Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

Biblical Inconsistencies Iznomneak
www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

I noticed a few that Steve hasn't highlighted, there are probably more:

Quote:
RO 10:11 (An alleged OT quote; no such statement in the OT.)

---

Oh ye of little faith...

How much longer will you obstinately refuse to see the truth? Are you not aware that the writers of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint? (the Greek translation of the OT)

May I suggest that when you see something that does not look right, that you spend a little more time investigating the matter before relying on your faith in Atheism?

The "alleged" OT quote is from Isaiah 28:16. If you are blind to believe that the KJV represents the "Bible", then you will miss it... But I am going to be kind to you and provide a link to one of the most fascinating websites that you will ever find... CHECK IT OUT!

www.geocities.com/Heartla...pindex.htm

click on the link "All quotations in New Testament Order", then find Romans 10:11... it should be fairly self-explanatory from there.

Quote:

---

Huh? ety3
Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

versus

Romans 10:11
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

(which is related to

Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.



Your website does not explain why the author of Romans chose to alter the meaning and context of the Isaiah passage.

Care to give it a shot?

---

The author of Romans (Paul) did not alter the meaning and context of the Isaiah passage. Rather, the KJV did!

It is important to remember that the KJV used the Masoretic text to translate the Old Testament. When were the Masoretic texts written? According to various sources, the Masoretes compiled their Hebrew Old Testament between the first and tenth centuries A.D. (most scholars say that the Masoretic texts used for the KJV were from those much later, example being from the 6th to the 10th centuries).

The authors of the New Testament, on the other hand, quoted from the GREEK translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint) which had been in existence since the third century BCE. The Septuagint was the most widely used version among Jews in the first century A.D. According to Wikipedia, Gamaliel (the school of Pharisees that Paul was a member of) said that "Greek was the only language into which the Torah could be accurately translated. The Septuagint found widespread use in the Hellenistic world, even in Jerusalem, which had become a rather cosmopolitan city. Both Philo and Josephus show the influence of the Septuagint in their citations of scripture, though both modified passages that did not agree with the Hebrew text." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

The authors of the New Testament could not have used the Masoretic text because it was not in existence at the time of the writing of the New Testament!

There are those who argue that the Masoretic text DEVIATED from the original Hebrew to COUNTER Christian claims of Jesus being the Messiah! In other words, the Masoretes may have DELIBERATELY corrupted passages in Isaiah, etc., to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Christian claims of the prophetic fulfillments of Jesus Christ. Strong evidence for this assertion comes from the DEAD SEA scrolls. The O.T. Hebrew text of the dead sea scrolls actually is CLOSER to the GREEK translation of the O.T. from the Septuagint!

Even more interesting is the assertion that the corruption of the original Hebrew O.T. texts actually began hundreds of years BEFORE Christ! The Essene community at Qumran claimed that the texts had been corrupted, perhaps by the emerging rabbinical traditions (The dead sea scrolls came from the Essenes) Amazingly, however, as the Masoretic texts were developed, it appears now that the Septuagint is closer to what the Essenes defended than the Masoretic!

source: www.jewishvirtuallibrary....adsea.html


When you read the account by Josephus of how the Septuagint came into existence, then everything begins to make sense... It is my belief that the Septuagint has a very special place in the purposes of God. Obviously, the New Testament authors also saw the Septuagint as being reliable because the Old Testament quotes in the N.T. are derived from the Septuagint. The account of Josephus is an amazing story... I highly recommend reading it. www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-12.htm

The bottom line here is that the apparent discrepancies between the N.T. quotations in the KJV and the O.T. passages themselves in the KJV can be easily explained. The O.T. of the KJV is derived from the Masoretic text, the N.T. of the KJV is from the Greek portion of the Textus Receptus (in which the quotes of OT passages reflected the Septuagint). Therefore, what we see WITHIN the KJV is the conflict between the Masoretic and the Septuagint! I am thankful that the KJV translators faithfully translated what they had in front of them because the KJV sheds light on what happened with the Masoretic. There is a purpose and design for these apparent contradictions because it shows the fallibility of man in spite of those who translated in good faith, but it also demonstrates the devious designs of the enemy in trying to force corrupted translations to cast doubts on the Word of God. The following is from a link that provides more detail of the history of the KJV...

Quote:

---

The simple fact that the Masoretic text of the Old Testament (the standard text essentially the Textus Receptus of the OT) occasionally differs with the quotations of the Old Testament in the New, indicates need for textual criticism. Because the New Testament is inspired, it is wise to go with the Holy Spirit's decisions regarding which reading is the correct one.

As an example, look at Hebrews 10:5-7 in the KJV:

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.


Now look at Psalm 40:6-8, which this passage in Hebrews was quoting:

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

Notice the differences. The New Testament follows the reading of the Greek translation, the Septuagint, which was made about 250 BC.

It should be remembered that the Masoretic Text, produced between 600 and 1000 AD, was done by Jewish scholars who were not without their biases. An obvious bias would be an anti-Christian one. It should not surprise us that the Masoretes would prefer readings that differed from the New Testament or were in any way a comfort to Christians.

In addition, the demonstrable conflicts between the synoptic sections of the OT (Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, for instance -- see the list above) also demonstrates the need for textual criticism and indicates the unreliability of this so-called Textus Receptus of the Old Testament, the Masoretic Text.

www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm

---

Quote:

---

Re: Oh ye of little faith... Iznomneak
Quote:
Are you not aware that the writers of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint? (the Greek translation of the OT)

...
If you are blind to believe that the KJV represents the "Bible", then you will miss it


Keep in mind that this is the SAB discussion board and Steve's
annotation is done on the KJV bible (I'm surprised you were not
aware of this fact). Thank you for confirming this Biblical
inconsistancy in the KJV which means Steve should highlight this
verse.

---

I am very aware of the fact that the SAB is "done" on the KJV.

The KJV is being used as a straw man by the SAB to attack the Bible. The KJV is NOT the Bible.

Quote:

---

As far as this verse being an inconsistency with the "original" text,
please provide the quotes for RO 10:11 and Isaiah 28:16 from
the originals so that we can all see how close they resemble one another.
Otherwise your entire point is moot.

---

If you had only looked at the one link that I recommended, then you would see the light... The format for posting on the SAB is not very effective for making the point as clear as what is seen on the linked website... Nevertheless, I will post what can be done here to show you that the Romans 10:11 is quoting Isaiah 28:16. The following is adapted from the link:


Isaiah 28:16 (Septuagint)

idou egw emballw eiV ta qemelia
Siwn liqon
polutelh,
eklekton,
akrogwniaion, entimon, eiV ta qemelia authV,
kai o pisteuwn
ou mh kataiscunqh


Romans 9:33 (New Testament)

kaqwV gegraptai:
idou tiqhmi en
Siwn liqon
proskommatoV kai petran skandalou,

kai o pisteuwn
ep autw
ou kataiscunqhsetai


Romans 10:11 (New Testament)

legei gar h grafh:

paV o pisteuwn
ep autw
ou kataiscunqhsetai


I am not asking you to wade through all of the links I gave in my response to ety3.

The link I gave to you is one of the most fascinating websites I have ever encountered. At least take a look at the link. My hope and prayer is that someone here will also recognize how critically important this information is...

If you choose to ignore this information, then it should not be surprising that you will continue to poke holes into a straw man for the rest of your life.

Quote:

---

KJV Viciousthekatanaguy
"I am very aware of the fact that the SAB is "done" on the KJV.

The KJV is being used as a straw man by the SAB to attack the Bible. The KJV is NOT the Bible."

No, it's 100% okay to attack the KJV "as the Bible", as some people think it is the only real English translation (namely Jack Chick).

---

I agree with you, but for different reasons.

I actually love the KJV... It is the translation I prefer to read. But it is NOT the Bible! The KJV is only an English translation of imperfect manuscripts which represent the inerrant Word of God.

The SAB's attack on the KJV goes way beyond trying to discredit the KJV. The real aim of the SAB is to discredit Christianity itself. The KJV is the most available straw man (it is in the public domain, the antiquated language patterns are easy to make fun of, advocates of KJV Only are easy targets as straw men, the conflict between the Masoretic OT and and the corresponding Septuagint quotes in the NT is easy to take advantage of, etc., etc.).

Quote:

---

Even so, why did God make his word so hard to understand to the point where it needs all of this study to understand his word?

---

Actually, God did not make His word to be so hard to understand to the point where it needs "all of this study" in order to understand it...

His word is easily understood from the most simple of minds to the most complex. His word is written in a manner that even the simplest of men can understand it. His word is also written in a manner that even the most intelligent have great difficulty in understanding what it says. Such is the Word of God... a wonderul paradox that reflects the paradoxical nature of God Himself. Those who understand the Bible the best are those who have been given the faith to believe that God's word is true.

However, "all of this study" is necessary because the enemy is very clever in finding ways to cast doubts on the validity of God's word. Such tactics are sufficient to keep millions of people blinded to the truth. Paradoxically, this is something that God Himself has allowed to happen. This insures that only His elect are granted the priviledge of believing Him and believing His word.

Another reason why "all of this study" is necessary is that a portion of the elect consist of very intelligent people such as yourself. God ordains the ends as well as the means of bringing His elect to Himself. The works of darkness must be reproved. Intelligence resides in the darkness as well as in the light.

Quote:

---

Re: Biblical Inconsistencies        Yark Hutprancer
There is no god. The deluded who think there is a god believe that their god works through mysterous language to impart spiritual nuggets of wisdom to those who have the patience to "prayerfully" consider it for extended periods of time.

In reality, the bible is just a mish mash of mistakes, lies, and wishful thinking written by imperfect people that should not be revered. The people who find spiritual nuggets in it simply have too much free time on their hands and very active imaginations.

---

Disagree.

I think that if you spent some time reading the link that I sent to Iznomneak, and tried to put some of your bias aside, you could also see that the seeming inconsistencies between the NT quotes of OT passages and the OT passages themselves can easily be explained with assurance and confidence. The bottom line is that the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint. The modern translations of the OT used Hebrew texts of the OT that were assembled 600 to 1000 years AFTER Christ. There should be no surprise that there are differences, particularly if the assemblers of the Hebrew OT texts had anti-Christian bias.

Quote:

---

Agreed Ba al Zebhubh
I agree with you, David. I think the SAB places too much faith in the KJV's mistranslations. While I think it's good to point them out, I think we should note which ones are KJV-only mistakes, and which ones are in all copies. I think heavily relying on the KJV texts makes the ability of Christians all the more easy to discredit the SAB as a strawman.

---

Agree.

This issue was addressed in June...

Quote:

---

Quote:
SAB website info: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible attempts to remedy this imbalance. It includes the entire text of the King James Version of the Bible, but without the pro-Bible propaganda. Instead, passages are highlighted that are an embarrassment to the Bible-believer, and the parts of the Bible that are never read in any Church, Bible study group, or Sunday School class are emphasized. For it is these passages that test the claims of the Bible-believer. The contradictions and false prophecies show that the Bible is not inerrant; the cruelties, injustices, and insults to women, that it is neither good nor just.

My response: Notice how the "King James Version" is mentioned in this same paragraph with the phrase "passages that test the claims of the Bible-believer". The use of the King James Version to "remedy this imbalance" is unfair. The justification for this approach given elsewhere on the website is lame (the KJV is the only version available without copyright protection). The KJV, being a wonderful translation of the Bible, should not be the sole document to base all of the claims of the skeptic. To be consistent, the other translations must be consulted to clear up the misconceptions offered on this website.

---