Acts 8:32. Proof postive the KJV has horrible errors.

[christundivided]

We had a pretty lengthy discussion of this verse one time on the old forum. Since we have several rabid KJVOist on the forum recently.... I'd thought it was worth engaging them again.

First Acts 8:32 is more than just an issue with the KJV. It actually a core example in the debate between the Old Greek and the rather modern MT of the OT. Below are the verses as rendered in the "modern" KJV.

Isaiah 53:7  he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Act 8:32  He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

First thing you will notice is lamb and sheep are reversed. Now, lets state the obvious. All lambs are sheep but not all sheep are lambs. I can tell you....IF.... I made a mistake like this in talk of "sheep".... our resident "KJV" advocates would be all over me. Maybe its a printer error that just hasn't been corrected????

What a horrible mistake in the KJV. Terrible. If a modern version was to reverse two statements in quoting a source text, then it wouldn't be worth the paper its written on. Yet, the KJV does just that. What a nonsensical double standard.

Second you will notice a gender change. Do you see it? Acts 8:32 talks of "his" and not a "her"....... "sheep/lamb".

Now pardon me if I can't help but notice the difference between a male sheep/lamb and a female "sheep/lamb". In fact, I'd say its pretty obvious. What a horrible mistake. Terrible. They can't even remember what sex they are working with....

Thirdly, In Avery style, I like to be a little sarcastic and point out the difference between "opened he" and "he opened". Its obvious that the two words are reversed. Its got to mean something. Some special revelation that's only revealed to the truly sincere preserved Bible supporter. If its not some "special revelation"..... then its obviously a mistake. Its not the same.

Come on you KJV supporters. What say you?

 

[Tim]

We had a pretty lengthy discussion of this verse one time on the old forum. Since we have several rabid KJVOist on the forum recently.... I'd thought it was worth engaging them again.

First Acts 8:32 is more than just an issue with the KJV. It actually a core example in the debate between the Old Greek and the rather modern MT of the OT. Below are the verses as rendered in the "modern" KJV.

Isaiah 53:7  he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Act 8:32  He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

First thing you will notice is lamb and sheep are reversed. Now, lets state the obvious. All lambs are sheep but not all sheep are lambs. I can tell you....IF.... I made a mistake like this in talk of "sheep".... our resident "KJV" advocates would be all over me. Maybe its a printer error that just hasn't been corrected????

What a horrible mistake in the KJV. Terrible. If a modern version was to reverse two statements in quoting a source text, then it wouldn't be worth the paper its written on. Yet, the KJV does just that. What a nonsensical double standard.

Second you will notice a gender change. Do you see it? Acts 8:32 talks of "his" and not a "her"....... "sheep/lamb".

Now pardon me if I can't help but notice the difference between a male sheep/lamb and a female "sheep/lamb". In fact, I'd say its pretty obvious. What a horrible mistake. Terrible. They can't even remember what sex they are working with....

Thirdly, In Avery style, I like to be a little sarcastic and point out the difference between "opened he" and "he opened". Its obvious that the two words are reversed. Its got to mean something. Some special revelation that's only revealed to the truly sincere preserved Bible supporter. If its not some "special revelation"..... then its obviously a mistake. Its not the same.

Come on you KJV supporters. What say you?

I'm not a KJV supporter today. Maybe tomorrow I will be, but not today. Tomorrow I might just Google some random words, cut and paste some thoughts from another man (or woman), and try and look smart. But, that would be tomorrow and not today.

 

[christundivided]

Bump

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I've always wondered that if any version is 'word perfect', why is it that when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, many (most?) times it is not word-for-word (as you aptly address in the OP)?

 

[christundivided]

I've always wondered that if any version is 'word perfect', why is it that when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, many (most?) times it is not word-for-word (as you aptly address in the OP)?

Generally speaking. Most translation follow a rather late collection of Hebrew texts called the Masoretic Text or MT. The earliest extant copies only dating to the 9th century. Many/most quotes of the OT are actually direct quotes from the Old Greek texts or the LXX/Septuagint. Many/most are unmistakeable. The Old Greek text of the OT was priceless in the work of the early church. When millions of Gentiles embrace the Gospel of Christ, they did so at the words of a "Greek" translation of the Scriptures. It wasn't until Jerome embraced some surviving Hebrew OT manuscripts..... that the Greek OT began to decline in use. Many Eastern Orthodox church still use it.

I really do wish that more Bible students would once again, embrace the Greek OT. There are obvious issues with the LXX that can't be ignored. However, the MT has issues of its own. Even the KJV translators used Old Greek renderings as the source of their work. The very English names of the various books of the Bible we quote most everyday..... come from Greek to English translations. Not Hebrew.

 

[Mitex]

I've always wondered that if any version is 'word perfect', why is it that when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, many (most?) times it is not word-for-word (as you aptly address in the OP)?

Now you've gone and burnt the anti-KJVO's, critic's and skeptic's of our English Scriptures textual critical fingers with your remark Smellin Coffee! The basic premise of anti-KJVO and such like is this:

A copy, translation or version can ONLY truly be identified as Scripture if it is "word perfect" (Microsoft word won't do), "a jot and tittle match", etc. of the original" They don't really mean the original (autograph) they mean recently compiled original language manuscripts of their choosing. Yet, all Scriptures in any generation or language clearly show us that this is not true as you so ably pointed out. The New Testament quotes are indeed Scripture even though they are "DIFFERENT" than the original! The first Gospel (take your pick, Matthew, Mark or Luke, probably not John) is DIFFERENT than the last Gospel, probably John. The writers of the New Testament didn't follow the original with the exactness that critics and skeptics require of our extant Scriptures. Nor did the last Gospel follow the original Gospel with the exactness that critics and skeptics require of our extant English Scriptures. Yet, they are indeed the Scriptures! Matching the original is NOT the criteria for recognizing the Scriptures. This puts a whopping hole in the art form called Textual Criticism. The critics will howl to the moon because who wants to give up art class?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mitex]The New Testament quotes are indeed Scripture even though they are "DIFFERENT" than the original! The first Gospel (take your pick, Matthew, Mark or Luke, probably not John) is DIFFERENT than the last Gospel, probably John. The writers of the New Testament didn't follow the original with the exactness that critics and skeptics require of our extant Scriptures. Nor did the last Gospel follow the original Gospel with the exactness that critics and skeptics require of our extant English Scriptures. Yet, they are indeed the Scriptures! Matching the original is NOT the criteria for recognizing the Scriptures.[/quote]

Earlier:

If I tell my kids the story of the three little pigs and one night, the second pig builds his house out of sticks and another night this pig builds his house out of branches, have I changed the story at all?

Now again, if one night I decide the pig is going to build his house out of crushed S-10s he picked up from the scrap yard, is the story different?

One of these is actually different. The other, not so much. I'll assume you can figure out which is which.

 

[christundivided]

I've always wondered that if any version is 'word perfect', why is it that when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, many (most?) times it is not word-for-word (as you aptly address in the OP)?

Now you've gone and burnt the anti-KJVO's, critic's and skeptic's of our English Scriptures textual critical fingers with your remark Smellin Coffee! The basic premise of anti-KJVO and such like is this:

A copy, translation or version can ONLY truly be identified as Scripture if it is "word perfect" (Microsoft word won't do), "a jot and tittle match", etc. of the original" They don't really mean the original (autograph) they mean recently compiled original language manuscripts of their choosing. Yet, all Scriptures in any generation or language clearly show us that this is not true as you so ably pointed out. The New Testament quotes are indeed Scripture even though they are "DIFFERENT" than the original! The first Gospel (take your pick, Matthew, Mark or Luke, probably not John) is DIFFERENT than the last Gospel, probably John. The writers of the New Testament didn't follow the original with the exactness that critics and skeptics require of our extant Scriptures. Nor did the last Gospel follow the original Gospel with the exactness that critics and skeptics require of our extant English Scriptures. Yet, they are indeed the Scriptures! Matching the original is NOT the criteria for recognizing the Scriptures. This puts a whopping hole in the art form called Textual Criticism. The critics will howl to the moon because who wants to give up art class?

Mitex..... Why oh why do you say such things. I can prove to you that the source of Acts 8:37 is found word for word in the Old Greek text. Why would you then reject such proof and replace it with the idea of "something being different is actually the same"?

By the way. SM isn't taking your position. I'm pretty sure, you doing it again.... You're only seeing what you want to see.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Mitex]The New Testament quotes are indeed Scripture even though they are "DIFFERENT" than the original! The first Gospel (take your pick, Matthew, Mark or Luke, probably not John) is DIFFERENT than the last Gospel, probably John. The writers of the New Testament didn't follow the original with the exactness that critics and skeptics require of our extant Scriptures. Nor did the last Gospel follow the original Gospel with the exactness that critics and skeptics require of our extant English Scriptures. Yet, they are indeed the Scriptures! Matching the original is NOT the criteria for recognizing the Scriptures.

Earlier:

If I tell my kids the story of the three little pigs and one night, the second pig builds his house out of sticks and another night this pig builds his house out of branches, have I changed the story at all?

Now again, if one night I decide the pig is going to build his house out of crushed S-10s he picked up from the scrap yard, is the story different?

One of these is actually different. The other, not so much. I'll assume you can figure out which is which.
[/quote]

I'd say changing from male to female is rather large change. I'm certain Mitex knows about "the birds and the bees".....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

By the way. SM isn't taking your position. I'm pretty sure, you doing it again.... You're only seeing what you want to see.

Correct. I was NOT taking Mitex's position. I thought he was being sarcastic with the "burn 'em" comment.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm not KJVO but this seems like a very weak argument.
Almost every NT "quote" of OT scripture changes some words. (I think because the two testaments were written in different languages)
In the verse in question the metaphor has the exact same meaning in both cases.

 

[Ransom]

Almost every NT "quote" of OT scripture changes some words. (I think because the two testaments were written in different languages)

That would account for some variation in wording, but the main reason they are different is because, as a general rule, the New Testament writers cited the Old Testament from the Septuagint (LXX) rather than Hebrew.

Sometimes the LXX is so different as to be unrecognizable, because it is apparently a translation from a textual variant. Case in point: Heb. 1:6. It quotes Psa. 97:7, but you'd never know it by comparing it to the Psalms in the same Bible. The phrase the LXX translates is found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but not in the Masoretic text.

 

[christundivided]

I'm not KJVO but this seems like a very weak argument.
Almost every NT "quote" of OT scripture changes some words. (I think because the two testaments were written in different languages)
In the verse in question the metaphor has the exact same meaning in both cases.

Weak argument? The KJVOist demands a word for word representation of the Scripture and then ignores their own choice doesn't do the same? That's not weak at all.

What metaphor are you referencing?

Don't you think a gender change is important? No matter how you slice it, a "her" will never be a "her"....... Can we just say that the KJV cares nothing about the "sex" of an individual? If it replaces "he" with "her" then we've got a problem. A big problem.

 

[prophet]

I'm not KJVO but this seems like a very weak argument.
Almost every NT "quote" of OT scripture changes some words. (I think because the two testaments were written in different languages)
In the verse in question the metaphor has the exact same meaning in both cases.

Weak argument? The KJVOist demands a word for word representation of the Scripture and then ignores their own choice doesn't do the same? That's not weak at all.

What metaphor are you referencing?

Don't you think a gender change is important? No matter how you slice it, a "her" will never be a "her"....... Can we just say that the KJV cares nothing about the "sex" of an individual? If it replaces "he" with "her" then we've got a problem. A big problem.

A lot of ignorant KJWB think that their Nelson 2013 Bible is the same as the 1611, and that it is a word-for-word translation.  But the scholars I read 20 years ago taught the impossibility of word for word translation, in most cases.  The RSV/ NASB were the ones claiming that, and they were replaced because they didnt often read well in English.
Now that i have studied several languages that aren't Latin or Germanic based, i see the ridiculousness of that kind of translation.  I still don't know of anyone who is taken seriously, who believes that the Bible in any language is a word for word derivative of the parent language.

Anishinaabe

 

[christundivided]

I'm not KJVO but this seems like a very weak argument.
Almost every NT "quote" of OT scripture changes some words. (I think because the two testaments were written in different languages)
In the verse in question the metaphor has the exact same meaning in both cases.

Weak argument? The KJVOist demands a word for word representation of the Scripture and then ignores their own choice doesn't do the same? That's not weak at all.

What metaphor are you referencing?

Don't you think a gender change is important? No matter how you slice it, a "her" will never be a "her"....... Can we just say that the KJV cares nothing about the "sex" of an individual? If it replaces "he" with "her" then we've got a problem. A big problem.

A lot of ignorant KJWB think that their Nelson 2013 Bible is the same as the 1611, and that it is a word-for-word translation.  But the scholars I read 20 years ago taught the impossibility of word for word translation, in most cases.  The RSV/ NASB were the ones claiming that, and they were replaced because they didnt often read well in English.
Now that i have studied several languages that aren't Latin or Germanic based, i see the ridiculousness of that kind of translation.  I still don't know of anyone who is taken seriously, who believes that the Bible in any language is a word for word derivative of the parent language.

Anishinaabe

You know..... you're purposely ignoring the issue. i know you are and you're being a dishonest liar by claiming this is a none issue due to the difficulty of doing a word for word translation. I have mentioned this twice now.....and here goes again. The verses referenced have a clear gender change.

No matter what you say. You can not explain the change from HIM to HER. Do you get it? Difficulties in creating a word for word translation DO NOT include problems with identifying clear gender lines. Are you really talking that silly position. There are clearly variant Hebrew texts that produced the textual stream of the LXX and the MT. They do not agree and they are not the same.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm not KJVO but this seems like a very weak argument.
Almost every NT "quote" of OT scripture changes some words. (I think because the two testaments were written in different languages)
In the verse in question the metaphor has the exact same meaning in both cases.

Weak argument? The KJVOist demands a word for word representation of the Scripture and then ignores their own choice doesn't do the same? That's not weak at all.

What metaphor are you referencing?

Don't you think a gender change is important? No matter how you slice it, a "her" will never be a "her"....... Can we just say that the KJV cares nothing about the "sex" of an individual? If it replaces "he" with "her" then we've got a problem. A big problem.

But your argument seems to be, "When quoting the OT the NT text is not identical." To which most KJVOs (and almost all Bible scholars) will say "Of course, because mainly the NT writers were citing the Septuagint."

I say the argument is weak because even most (if not all) modern versions have different wording in the NT and OT not just the KJV.

Also, in the verse in question the gender change is probably not important since I assume both male and female sheep are silent before shearing. (Maybe you know otherwise and that's why you brought it up?)

 

[christundivided]

But your argument seems to be, "When quoting the OT the NT text is not identical." To which most KJVOs (and almost all Bible scholars) will say "Of course, because mainly the NT writers were citing the Septuagint."

I say the argument is weak because even most (if not all) modern versions have different wording in the NT and OT not just the KJV.

Also, in the verse in question the gender change is probably not important since I assume both male and female sheep are silent before shearing. (Maybe you know otherwise and that's why you brought it up?)

First, I've been a student of the Old Greek OT for many years. Have you?

The modern translations that follow the MT certainly have their issues when quoting the OT in the New. There are a few translations that follow the LXX in many areas. Either way.... this doesn't change the facts of what I've written. Many/Most KJVOists make the argument for a word for word accurate translation of God's Word. The KJV translators THEMSELVES considered the LXX and even used the LXX. So, you have a choice being made in translation. A choice the KJVOist ignores. IF the translator had chosen to follow the LXX in Isaiah 53, then it would match perfectly.

Yet, somehow, you ignore this fact with the same old tried and debunked pattern of justifying bad choices by pointing at other bad choices.

I know you would love to discount the gender change as being negligible in Acts 8:32.... but you're wrong. Maybe you want to study it yourself? Do you even care to know?

I would be glad to discuss the differences between the LXX and the MT and how it affects the understanding of the NT. Yet, I am not going to waste my time going into an in-depth discussion with someone that justifies bad choices by pointing at other bad choices. There has been a mistake made for many centuries by Bible Translators preferring to use the MT over the LXX or even old variant Hebrew texts that predate the MT manuscripts.

Lastly.... please don't insult my intelligence by saying a change in gender doesn't really change anything. Such nonsense is the cornerstone of modern liberal theologies that embrace gender neutral teachings. Homosexuals for Christ have long discounted gender identity over such passages as Acts 8:32. Maybe one day you might stop and consider how dangerous it is to discount obvious changes in the texts of the Scriptures.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm not a shepherd and have never shorn sheep. I willingly admit my ignorance in that matter. Can you explain to me the difference between a male sheep and a female sheep about to be shorn?

Also I was not aware that scholars disagree with using the Septuagint quotes in the NT. I'm honestly curious. What translation do you use in which all NT quotes perfectly match the OT?

 

[christundivided]

I'm not a shepherd and have never shorn sheep. I willingly admit my ignorance in that matter. Can you explain to me the difference between a male sheep and a female sheep about to be shorn?

If you don't know the difference between a female and male sheep.... then you're in trouble. If you don't know the difference between a lamb and a sheep. Then you're in trouble. Female sheep are general considered to be more docile than male sheep. Especially during breeding season. You might want to consider such. Also, it might be worth while study the use of "ewe" in the OT. Both in Hebrew and Greek. Now there are a few more difference but I will not bore you with them. I question whether you're being honest with me or not.

Also I was not aware that scholars disagree with using the Septuagint quotes in the NT. I'm honestly curious. What translation do you use in which all NT quotes perfectly match the OT?

If you're really not aware of this..... then you've obviously not spent much time in studying the issue. For the record, I never said every quote. Those are your words and I'm pretty sure you're being dishonest in trying to change what I said. The vast majority are taken from the Old Greek texts and pretty much match perfectly. Now there are situation this not true. Generally speaking.... The Paulian manuscripts are right down the line in quoting the Old Greek texts. Its certainly in the character for the audience of the apostle to the "Gentiles". You might want to pay attention to that word "Gentile". Now there are quotes used by different authors that have a primary audience of Jewish believers. Those writings have references that depart from the LXX and don't match any known Hebrew manuscript.

Either way. I am not demanding a word for word reproduction.... but its nice when it happens and I don't think you can say that it isn't. The KJVOist willingly ignore their preference when it doesn't go their way.

Again. Why are you trying to say that a gender switch isn't a problem?

 

[bgwilkinson]

I'm not a shepherd and have never shorn sheep. I willingly admit my ignorance in that matter. Can you explain to me the difference between a male sheep and a female sheep about to be shorn?

Also I was not aware that scholars disagree with using the Septuagint quotes in the NT. I'm honestly curious. What translation do you use in which all NT quotes perfectly match the OT?

First here is a commentary edited by D. A. Carson that addresses all of the OT quotes in the NT.
It attempts to determine what the text was that was quoted.
I have found this commentary to be very helpful in understanding the sources of the quotes.
I highly recommend it.



Link to Sample of D A Carson's commentary. The front matter and part of the book of Acts.
http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/Excerpt_BealeCarson_OTComm.pdf


Link to Amazon and D A Carson's commentary. This is where I bought mine.
http://www.amazon.com/Commentary-New-Testament-Use-Old/dp/0801026938/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1389921483&sr=8-1


Here is a Bible I use that uses the LXX as the source text for the OT translation.
I believe it is the only English study Bible that uses the LXX instead of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.


Link Orthodox Study Bible on Amazon. This is where I bought mine.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Study-Bible-Christianity/dp/0718019083/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in


Link to Orthodox Study Bible web page. Here is info on the translation, translators and their methods.
http://orthodoxstudybible.com/

For example the phrase “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” in Hebrews 1:6 cannot be found in a Masoretic Text based OT.
It is found in the LXX Duet 32:43.
Many Bibles have a margin note at Heb 1:6 that reads “Duet 32:43 LXX”

Most NT writers tend to quote from the LXX as it was the Standard OT of Jesus and his disciples.

This all changed for the Western Church when Jerome went to live with a Jewish family in Jerusalem and with the help of the Jews used a Hebrew text differing from the Masoretic text from which to translate his new Latin version known as the Latin Vulgate.

Augustine disagreed with Jerome on his selection of the Hebrew in stead of the LXX which had been in continuous use in the Church from the time of Christ.

The Orthodox Church has always used the Greek OT in their Bibles. They did not have any need to have it translated to another langauge. They simply used it as they got it. They copied all their Bibles from the LXX.

This explains in large part where the majority text originated.
The TR critical text is a narrow subset of the majority text.
We have the Orthodox Church to thank for the many Greek copies that we have today.

I hope this helps.

There is so much to say on this topic.