look at the sense of return in this definition; it means to return to the original state (as if it never happened).

What is the sense of return in this definition? I'm going to assume here a little bit and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I assume you believe that Israel is returning to the land that was promised to Abraham and this is why you chose to view the definition as return to no captivity. Is this correct?

 

[just-me]

Where do we find the word of truth?

Genesis 24:27
Genesis 32:10
Genesis 42:16
Exodus 18:21
Exodus 34:6
Deuteronomy 13:14
Deuteronomy 32:4
Joshua 24:14
Judges 9:15
1 Samuel 12:24
1 Samuel 21:5
2 Samuel 2:6

Hundereds of times up to

3 John 1:12

What's the point in your asking that question?










[h=1][/h]

 

[Agricola]

What's the point in your asking that question

The point is that when they talk about the Word of God, they mean the King James Bible, to people like KJV1611 the Word of God is only the King James Bible of 1611. Anything else before it or after it is corrupt and not perfect and therefore written by Satan.

They try to prove this by using verses which this thread is based on to prove the other Bibles are in error and therefore some how pervert by Satan to mean different things.

This is what this thread is about.

 

[just-me]

The point is that when they talk about the Word of God, they mean the King James Bible, to people like KJV1611 the Word of God is only the King James Bible of 1611. Anything else before it or after it is corrupt and not perfect and therefore written by Satan.

They try to prove this by using verses which this thread is based on to prove the other Bibles are in error and therefore some how pervert by Satan to mean different things.

This is what this thread is about.

There are other translations that are not correct in my opinion. I use the KJV because it helps me to search for the truth just because of the way it is written. My wife is partial to the CJB. Other translations are very good. The point I am making is that whatever translation we use should be a book that tells the truth without bypassing any concept that is beneficial to the whole truth. I always have said that if there seems to be a contradiction in what Bible we are reading, then we have it wrong, or else the people that translated it were wrong. God's word is not distorted but man's translations may be a distortion of the truth. Many people were put to death when the KJV was first being written if deemed to not be translated correctly from the Septuagint. The other thing we need to understand is that the Greek translation of the Bible was a dialect that was rarely used by the Greeks at that time. The Septuagint was re-written around 300 AD long before the first translation to English was written about 100 years before the KJV. King James was no saint either. But I do read the KJV more than any other Bible. I have determined that the NIV is a bad translation yet the NAS is a good one.

 

[KJV1611]

Genesis 24:27
Genesis 32:10
Genesis 42:16
Exodus 18:21
Exodus 34:6
Deuteronomy 13:14
Deuteronomy 32:4
Joshua 24:14
Judges 9:15
1 Samuel 12:24
1 Samuel 21:5
2 Samuel 2:6

Hundereds of times up to

3 John 1:12

What's the point in your asking that question?

I'm talking about this verse:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God - What do we study?
Rightly dividing the word of truth - What is the word of truth that we're to rightly divide?

 

[KJV1611]

The point is that when they talk about the Word of God, they mean the King James Bible, to people like KJV1611 the Word of God is only the King James Bible of 1611. Anything else before it or after it is corrupt and not perfect and therefore written by Satan.

They try to prove this by using verses which this thread is based on to prove the other Bibles are in error and therefore some how pervert by Satan to mean different things.

This is what this thread is about.

Other people try to make this thread a KJV only debate, not me. I am automatically hated because I believe God actually gave me a pure bible to read.

I asked a very simple question... I asked why one version says exactly the opposite of the other. So far nobody even sees a difference between the two versions. I was expecting to get responses like MarcR gave showing why the Hebrew words should be translated one way over another.

 

[just-me]

I'm talking about this verse:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God - What do we study?
Rightly dividing the word of truth - What is the word of truth that we're to rightly divide?

Study is more than reading the Bible as we know today. After all Timothy's written word was only the Old Testament as we know and probably more than we have. Study also means to study situations, involving other people, with the study of God's creation and how to prosper within His creation. There is also a scripture that says to mark those that cause divisions among you and keep no company with them. (My signature) This means that studying all things, in relation to the word of God, needs to be in all that we do. We are created, and literally everything that has been done, and is being done by our Lord, needs to be studied. Therefore, nothing can be exempt no matter where we are living and what situations we are involved with. Without considering all things the word of truth can be hidden according to this limited vision. I'll never stop working on that until I'm dead.

 

[KJV1611]

Study is more than reading the Bible as we know today. After all Timothy's written word was only the Old Testament as we know and probably more than we have. Study also means to study situations, involving other people, with the study of God's creation and how to prosper within His creation. There is also a scripture that says to mark those that cause divisions among you and keep no company with them. (My signature) This means that studying all things, in relation to the word of God, needs to be in all that we do. We are created, and literally everything that has been done, and is being done by our Lord, needs to be studied. Therefore, nothing can be exempt no matter where we are living and what situations we are involved with. Without considering all things the word of truth can be hidden according to this limited vision. I'll never stop working on that until I'm dead.

That's a different take on the meaning of that verse. I've always thought it meant to study the bible.

 

[Willie-T]

That's a different take on the meaning of that verse. I've always thought it meant to study the bible.

We're told to consider the ant, to heed the weather, to understand the seasons, to see the way of a man with a woman, and dozens of other things that we learn from creation all around us.

 

[Agricola]

Translations are just that, translations, there is no perfect translation, but with all the attempts to translate we can compare, the difference are often insignificant, Gods word has been persevered and continues to be over the thousands of years, from people copying and passing it down regardless of translation.

 

[Agricola]

Other people try to make this thread a KJV only debate, not me. I am automatically hated because I believe God actually gave me a pure bible to read.

I asked a very simple question... I asked why one version says exactly the opposite of the other. So far nobody even sees a difference between the two versions. I was expecting to get responses like MarcR gave showing why the Hebrew words should be translated one way over another.

It is not saying the oposite, it is the same, that is what we are trying to tell you. Captivity is living under the rule and authority of another, so the Jews are returning to live under the rule of God, the NIV says this as well, but uses more simpler language, that they are returning from Exile, which is the same thing. I am not turning this into a KJV only, you are doing that by making a mountain over a molehill.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You're right this is not about replacement theology. This is about bringing about the captivity of Israel. The captivity is brought again when the tabernacle of David is raised up. The tabernacle of David was raised up when Christ rose from the dead... a few years later in AD 70, the captivity of Israel came about again.

Thats replacement theology, And has nothing to do with the problem with the KJV in that passage which does not even support the context of that verse, or the next verse.

again, lets stick to topic

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Other people try to make this thread a KJV only debate, not me. I am automatically hated because I believe God actually gave me a pure bible to read.

I asked a very simple question... I asked why one version says exactly the opposite of the other. So far nobody even sees a difference between the two versions. I was expecting to get responses like MarcR gave showing why the Hebrew words should be translated one way over another.

You made it a KJV topic.

Stick to the topic

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

You're right this is not about replacement theology. This is about bringing about the captivity of Israel. The captivity is brought again when the tabernacle of David is raised up. The tabernacle of David was raised up when Christ rose from the dead... a few years later in AD 70, the captivity of Israel came about again.

Thats replacement theology, And has nothing to do with the problem with the KJV in that passage which does not even support the context of that verse, or the next verse.

again, lets stick to topic

Looks to me like he's trying to use the bad translation of the KJV to justify his illogical replacement theology tenets. Epic fail all the way around.

 

[KJV1611]

Looks to me like he's trying to use the bad translation of the KJV to justify his illogical replacement theology tenets. Epic fail all the way around.

I've been wanting ask this for a long time man... what is a Viligant Warrior?

 

[posthuman]

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.

i'm a little hung up on the word "misquote" too, but i think i understand well what you are getting at.
i hadn't ever really thought about how in the gospels His quoting of the shema includes "with all your mind" before (!) -- i was looking into that and found this interesting bit of discussion here:

http://christianthinktank.com/lovemindsoul.html

^ what's said on that page indicates that the difference between what's recorded there (in Greek) and the Hebrew of Deuteronomy may just be an artifact of cross-translation. this seems correct to me

as far as the passage from Isaiah goes, however we slice it, am sure the important thing to consider was that He had not come in wrath in vengeance - not yet - and that He had not yet taken up the cross. the parts that He read (and there's a whole pot full of things to say about whether He was reading from the Septuigant or Masoretic or something else that we don't have today) were certainly fulfilled in Him, just as He said, and what He refrained from reading, are all certainly to come or were also fulfilled in His atonement and resurrection.

"misquote" has bad connotations. He wasn't "picking and choosing" like we do, and like we accuse each other of doing. like you say, Willie, He was opening up the scriptures to our understanding.

 

[posthuman]

I've been wanting ask this for a long time man... what is a Viligant Warrior?

one who doesn't fall asleep at his post!

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour
(1 Peter 5:8) ​

 

[posthuman]

No the KJV didn't get it wrong, you guys change the meaning of words to make it fit your beliefs. All of Amos 9 is about the first coming of Christ and Israel being banished from the land permanently.

.. except for the part about them being planted in the land He has given them, and never uprooted.. ? (verse 15)

i'm sorry i said you seem to "hate context" -- that was harsh and out of line. it's just that there is a definite change of tone in verses 11-15 of Amos 9 (i.e. the immediate context of verse 14), and it speaking instead of coming exile about restoration. it is the same in other prophesy about captivity - for example Jeremiah 30 exists, after many chapters foretelling captivity. in Jeremiah 25 (and other places) it's specifically spelled out that the captivity will only be for a season. just one of many examples in that book -

‘They will be taken to Babylon and there they will remain until the day I come for them,’
declares the Lord.
‘Then I will bring them back and restore them to this place.’
(Jeremiah 27:22)
​

so it's not "out of thin air" that a person reading Amos sees that the Lord's chastisement is not to abide forever on Israel.