1611 or 1769. Which King James Bible do YOU read?

[Dennis1209]

4 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Mostly, but there are some issues, at least in my mind, but they are not limited to the KJV. I have some suspicions about some of the verses in the New Testament, regarding Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. As I had looked over those, some time in the past, I had noticed that if you look to what the New Testament quotes about the Old Testament, and then look to the Old Testament verses to see what they say, you sometimes find that they do not look alike. This was probqbly going back a decade, no more than that, that I was noticing this, and i finally figures out (I was late to that party) that the New Testament writers were often quoting the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Scriptures.

Many of our Bibles use the Masoretic text as their source for translating the Old Testament. Jesus and the apostles, did not read or have access to the Masoretic text, that would not be around for about another 1000 years. It is my opinion, and that is all it is, the perhaps the Masoretes, for all the great and hard work they did as copyists, may have in there "Jesus is not the Messiah" bias and zeal, used a little creative license when writing down passages that appear Messianic and might tend to persuade some that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Septuagint, which pre-dates the Masoretic Text by about 1200 years (maybe more) did not know of Jesus of Nazareth and so, had no dog in that fight. The Septuagint, for those who do not know, is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (Koine Greek, the same as the New Testament was written in). This translation was done by Jews and being as early as it was, they would have had access to more ancient copies of the Hebrew than we do, or than the Masoretes had access to.

Now here, my bias is showing, but I tend to trust Jewish scholars who were reading and understanding Hebrew, while it was still a living language, to understand that language and to communicate what they thought it meant into Koine Greek. These were Helenistic Jews, so they were Greek speaking - familiar with that language also.

My thinking is here (same bias) that if the authors of the New Testament were quoting the Septuagint, there is some sense in which they are implying that they believed the Septuagint was legitimate scripture, so that is sort of a stamp of approval. They did not quote the Masoretic text, so they did not give it their stamp of approval. Who do I trust more, the apostles and other New Testament writer who believes that Jesus was the Messiah, or the Maroretes who did not beleive Jesus is the Messiah? It is no contest for me.

All of that being said, to I trust the Old Testament in our Bibles, even if it does use the Masoretic text? Sure, I don't think it is perfect, but I think it is sufficient to use for instruction and doctrine, not having any significant errors. Even if it seems to tone done the Jesus as Messiah passages, we have the New Testament to verify that the Old Testament verifies Jesus as Messiah, and those guys had their eye-witness accounts that trump armchair interpretations 2000 years later, from people not fluent in languages nor immersed in the culture of the times.

It would be interesting to compare the Dead Sea scroll material with the Septuagint, but in any case, while the KJV is not my preferred version, I would be thrilled to have it as my only Bible, if there was nothing I though better to chose from, but I can think of not doctrine that is significant, or even insignificant ((if there is such a thing) that is not supported in the KJV (By the way, I do have a 1611 facsimile). If I have a reservation about it, it would probably me the long ending of Mark, I suspect that was not part of the original autograph of Mark.

While I do think the motives of the commission of the KJV are suspect, I do think the translators themselves were honest, well intentioned, scholarly, qualified, humble servants of God. I appreciate that they sought not to change the Bible, but to work from those who had gone before, and wanted in improve on already excellent work. That the recognized that better translations would come in the future, is to their credit, and so, like them, I am not a KJV only person, but I love to read it alongside other versions.

Overall, I agree with your thoughts. I understand that Jesus and the apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint; it just makes sense. Although I would think there had to be some other texts available in the Temple or at synagogues.

It is apparent the apostles and others read other literature other than the Septuagint. “Is it not written in the book of…” Perhaps some of those books survived before the Temple and Jerusalem were sacked and destroyed, i.e., 1 Enoch.  

As I mentioned, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Calendar are fascinating. My following notes are lengthy, but I ask you to read the section about John the Baptist, asking if Jesus was the One or if John should look for another. It is something that only someone familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls would have known.

Essenes | Dead Sea Scrolls

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

The Dead Sea Scrolls are non-canonical; they verify the accuracy and authenticity of the translation of our Bibles. Because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have a better understanding of the scriptures today. Great care was taken in the translations of all manuscripts. The Qumran Scrolls have been dubbed, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible” by many modern scholars.

Because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a number of Bible translations have been revised. In our Bible, many words are italicized. This is because fragments are missing from the manuscripts used (Masoretic; Textus Receptus; the Majority Text; the Minority Text; etc.). Or, words were added to make the scripture understandable in English grammar.

Is it a coincidence the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered a year or two prior to Israel becoming a nation once again, in one day, May 14, 1948; by decree of the United Nations? Some scholars believe Isaiah is mentioning the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in:

Isaiah 29:4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. 5. Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall be at an instant suddenly. 

In the second Temple period, there were various Jewish sects to include; the Sanhedrin; the Pharisees; the Sadducees; and the Essenes. The Essenes were around at least a few centuries prior to the birth of the Messiah. The Essenes had their theology correct, the other Jewish sects did not. The Essenes suddenly vanished and disappeared from history, directly after Christ’s resurrection. They were most likely absorbed into the newly founded church. Some reputable scholars speculate John the Baptist was associated with the Essenes.

Matthew 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities. 2. Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 3. And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? 4. Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: 5. The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Jesus uses a teaching moment. The Pharisees were looking for a man (a general), a political leader, to kick the Romans out of power (totally apostate). The Essenes taught there is one Messiah, with two comings. John the Baptist may have been confused and wondering, if Jesus was the only Messiah, or is there another one coming, are there two separate comings?

If John the Baptist was part of the “School of the Prophets”, he probably would have known. The Essene theology was; one Messiah with two comings. John being in prison and knowing his death was imminent, might have thought he might have messed up, or he indeed had doubts. The Essenes were the only ones thought of and called “the holy ones”, not the Pharisees, Sadducees or any other Jewish sect.

Part of Jesus response to John the Baptist is from Isaiah 61: and Psalms. In Matthew 11:5 “the dead are raised up”, that is not in the Old Testament anywhere, that the Messiah would raise the dead. It should be found somewhere, where is it? Matthew 11:5 is a list of the things the Messiah would do in His ministry. All of the things listed in Matthew 11:5 are quoted in the Old Testament, except for raising the dead. Where is the Messiah raising the dead found?

It is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, mentioned in various places. This list of Matthew 11:5 appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and John the Baptist would have had access to them, and had known about it. It is found in Messianic Apocalypse; 4Q521:

“[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah ["anointed one"], and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones. Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service! All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this? For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power. And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent] And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy... And the fr[uit...] will not be delayed for anyone. And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He...] For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor ...He will lead the uprooted and knowledge...and smoke (?)” — Michael O. Wise, translation[4]

John the Baptist would have immediately known by this; he need not look for another.

Alternatively: Many historical and modern scholars have the correct interpretation also: Matthew 11:4–5 Jesus confirmed His identity as the Christ by appealing to His miraculous and gracious works (Isa 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 61:1). ¹

¹ Dennis Commentary: Credits Ken Johnson, Michael O. Wise, and Charise L. Quarles

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS BIBLE

The biblical scrolls from Qumran have had a profound impact on our understanding of the development and transmission of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Prior to 1947, scholars who studied the transmission of the text of the Hebrew Bible had access to the Masoretic Text handed down by scribes in Judaism since the second century A.D., the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament; and the Samaritan Pentateuch. All of these witnesses to the text of the Old Testament were preserved in manuscripts that dated well after the time of the composition of the Old Testament. The oldest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament prior to the discoveries at Qumran dated to around 1000 A.D.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament as old as the third century B.C. were among them—more than a millennium older than the best textual data known at the time.

At the time of Jesus and rabbi Hillel—the origins of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism—there was, and there was not, a “Bible.” This critical period, and the nature of the Bible in that period, have been freshly illuminated by the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.

There was a Bible in the sense that there were certain sacred books widely recognized by Jews as foundational to their religion and supremely authoritative for religious practice. There was not, however, a Bible in the sense that the leaders of the general Jewish community had specifically considered, debated, and definitively decided the full range of which books were supremely and permanently authoritative and which ones—no matter how sublime, useful, or beloved—were not. The collection or collections of the Scriptures varied from group to group and from time to time. All Jews would have recognized “the Law” (the Torah) and most would have recognized “the Prophets” as belonging to that collection. Such a recognition is attested by references in the New Testament to the “Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12; Luke 16:16; and Rom 3:21). But the exact contents of “the Prophets” may not have been the same for all, and the status of other books beyond “the Law and the Prophets” was neither clear nor widely accepted. The notion of a wider collection of Scriptures that extended beyond the Law and Prophets is suggested by an intriguing passage in Luke 24, which says that “everything written about me [i.e., Jesus] in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms must be fulfilled” (vs. 44).

The Dead Sea Scrolls help us see the state of affairs more clearly from an on-the-spot perspective. “The Bible,” or more accurately then, “the Scriptures,” would have been a collection of numerous separate scrolls, each containing usually only one or two books. There is indeed persuasive evidence that certain books were considered “Scripture.” But there is little evidence that people were seriously asking the question yet about the extent or the limits of the collection—the crucial question for a “Bible” or “canon”—which books are in and which books are outside this most sacred collection.

Thus, The Dead Sea Scrolls Scriptures may be a more historically accurate title for this volume. At any rate, it presents the remains of the books for which there is good evidence that Jews at that time viewed them as Sacred Scripture.

The “Bibles” Used Today

The word “Bible” has different meanings for different people and groups. The most obvious difference in content is between the Bible of Judaism (i.e., the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) and that of Christianity, which contains both the Old and New Testaments. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible does not include any New Testament books for one simple reason: by the time the vast majority of the scrolls had been copied (in 68 ce), the New Testament was only beginning to be written. Not surprisingly, then, there are no copies of New Testament books among the scrolls.

The list of books included in a Bible is termed a “canon.” There are three main canons in the different Bibles used today (see Figure 1):

1.   The Jewish Bible (or Tanak) contains twenty-four books in three sections: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.

2.   The Protestant Old Testament contains the same books as the Tanak, but in four sections and in a different order: the Pentateuch, the Historical Books, the Poetical Books, and the Prophets. In addition, the Protestant canon contains thirty-nine books, not twenty-four, because it counts separately several books that comprise single books in the Jewish Bible. For example, the one Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets in the Jewish canon becomes the twelve books of the Minor Prophets in the Protestant Bible.

3.   The Roman Catholic Old Testament contains exactly the same four divisions and thirty-nine books as the Protestant Bible, but also includes further writings. Seven of these are entire books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch [which includes the Letter of Jeremiah]); the others are sections added to Esther (the Additions to Esther) and to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon). For Catholics, these additional writings are part of the Bible and are thus known as the “deuterocanonical books” (that is, a second group of canonical books). However, Jews and most Protestants do not view these writings as Scripture, labeling them the “Apocrypha” (plural of “Apocryphon”), which means “hidden books.”

Some scholars believe that these books are not in the Jewish and Protestant canons because they are later than most other biblical books (Daniel being an exception), while others point to their supposed secular or unorthodox content as the reason for exclusion. The real explanation, however, is more complicated and goes back to two ancient Bibles. Early Christians accepted the Greek Septuagint, which contains these additional books, as their Old Testament, while early Rabbis finalized the list of books for the Hebrew Bible in the second century ce. It is these two early collections (the shorter Hebrew one and the longer Greek one) that determine which books are included in the Bibles used by modern Jews, Protestants, and Catholics. Jews, followed by Protestants, regard the shorter collection as Scripture, whereas Catholics accept a larger canon that includes apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings found in the Septuagint.^[1]

 ^[1]Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English(New York: HarperOne, 1999), vii–x.

 

[Dennis1209]

1 hour ago, ayin jade said:

I have bought cheap bibles at the dollar store to give away. They were made in china. I have wondered if the chinese altered the bibles. The print is too tiny for me so I havent read them. It wouldnt surprise me if china did change the words just to mess with us americans and because of their anti God stance.

Good point! I have bought a couple of cases of those cheap presentation Bibles from www.christianbook.com to give to children and those who do not own a Bible. The type is very small in them also, and I never read through one of them. Nor even looked to see where they were printed. Honestly it never crossed my mind until now. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

I don't have an electronic version of Psalm 151; however, it's short and I do have a printed Septuagint, so here is Psalm 151...

or then there is this: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/psalm-151-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Overall, I agree with your thoughts. I understand that Jesus and the apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint; it just makes sense. Although I would think there had to be some other texts available in the Temple or at synagogues.

Yeah Dennis, no doubt. Luke quotes it, but as a gentile, if he was familiar with the Old Testament, it was most likely the LXX (Septuagint).

As an example from him, he quotes Jesus as saying:

Luke 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, KJV

Below or two old testament renderings:

Isaiah 61:1 1The 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; KJV

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; LXX

It is interesting to note, that as Dennis just posted, that in Matt 11, that when John the baptist was having doubts, that Jesus said to tell him what they (the disciples had seen, that "The blind receive their sight"   . I had not made the connection previoulsly that is was not just that it was miraculous that Jesus healed, and that was a motive for belief, but it was actually a prophecy that the Messiah would do that, and Jesus pointed this out when He claimed to be the fulfillment. I learn something almost every day, and I love how all these dots connect!

Paul was writing letters most to gentile churches and people, so there to why not use the LXX rather that translating the Hebrew himself. Even his epistle to the Romans was apparently written in Greek. Some people assume that the Roman church would have received a letter in Latin. Though Latin was the language of Rome, Greek was widely known throughout the Roman empire, since it had already learned Greek from the influence of Alexander, since it was his empire before it was Romes'. 
My main point about the LXX was that it appears to have been accepted as scripture, still inspired by God or at least the parts quoted as authoritative by apostles. Also Greek has a continuity of use as a living language, unlike Hebrew, and having a sort of second language, yet still written by Jews, helps to give us confidence in the preservation of Gods word, as well as some insight into how Jews a couple of hundred years B.C. understood the Hebrew scriptures, not a bad thing at all, and I already said, they were not anti Jesus jews like those who transmitted the Old Testament as a source material for many of our Bibles. So when there is some doubt, I don't overlook how the LXX phrased it, just like I do not stick with only one modern translation.

Citing verse addresses above, reminds me to be thankful for the Geneva Bible, where chapters and verse numbers were assigned. In Hebrews 2:5 it says:

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Had the author of Hebrews had access to what we have access to, he might have said in Job 7:17. or Psa 8:4, or Psa 144:3. Think of how hard it was for the Bereans, to labor over scrolls looking to check out what Paul was saying, when they could not even be referred to chapters and verses. A concordance and address system would have been really helpful, we are so blessed!

[creativemechanic]

4 hours ago, ayin jade said:

I have bought cheap bibles at the dollar store to give away. They were made in china. I have wondered if the chinese altered the bibles. The print is too tiny for me so I havent read them. It wouldnt surprise me if china did change the words just to mess with us americans and because of their anti God stance.

Theyre not just going to America. English bible get sent around the globe.The world doesnt revolve around that country.

[ayin jade]

9 minutes ago, creativemechanic said:

Theyre not just going to America. English bible get sent around the globe.The world doesnt revolve around that country.

I know the world doesnt revolve around us. Sheesh no need to get upset about my post.

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, ayin jade said:

I know the world doesnt revolve around us. Sheesh no need to get upset about my post.

Well, don't sweat it, it is not as though he calls himself thoughtful, tolerant, understanding, politemechanic! 

[Jedi4Yahweh]

6 hours ago, ayin jade said:

Really need to find the lxx again.

This is one I like to use that you might like, has a KJV side comparison:

http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/

[Dennis1209]

13 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Yeah Dennis, no doubt. Luke quotes it, but as a gentile, if he was familiar with the Old Testament, it was most likely the LXX (Septuagint).

As an example from him, he quotes Jesus as saying:

Luke 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, KJV

Below or two old testament renderings:

Isaiah 61:1 1The 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; KJV

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; LXX

It is interesting to note, that as Dennis just posted, that in Matt 11, that when John the baptist was having doubts, that Jesus said to tell him what they (the disciples had seen, that "The blind receive their sight"   . I had not made the connection previoulsly that is was not just that it was miraculous that Jesus healed, and that was a motive for belief, but it was actually a prophecy that the Messiah would do that, and Jesus pointed this out when He claimed to be the fulfillment. I learn something almost every day, and I love how all these dots connect!

Paul was writing letters most to gentile churches and people, so there to why not use the LXX rather that translating the Hebrew himself. Even his epistle to the Romans was apparently written in Greek. Some people assume that the Roman church would have received a letter in Latin. Though Latin was the language of Rome, Greek was widely known throughout the Roman empire, since it had already learned Greek from the influence of Alexander, since it was his empire before it was Romes'. 
My main point about the LXX was that it appears to have been accepted as scripture, still inspired by God or at least the parts quoted as authoritative by apostles. Also Greek has a continuity of use as a living language, unlike Hebrew, and having a sort of second language, yet still written by Jews, helps to give us confidence in the preservation of Gods word, as well as some insight into how Jews a couple of hundred years B.C. understood the Hebrew scriptures, not a bad thing at all, and I already said, they were not anti Jesus jews like those who transmitted the Old Testament as a source material for many of our Bibles. So when there is some doubt, I don't overlook how the LXX phrased it, just like I do not stick with only one modern translation.

Citing verse addresses above, reminds me to be thankful for the Geneva Bible, where chapters and verse numbers were assigned. In Hebrews 2:5 it says:

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Had the author of Hebrews had access to what we have access to, he might have said in Job 7:17. or Psa 8:4, or Psa 144:3. Think of how hard it was for the Bereans, to labor over scrolls looking to check out what Paul was saying, when they could not even be referred to chapters and verses. A concordance and address system would have been really helpful, we are so blessed!

Yes, it is all interesting to think about with subtle hints.

Acts 17:11 (KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. [emphasis mine]

I suspect only the wealthy or religious sects could afford personal copies of the scriptures. Reasons I suspect synagogues had available copies of scripture to be read at any time because of the above and below:

Luke 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, 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, 19. To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 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. [emphasis mine]

As you mentioned, without divisions of chapters and verses, they had to have memorized much of it and knew exactly where to find what they wanted.

Since I used this scripture, as an illustration, I also want to point out a little nugget many are unaware of that has significance. Jesus quotes Isaiah in Luke chapter four above, and it is also interesting that Jesus quotes Isaiah more than anyone else.

Isaiah 61:1 (KJV) 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; 2. To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; [emphasis mine]

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Isn’t it interesting Jesus omits the last part of Isaiah 61:2 at the comma? That comma (gap) is yet future and has lasted about 2,000 years thus far.

[David1701]

18 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

or then there is this: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/psalm-151-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

Quite interesting - but it doesn't change the fact that Psalm 151 is clearly substandard.