BaptistBoard.com  
     

Increase font size: 0, 10, 25, 50%
Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Left Container Right Container
 
Go Back   BaptistBoard.com > Baptist DEBATE Forums (Baptist Only) > Bible Versions/Translations

Bible Versions/Translations Comparing & Contrasting Bible Versions & Translations

Fewer Ads for Registered Users - Register Now!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-25-2008, 02:52 AM
Keith M Keith M is offline
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Posts: 2,024
Default God does not err - setting the record straight

In another thread Abell falsely accused me of saying the discrepancy in Ahaziah's age when he became king was an error from God. Of course this is another fine example of someone being backed into a corner and making a false accusation in a futile effort to avoid the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abell
Can you offer a more acceptable explaination than what Lightfoot offered other than it is an error from God? It may be weak, but it is plausible. I still find no fault in the KJV.
I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, God can make a mistake. It's ridiculous to believe God can err or to accuse someone of saying something like that.

Here is the exchange that led up to what I believe was a deliberate misrepresentation on Abell's part...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abell
You are absolutely correct. The word of God does not lie. That is why any translation that attributes Mark 1:2 to Isaiah, cannot be the word of God. Don't just take my word on it. Look for yourself. Then come back and tell me where the shame lies.
In this post Abell basically says that a Bible translation with any error in it can't possibly be the word of God.

My response was this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith M
If we accept this errant line of reasoning, then it can also be said that any Bible translation that gives Ahaziah's age as both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) at the same moment in time (when he became king) can't be the word of God. Of course this error isn't limited to just the KJVs - every English Bible translation I've checked has the same error, so it must be a textual error going back to who-knows-when. The point is that if having an error of any kind disqualifies any Bible translation from being the word of God, the KJVs are also disqualified because of their errors. There can't be a double standard. Either the word of God can have man-made errors or it can't have man-made errors. Which is it? Why don't you have a pow-wow with other KJVOs and let us know when you decide, okay?
My point was that the obvious error in Ahaziah's age (he couldn't possibly have been both 22 and 42 at the same moment) is a textual error. Not once did I even remotely suggest the error came from God. Yet Abell, in a manner typical of KJVOs who have no evidence for their errant beliefs, made what I believe was a deliberately false accusation in order to shift the focus away from something he (or she) couldn't answer. I also believe that, since I had asked several questions Abell couldn't answer, he (or she) was making a deliberate attempt to try to discredit me by falsely accusing me of saying something no one in his (or her) right mind would have said.

Abell, I feel you owe me and this board an apology for making what I believe was a deliberalty false accusation. Either your accusation was deliberately false or else you have a serious comprehension problem. Either way, I never attributed an error to God as you falsely claim.

__________________
Are the KJVs the inerrant word of God even though they use different words in some places? Absolutely! Are legitimate modern Bible translations God's inerrant word although they use different words? Absolutely!

I'd rather defend God's word and be accepted by God than deny God's word and be accepted by KJVOs.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-25-2008, 09:23 AM
Ed Edwards Ed Edwards is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Heavenly Central Oklahoma
Posts: 15,715
Default

I suggest when one, two or more of us find a possible 'error' in one Bible or among two Bibles - that we, in Christian fellowship use my trailer/signature to resolve the 'possible error'. This is the purpose of this Forum on this Board.
__________________


All VALID English Language Bibles
Collectively and Individually
contain and are
the Inerrant and Perfect
Written Word of God
preserved by Divine Appointment
for the generation in which they are translated.




Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-25-2008, 03:21 PM
EdSutton EdSutton is offline
8,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: KY
Posts: 8,756
Talking

Well, y'all gotta' understand how it is on every subject, not ONLY this one.

Even though it is difficult, at times, a very good maxim to aspire to is -

"
Never let the Bible get in the way of your theology!!"



Ed
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-25-2008, 04:43 PM
ray Marshall ray Marshall is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lerona, Wv
Posts: 570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Edwards
I suggest when one, two or more of us find a possible 'error' in one Bible or among two Bibles - that we, in Christian fellowship use my trailer/signature to resolve the 'possible error'. This is the purpose of this Forum on this Board.
Ed, you are absolutely correct. search what your error is and work it out. Although I don't believe the KJV has any errors, but work to prove any error/s or conflicts one to another.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-25-2008, 07:08 PM
robycop3's Avatar
robycop3 robycop3 is offline
7,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 7,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ray Marshall
Ed, you are absolutely correct. search what your error is and work it out. Although I don't believe the KJV has any errors, but work to prove any error/s or conflicts one to another.
Sorry, Ray, but "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a goof, as is "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, "thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13, & several others that, after having been discussed ad nauseam here, still stand as goofs.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-25-2008, 09:30 PM
ray Marshall ray Marshall is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lerona, Wv
Posts: 570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
Sorry, Ray, but "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a goof, as is "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, "thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13, & several others that, after having been discussed ad nauseam here, still stand as goofs.
Now tell me, should I go blows with you. You are wrong, so why should I beat a dead horse??
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-26-2008, 01:08 AM
Dr. Bob's Avatar
Dr. Bob Dr. Bob is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Casper, WY USA
Posts: 29,264
Send a message via ICQ to Dr. Bob
Default

Anyone who believes a man-made item is "perfect" or "without error" must define perfect differently than the standard meanings.

God's Word is perfect. MAn's feeble translations of it into receptor languages like English fall far short of perfection.

And to claim perfection for some man-made creation is to blaspheme God himself, who alone deserves that appellation.
__________________
Dr Bob Griffin
"Jesus knows me, this I love"

www.sovereigngracechurch.com
www.grif.net


"Why do bad things happen to good people?
That only happened once, and He volunteered
."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-26-2008, 04:14 AM
Keith M Keith M is offline
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Posts: 2,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ray Marshall
Now tell me, should I go blows with you. You are wrong, so why should I beat a dead horse??
Ray, it's actually you who's wrong, not robycop3.

You're right in that the message conveyed in the KJVs is perfect - just as it is in the NIV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB and other legitimate Bible translations.

On the other hand robycop3 is right in that the printed words used to convey God's perfect message to us have human errors in all the translations. The examples robycop3 cited are erroneous in the various KJVs. Sorry, Ray, fact is fact.

Dr. Bob hit the nail on the head when he said "God's Word is perfect. Man's feeble translations of it into receptor languages like English fall far short of perfection." God's word, of course is the message He intended us to have (not to be confused with Jesus Christ the Word). That message is just as pure in legitimate modern translations as it is in any of the KJVs. All the legitimate modern translations I've read accurately convey the message God gave us, even though they use different printed words to do so. Not one of the legitimate modern translations I've read teaches "another gospel."

BTW, Ray, which KJV do you believe is the perfect one? Is it the original 1611 KJV? Maybe a KJV from the Cambridge family? Or how about the Oxford family? There are differences in these various KJVs, so surely you must be able to tell us just which KJV is the one that has no error of any kind, human or textual. I said textual error - not that God made an error like Abell falsely accused me of saying (see OP). The bottom line is that the texts we have from which our English Bible translations originate also have errors in them. Ahaziah's age being given as both 22 and 42 when he became king is a good example of textual error - everyone knows no one can be two different ages at one point in time despite the futile efforts of some to defend this error. English Bible translators accurately translated the texts they had to work with, but in this example the error lies in the text, not in the translated words.
__________________
Are the KJVs the inerrant word of God even though they use different words in some places? Absolutely! Are legitimate modern Bible translations God's inerrant word although they use different words? Absolutely!

I'd rather defend God's word and be accepted by God than deny God's word and be accepted by KJVOs.

Last edited by Keith M; 12-26-2008 at 04:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-26-2008, 08:21 AM
Baptist4life's Avatar
Baptist4life Baptist4life is offline
1,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,440
Default

SOLUTION #1

Ahaziah is literally 22 years old (2Ki 8:26) when he ascended to the throne of Judah. He was the actual son of Jehoram and Athaliah.

Ahaziah was co-Rex with his ailing father Jehoram (2Ch 21:18) for 1 year (2Ki 9:29--the 11th year of Jehoram of Israel) and sole king for 1 year (the 12th year of Jehoram of Israel—2Ki 8:25).

Ahaziah ascended to the throne 894 B.C. If we count backwards 42 years (to 936 B.C.) we come to the first year of Omri. In other words, Ahaziah was indeed 22 years old (as stated in Kings), but his reign is counted (in Chronicles) from the beginning of the evil dynasty of Omri. This is the Holy Spirit’s way of highlighting the wicked aberration in the royal Davidic line.

The phrase “Forty and two years” may then be taken as a Hebrew idiom for “A son of forty two years” - meaning that it was 42 years from the beginning of the dynasty founded by Omri.

Another similar explanation is that the 42 years was the age of his mother Athaliah. Since she was obviously the power behind the throne (2Ch 22:3), this expression is the Holy Spirit’s way of showing Ahaziah to be a puppet king.

SOLUTION #2

Ahaziah is literally 42 years old (2Ch 22:2) when he ascended to the throne of Judah. He therefore is not the literal son of Jehoram (who died at age 40), but a son in the sense of being a step-son. His mother was his father’s wife.

If we count back 20 years (to when Ahaziah was 22 years old—2Ki 8:26) we come to the year 914 B.C. which is the 8th year of Jehoshaphat. This was about the time that Jehoshaphat “joined affinity with Ahab”—2Ch 18:1, since we know that in the 3rd year of Jehoshaphat’s reign he instituted a revival in Judah (2Ch 17:7-9), following which his kingdom prospered (verse 12).

We are told in 2 Chronicles 18 that several years after this alliance was forged, Ahab and Jehoshaphat engaged in a joint military venture against Syria (verse 2). Both kings went into battle (verse 28) and Ahab was killed (verses 33,34). Prior to the battle the faithful prophet Micaiah is deported in chains to Amon where [the one-year-old] Joash is residing (1Ki 22:26). It is here, in this passage, we have a most revealing statement: Joash (the biological son of Ahaziah, 2Ch 22:11) is called the “king’s son”--—indicating that Ahaziah was already a king! How could this possibly be??? If, as part of the affinity Jehoshaphat made with Ahab, Ahaziah was anointed king at this time, the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together.

In other words, Ahaziah was anointed king at age 22--—he finally sat on the throne of Judah 20 years later at age 42.

The Word of God does not give all the details of the affinity between the two monarchs. Evidently, it was far-reaching because in 2Ch 21:2 Jehoshaphat is given the title “king of Israel!” Furthermore, when Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram finally gained sole rule over Judah, he not only murdered his brothers, but “divers also of the princes of Israel” 2Ch 21:4). Why would he do that if they were not a threat to the Judaean throne?

Not only that, but Ahaziah obviously felt “right at home” in the Israeli court- 2Ch 22:6c. Perhaps both kings were interested in reuniting the monarchy which had been divided for about 70 years--—undoubtedly with different motives. Ahab (or Jezebel!) conspired to install one of his own on the Judaean throne following the death of Jehoshaphat--—a move which would be accomplished by earmarking Ahaziah (whose mother was Ahab’s own daughter) ahead of time. When Ahab’s scheme to have Jehoshaphat killed in battle backfired (2Ch 18:29,31-33), Ahaziah had to wait 20 years to be enthroned

In this way, Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign--—22 when he was anointed, 42 when he was seated.



SOURCE: Pastor Robert J. Sargent, Bible Baptist Church, Oak Harbor, Washington






But, the truth is, I have never seen the clincher in scripture that settles the thing once and for all. I do not know which possibility is the actuality. But this should be no hindrance to accepting it as truth. If one goes from where I am across town, I know of several ways they could go. There are even ways that I probably would never think of. But if someone tells me they left my place and ended up across town, my ignorance of the path they took does not mean that there was no way for them to get there. I can believe them without knowing the path they took.

What you and others have to decide is whether God did or did not preserve His words in the Hebrew Old Testament. This is not even a question of translation. Is the jot and tittle stuff a bunch of junk or is it the word of God? That is the question. For me, it is an easy choice. God promised to preserve His word and I believe He did. For others, it may be more complicated. God bless.

Last edited by Baptist4life; 12-26-2008 at 08:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-26-2008, 10:49 AM
ray Marshall ray Marshall is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lerona, Wv
Posts: 570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith M
Ray, it's actually you who's wrong, not robycop3.

You're right in that the message conveyed in the KJVs is perfect - just as it is in the NIV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB and other legitimate Bible translations.

On the other hand robycop3 is right in that the printed words used to convey God's perfect message to us have human errors in all the translations. The examples robycop3 cited are erroneous in the various KJVs. Sorry, Ray, fact is fact.

Dr. Bob hit the nail on the head when he said "God's Word is perfect. Man's feeble translations of it into receptor languages like English fall far short of perfection." God's word, of course is the message He intended us to have (not to be confused with Jesus Christ the Word). That message is just as pure in legitimate modern translations as it is in any of the KJVs. All the legitimate modern translations I've read accurately convey the message God gave us, even though they use different printed words to do so. Not one of the legitimate modern translations I've read teaches "another gospel."

BTW, Ray, which KJV do you believe is the perfect one? Is it the original 1611 KJV? Maybe a KJV from the Cambridge family? Or how about the Oxford family? There are differences in these various KJVs, so surely you must be able to tell us just which KJV is the one that has no error of any kind, human or textual. I said textual error - not that God made an error like Abell falsely accused me of saying (see OP). The bottom line is that the texts we have from which our English Bible translations originate also have errors in them. Ahaziah's age being given as both 22 and 42 when he became king is a good example of textual error - everyone knows no one can be two different ages at one point in time despite the futile efforts of some to defend this error. English Bible translators accurately translated the texts they had to work with, but in this example the error lies in the text, not in the translated words.
I have had no knowledge of the KJVO. I read the KJV 1611. Before the printing presses, people would print the books of the bible that they had over and over when the words had started wearing out either they printed it in order to preserve it or the pages got torn. Most people didn't have all the books of the Bible but maybe some and when folks would print new pages, they knew more of the Bible than most of us know. For another reason, if someone borrowed one another' copies of the books of the Bible they would spot if someone had printed anything incorrectly. If someone printed the wording wrong, the people caught it quickly. Everyone had to borrow someone's books of the Bible and would try to obtain more of the Bible threw that means. another thing Hebrew and Greek cannot be copied altogether word for word. When a sentence didn't come out just right, the translators was so honest that when they had to add words they would used italitize(?) words so that you could see that they had to use some words in order to have it make sense. When the Bible was first written and translated they were very careful to cross every "T" and "I", t and i. I have been told and will check it out with my Pastor who say's that little by little some of the words from the KJV 1611 have been changed by SOMEONE. Slowly intending to make un-noticed changes. Why would they won't to do that?. I suppose that is their aim. Now I am not making any kind of slurs of the other Bibles because it is your choice to use which ones you want to use. I have read the KJV 1611 all of my life up until this present time. I like it as it has been worded.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:13 PM.


The Fundamental Top 500   The Best Baptist Web Sites at Baptist411.com  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Copyright: Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forum
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
 
 

Christian Web Hosting for BaptistBoard.com is provided by BaptistHost.net