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

[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?

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.

Thank you. I appreciate this.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This is the question I asked:

Can you explain to me the difference between a male sheep and a female sheep about to be shorn?

This is the question you answered:

Can you explain to me the difference between a male sheep and a female sheep?

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.

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

See the difference?

I have asked several times for you to tell me how the metaphor is different if the sheep is male or female and you have repeatedly dodged the question. I probably haven't made myself clear.

Let me try again.

The verse talks about sheep being dumb before its shearers. But aren't BOTH male and female sheep "dumb" before their shearers? What's the difference?

 

[christundivided]

This is the question I asked:

Can you explain to me the difference between a male sheep and a female sheep about to be shorn?

This is the question you answered:

Can you explain to me the difference between a male sheep and a female sheep?

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.

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

See the difference?

I have asked several times for you to tell me how the metaphor is different if the sheep is male or female and you have repeatedly dodged the question. I probably haven't made myself clear.

Let me try again.

The verse talks about sheep being dumb before its shearers. But aren't BOTH male and female sheep "dumb" before their shearers? What's the difference?

Dodge? Really? You claim I said every NT quote is perfectly found in the LXX and you want to say I dodged the question?

Yeah. Right.

First, the statement is not metaphorical. Its allegorical. Do you know the difference? Either way....."her" and "he" do not produce the same "allegory". To say it does, is down right silly. Explain to me how that works? How does "her" and "he" produce the same metaphorical/allegorical statement?

I gave you the answer. Its not my fault you don't want to do your own study to determine the "higheth and depths" of the subject. I'm not going to waste my time posting various studies on the use of "sheep", "ewe" and "lamb" in the OT if you're going to try and say "he" and "she" are one in the same.

For the record. Sheep do bleat before their shearers. Its not like they are entirely silent. Females are generally more docile in most any species. Including Sheep. I have already told you this and you ignored it.

You're also discounting "her" and "he" to the point you're ignoring that Isiah speaks of a "sheep" and Acts speaks of a "lamb" before the shearers. Now, I hope you know the difference between a "lamb" and a "sheep". Ask a shearer if its easier to shear a lamb or a full grown sheep?

Also. Would you except the phrase.

"Behold the SHEEP" of God? or would you prefer the phrase "Behold the LAMB" of God???

 

[bgwilkinson]

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)?

Here is where my Orthodox Study Bible comes in handy.

Here is Acts 8:32
The place in the Scripture which he read was this: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is silent. So He opened not His mouth."

Here is Isaiah 53:7
Although He was ill-treated, He opened not his mouth. He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb is silent before his shearers, so He opens not His mouth.


Isaiah 53:7 in a Masoretic Text Bible is just wrong on this verse. There are many reasons why, and is way beyond the scope of this discussion.

There are many examples of this in my Orthodox Study Bible published by Thomas Nelson.
I love this translation for use in comparing OT quotes in the NT.
The OT is from the LXX. This Greek OT has been in continuous use in the Orthodox Church since Jesus and the disciples used it.

I gave more information on reply #19  on this thread on the D A Carson commentary and the Orthodox Study Bible.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mitex]

...
Isaiah 53:7 in a Masoretic Text Bible is just wrong on this verse. There are many reasons why, and is way beyond the scope of this discussion.

There are many examples of this in my Orthodox Study Bible published by Thomas Nelson.
I love this translation for use in comparing OT quotes in the NT.
The OT is from the LXX. This Greek OT has been in continuous use in the Orthodox Church since Jesus and the disciples used it.

These birds are all the same. Attack the extant Scriptures because it supposedly doesn't follow the original, attack wild-eyed KJVO for trying to correct the original with a translation then come out of the closet and attack the original with their preferred translation.

Eastern Orthodox: "By Baptism, the Church holds that all optional and original sins are cleansed by the Grace of God."

What Fundamentalist, Baptist, or born again Christian believes that? Strange bedfellows these anti-KJVO and critics of the extant Scriptures. Anything goes in the land of critics of the extant Scriptures and anti-KJVO land.

 

[Biblebeliever]

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.

That is incorrect Scott. You need to get your facts straight.  The wild idea that the Apostles quoted from the mythical septuagint is simply a false notion, and a popular one at that. The Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles quoted from the preserved Hebrew words.


Furthermore, when the preserved Hebrew text was quoted from and utilized by the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles, they targumed Old Testament Hebrew passages. And that is why there is some variation in the wording as found in the NT quotes of the OT Hebrew passages.

 

[Ransom]

That is incorrect Scott.

No, in fact it is correct, and generally accepted by anyone who isn't infected with Dr. Petey's craptacular misinformation.

You need to get your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Unlike you, I have done actual research instead of worshipping on my knees in front of St. Petey of Pensecola and uncritically inhaling whatever nonsense he farts in my direction.

The wild idea that the Apostles quoted from the mythical septuagint

I guess a Bible-burning Nazi-boy like you probably thinks the Holocaust is "mythical" too, right? Fool.

 

[christundivided]

Its hysterical and sad at the same time....

These MORONS...including Dean Burgeons.... want you to believe that Christ and the disciples "paraphrased" when they referenced the Scriptures....or "targumed" the texts.

At the same time, they appeal to the statements of Christ about not one "jot" or "tittle" will perish from the law. They even go so far as to believe the Hebrew text and its use.... including speech, and writing, remained untouched and unchanged for thousands of years.

Sorry "boys". You can't have both. You can't say it was so important to God that every "jot and tittle" be preserved untouched and unchanged.... and then claim "Christ and the apostles".... paraphrased the texts.

You people really are silly. You couldn't build a match stick house for a cockroach with 10,000 boxes of matches and truckload of glue.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says:

“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

Quotes (paraphrased) Psalm 68:18

You have ascended on high,
You have led captivity captive;
You have received gifts among men,

In the quote, he gave gifts.  In the original, he received gifts. 

 

[Ransom]

Achtung!

Do not question Der Obergruppenfuerher Peter von Ruckman!

When he says Jesus und der disciples paraphrased der Scripturen, he means they paraphased der Scripturen, even though this means that when der Scripturen say "Scripture saith," it really means "Scripture saith not."

THERE WILL BE NO QUESTIONING! Englischer schwein!

 

[Biblebeliever]

No, in fact it is correct, and generally accepted by anyone who isn't infected with Dr. Petey's craptacular misinformation.

Scott, I have done my research and I continue to do my studies.

And evidence from the Holy Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ quoted from the Hebrew OT. The Lord Jesus Christ believed that the words of the Old Testament Scriptures were inspired (Matt. 4:4, 5:18).

The Lord Jesus Christ even referred to the three divisions of the Tanak (Luke 24:44).

Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ and His aposltes never used the LXX.

 

[christundivided]

No, in fact it is correct, and generally accepted by anyone who isn't infected with Dr. Petey's craptacular misinformation.

Scott, I have done my research and I continue to do my studies.

And evidence from the Holy Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ quoted from the Hebrew OT. The Lord Jesus Christ believed that the words of the Old Testament Scriptures were inspired (Matt. 4:4, 5:18).

The Lord Jesus Christ even referred to the three divisions of the Tanak (Luke 24:44).

Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ and His aposltes never used the LXX.

You haven't studied much if anything. There is no way you've studied this issue and come to those conclusions.

 

[bgwilkinson]

No, in fact it is correct, and generally accepted by anyone who isn't infected with Dr. Petey's craptacular misinformation.

Scott, I have done my research and I continue to do my studies.

And evidence from the Holy Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ quoted from the Hebrew OT. The Lord Jesus Christ believed that the words of the Old Testament Scriptures were inspired (Matt. 4:4, 5:18).

The Lord Jesus Christ even referred to the three divisions of the Tanak (Luke 24:44).

Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ and His aposltes never used the LXX.

You are wrong.

History speaks against you.

Do not believe KJVO revisionist history.

 

[Biblebeliever]

You haven't studied much if anything. There is no way you've studied this issue and come to those conclusions.

Yes I have studied into the issue and the conclusion that I came to was based on the testimony of Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ believed that the Old Testament was inspired. (Matthew 4:4, 4:7, 4:10, 11:10, 21:13, 26:24, 26:31; Mark 7:6, 9:12, 9:13, 14:21, 14:27; Luke 4:4, 4:8, 7:27, 19:46, 24:44-49).

 

[T-Bone]

No, in fact it is correct, and generally accepted by anyone who isn't infected with Dr. Petey's craptacular misinformation.

Scott, I have done my research and I continue to do my studies.

And evidence from the Holy Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ quoted from the Hebrew OT. The Lord Jesus Christ believed that the words of the Old Testament Scriptures were inspired (Matt. 4:4, 5:18).

The Lord Jesus Christ even referred to the three divisions of the Tanak (Luke 24:44).

Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ and His aposltes never used the LXX.

You haven't studied much if anything. There is no way you've studied this issue and come to those conclusions.

Now give him the benefit of the doubt...study means different things to different people...to BB it clearly means watching another Ruckman video! 8)

 

[Ransom]

Scott, I have done my research and I continue to do my studies.

If you have done any research, then none of it has been in evidence on this forum. Quite the opposite, actually: you put on the appearance of an ignorant buffoon, and amuse us all to tears with your boobery.

 

[prophet]

Scott, I have done my research and I continue to do my studies.

If you have done any research, then none of it has been in evidence on this forum. Quite the opposite, actually: you put on the appearance of an ignorant buffoon, and amuse us all to tears with your boobery.

I believe he has done a lot of research.  He throws up facts that he has swallowed, spilling them all over, like a kid with the flu.

Somewhere he was wounded to the point of becoming socially inept.

Somewhere, the steps along the journey,  to a logical conclusion, get lost from view.

A little too much Pensecola Pimp in his diet.

Not everyone is able to express themselves well.



Anishinaabe

 

[Timotheos]

No, in fact it is correct, and generally accepted by anyone who isn't infected with Dr. Petey's craptacular misinformation.

Scott, I have done my research and I continue to do my studies.

And evidence from the Holy Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ quoted from the Hebrew OT. The Lord Jesus Christ believed that the words of the Old Testament Scriptures were inspired (Matt. 4:4, 5:18).

The Lord Jesus Christ even referred to the three divisions of the Tanak (Luke 24:44).

Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ and His aposltes never used the LXX.

You haven't studied much if anything. There is no way you've studied this issue and come to those conclusions.

As nearly always, the KJV is in the vast minority on this subject.  I don't know of any reputable NT or LXX scholar that goes with this view. 

Secondly, your "therefore" statement at the end does not follow the evidence you provided above it.  Its like saying that Bible is God's Word therefore the sky is blue. 

This debate might be a good option for the formal debate section on here.  Does the NT quote from the LXX (and why it matters to the KJVO).