Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Luke 4:16-21 COMPARED TO Isaiah 61:1-3

16 posts in this topic

Posted

A MVist mentioned this passage. He tried to prove that even Jesus used different versions when comparing Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 61:1-3. What say ye?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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

Luke 4:18-19 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.

What other version would He have used?... There is no clear proof that the Septuagint (corrupt Greek OT translation) contained the whole OT before the time of Christ - merely the books of Moses. As a matter of fact, many believe that it was Origen himself who translated and corrupted the rest of the OT in his own Greek version, which is the Septuagint we have today.

Seems to me that Jesus just brought a slightly different emphasis out on this passage of Scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Isa 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;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Isa 61:3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.



Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk 4:17 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,
Luk 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,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

********************************

What Jesus was quoting was written in Hebrew, the words we read of Jesus are from Greek, to English, I think therein lies the difference.

God ONLY knows the heart of the Modern Versionist, but it's been said and I believe it, if you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.

I'm nigh unto giving up fighting with 'em, give 'em the truth and let 'em argue with God, it's His fight.

It is so VERY simple, the Modern Versions contradict each other, and the King James Bible, the Holy Spirit of God DOES NOT author contradictions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I say Bible relativist need to quit using the POST-Christian LXX to determine what is correct in the KJB.


What are they going to do with the FACT that the Lord Jesus Christ ADDED to Deuteronomy 24:1 in Matthew 5:32???


The author of anything written has the right to change their work WHENEVER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Jesus Christ in being the very Word of God in the flesh, could and did ADD to the existing written Word of God. it is what He came to do. So He was in no way quoting different versions or by example accepting the rewrites of today. He clarified or expounded the Old and delivered the New. No contradictions!

God Bless! :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did Jesus quote the Greek Septuagint?

Luke 4:16-19 compared with Isaiah 61:1-2


Luke 4:16-19

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

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."


Isaiah 61:1-2

"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;

To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; "


Some Bible critics like to tell us that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint version rather than expounding the Hebrew Scriptures. There are several problems with this view. There is no historical proof that there ever was such a thing as a widely accepted, authoritative, pre-Christian Septuagint version that Jesus could have been reading at this time. The Jews still spoke and read the Hebrew language.

Secondly, it was the post Christian Septuagint versions that were written to bring them in line with many New Testament quotes, not the other way around.

Thirdly, if Jesus were quoting the Septuagint, He didn't do a very good job of it, because the LXX version also differs not only from the Hebrew texts, but also from the quote as it is found in the Greek New Testament.

In Luke 4:18 and 19, after "recovering of sight to the blind" the Greek N.T. reads "TO SET AT LIBERTY THEM THAT ARE BRUISED, To PREACH the acceptable year of the Lord." In Greek this is: "aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei, keeruxai eniauton kuriou dekton".

However the Septuagint version reads: "to CALL FOR an acceptable year of the Lord, AND A DAY OF RECOMPENSE, to comfort all that mourn." In Greek this is: "KALESAI eniauton kuriou dekton, KAI HEMERAN ANTAPODOSEOS, parakalesai pantas tous penthountas."

We can clearly see that the "quotes" from the so called Septuagint, do not match what is written in the New Testament. The so called Septuagint completely omits "to set at liberty them that are bruised", changes "to preach" into "to call for", and changes "day of VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD" to "and a day of recompense " This is hardly what is recorded in the gospel of Luke chapter four, nor does it match the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61.

In addition to this, the words found in Luke 4:18 "TO HEAL THE BROKEN-HEARTED" are missing from versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, but are found in both the KJB and the Septuagint version. Those who insist on the use of the LXX have departed from it in this verse more so than the KJB.

The words "to heal the broken-hearted" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and many uncial copies including Alexandrinus of the 5th century. The reading is also found in many ancient versions such as the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Georgian, Slavonic, and some Coptic Boharic manuscripts. It is also quoted by early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hipplytus, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hillary.

However the usual suspects of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these precious words from Holy Writ, and so the NASB, NIV and ESV also omit them.

Any man or author is able to freely quote HIMSELF if he
wants to. But no one has the right to freely quote another and put words into his mouth; this is bearing false witness. God can freely-quote or explain further what He means if He wants to, but we do not have the right to change His words.


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 a non existent Septuagint version.

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."


From Alfred Edersheim, a converted Rabbinic scholar in the 19th century-

"When unrolling, and holding the scroll, much more than the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah must have been within range of His eyes. On the other hand, it is quite certain that the verses quoted by the Evangelist could not have formed the Haphtarah. [Edersheim explains earlier that the Haphtarah is a normal range of verses employed according to Jewish custom]. According to traditional rule (Massech. Soph. 12.7), the Haphtarah ordinarily consisted of not less than twenty-one verses, though, if the passage was to be "targumed" [Edersheim explains this means "expounded" by the preacher, also a well-known Jewish custom], or a sermon to follow, that number might be shortened to seven, five, or even three verses. Now the passage quoted by St. Luke consists really of only one verse..." Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, 1.453.

Jesus either added a verse from another section of Isaiah (examples above) in order to make sure that the minimum range of scripture was covered according to Jewish custom, or He merely "targumed" the passage, which, as Edersheim shows, was a common practice.

Luke stated that Jesus FOUND the PLACE where it was written. He did NOT say that Jesus QUOTED directly from the scroll, or that Jesus explicitly READ the scroll VERBATIM.

The Lord Jesus is merely explaining in further detail the sense of the passage as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, just like any good Jewish teacher would do for the sake of the congregation. He is not quoting from a non existent Greek Septuagint version.

This is another example of where the so-called LXX was translated by later Christian scribes in an effort to bring it more into conformity to the New Testament references.

There are many such examples in the gospels where God or Christ Himself refers to passages in the Old Testament and give us an explanation of the sense of the passage, rather than a literal quote.

For example, in Matthew 12:17-21 we read: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

The "quote" in Isaiah 42:1-4 is a quite different, but we can see the same general sense and expanded meaning given to us in Matthew's gospel.

Isaiah 42:1-2 says: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

Yet if we were to compare the Septuagint reading, we find that it gives a very different meaning than the one found in either the New Testament or the Hebrew text of Isaiah 42.

In the LXX version we read: "Jacob is my servant, I will help him. Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; ...nor shall his voice be heard without....He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged..."

It should be obvious that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is not quoting some LXX version. Rather, he is restating the same truths found in the Hebrew text by placing the same ideas in different terms. God has the right to do this, because He is refering to what He Himself has inspired. We, on the other hand, do not have the right to alter God's words or thoughts.

Will Kinney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why fight common sense. If it's not the same it's different. Right?
Jesus may not have used the LXX, but it sure wasn't the same as in the KJV. The KJV says he read.
Now someone said,"What Jesus was quoting was written in Hebrew, the words we read of Jesus are from Greek, to English, I think therein lies the difference. "

Following that logic is to say there is a error in Luke.
And we know that can't be.
Would someone care to show me how reading from Hebrew, into Greek, and then being translated into English, how someone can lose words or add words that are not needed for the translation process.

If the KJV is absolutely perfect then which is in error. Is. or Luke.
Remeber KJVos say "things that are different, can't be the same"
Or is this another double-standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"but it's been said and I believe it, if you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind. "

And Romans 1 says that those that worship the creature more than the Creator will be turned over to a reprobate mind.

Worship God, not a 400 year old book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Go home, Tiny!!

If you are not here for fellowship - which means you don't come here to tear down our beliefs - then go find another message board. We don't need your scorn or ridicule.

By the way, we don't worship a book, we worship the God who inspired the Bible and has promised to preserve it forever. What or who do you worship? Modern critical scholars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Go home, Tiny!!
:rollover:

The BB is home to him, he's one of their 'favorite sons' :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh you guys.. I really feel the Godly love for a brother that just happens to disagree with you on a few issues.

Do I believe in the inspiration of the Bible? Yes
Do I believe that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of doctrine? Yes
Do I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? Yes
do I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man? Yes
Do I believe that Jesus lived a sinless life? Yes
Do I believe that Jesus died an atoning death? Yes
Do I believe that my sins put him on the cross? Yes
Do I believe He rose again after 3 days (physically)? Yes
Do I believe He is coming again to rapture his church out? Yes
Do I believe you should warn others of thier sin and give them the truth? Yes
Do I believe that you should separate yourself from sin? Yes

Now, what part do we disagree on?
I simply refuse to believe that it took God 1611 years to "get it right". I also can't find anywhere in the Bible that we should only count any version, from any age, as the only word of God. And since I believe that all doctrines must be scriptually supported, I have to throw that doctrine out.
Nor do I believe it is ethically honest to say you use a 1611, but then use an actual 1762 or 1769.
I don't believe the 1611 is more correct than the original autographs.
I don't believe it is alright to cover up the fact that the KJV has changed since 1611, and any change, even printing is considered a revision, not just an edition.



Yes, I do post at Baptistboard a lot, but you all are my second favorite.
Sorry, you don't like my fellowship. I do like to ask questions about beliefs, and I also am very vocal about mine. I learn a lot that way. But I guess you would rather "just love and get along" than actually discuss something that is tearing our churches apart.

We are going to be in Heaven someday together and as much as you dislike me now, you will love me then. I was raised IFB. but never KJVO. You do realize you can be IFB and not be KJVO, don't you? You can be a Christian and not be KJVO. You can be a fundamental and not be KJVO. (look at what I believe in above, it covers the fundamentals) You can be a Baptist and not be KJVO.

KJVO is not another denomination, but I'm sure that in 20 years from now, if the Lord tarries, it can certainly be another one under the Baptist umbrella. Why, I've even seen pentecostal, methodist, and Church of Christ that are KJVO.

I have seen this issue destroy one church last year, and another is about to go under. You all blame the MVs, I blame the KJVO.
The church that split had always used a KJV. and for over 10 years they hadn't seen a baptism.
The Youth started bringing in other youth that got saved and started using other versions. This upset the pastor. The church split and another church was formed. The new church is seeing souls saved left and right, while the old church is still filled with the same old people as before, and are now KJVO. The Old church hasn't seen a baptism since the split. The new church just bought property to expand. The old church is just holding the dead until they graduate and thier bodies can be planted in a grave yard, while the new church is busting at it's seams with new life.
Now I've seen it said that you can tell by the fruit of something.
If so, then what about this example?

I think I will go home for tonight. And I love you all too!!! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As Will said in the other post, the eyes of the Bible critics are BLIND!

You THINK we disagree over a FEW issues, the FACT is, and you can't see it, is that those FEW issues call God a liar!

Yes tiny it's true, the MV's call God a liar, but again YOU can't see it.

God inspired His Word, and ANY contradiction, omission, or addition, or change is a LIE of men!

And we are commanded to point out error, and the MV's are HUMONGOUS errors.

And you said we worship a Book, read this...

(excerpt)
Whom we worship, His Word we accept. Whom we reject, his word we deny. Those who accuse us of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"God inspired His Word, and ANY contradiction, omission, or addition, or change is a LIE of men!"

Or an honest mistake. There is no differences between scribal errors before the printing press and printer errors after. Will is quick to point out that any change between a 1611 and a 1769 is a printer error. Now are you sure you want to stick with your above quote?

And where do you think the inspiration of his Word? On the autographs only? (I know your answer), On the KJV only, or on all manuscripts that led to the KJV?

If you include all the MSs that led to the KJV as inspired, then how do you account for the fact that no two have the exact same wording even in the Greek and Hebrew 100% of the text?

Remember you said, "God inspired His Word, and ANY contradiction, omission, or addition, or change is a LIE of men!"

I assume you would consider any MS that has an error to not be inspired? Right? Then what standard do you use to decide, or what standard should a translator use to decide what are errors and what are not? If you say the text behind the KJV. How can you prove the translators actually were correct 100% of the time.

There are two main thoughts, of course.
1 older is better
2 more is better

Even the majority texts don't agree with the TR 100% of the time.
Just look at the last book of rev. The maj. has "tree" the TR has "book"

I really am interested in your opinions and beliefs.
Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The front of the King James Bible says this:

[quote]
Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's special command.
[/quote]

This means they didn't just use the Greek and Hebrew to make their translations from, they also used all the other TR-based translations that were at their disposal. So there may have been only so many Greek scrolls that had 1 John 5:7, but the Spanish Bible had that verse, and the Old Latin Vulgate (not Jerome's) had it, and Luther's Bible had it, etc. (Using an example here - I am not sure of the manuscript evidence regarding this specific verse.)

I do know that a first or second century translation into other languages bore a lot of weight for proving certain verses. Burgon makes reference to this principle of referring also to lectionaries, and other translations to prove the authenticity of certain verses. There might be a certain Greek manuscript that had a contrary reading - but all the previous TR-based translations have it a certain way and the majority of the extant manuscripts have it a certain way - so the translators knew that that specific manuscript (with the contrary reading) wasn't trustworthy in regards to that reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

tiny,

If you want answers, (which of course you DON'T), Go Here,
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html


If you want endless debate find someone else to play games with.

of oldest & best...


The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts-
Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.

In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.

Matthew 6:13 What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and the NIV omits them while the NASB puts them in brackets. Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites