God does not err - setting the record straight

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Keith M, Dec 25, 2008.

  1. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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...

    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:

    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.

    :tonofbricks:
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!!" :eek: :rolleyes:

    :thumbs: :D

    Ed
     
  4. ray Marshall

    ray Marshall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,554
    Likes Received:
    4
    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.
     
  6. ray Marshall

    ray Marshall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now tell me, should I go blows with you. You are wrong, so why should I beat a dead horse??
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #8 Keith M, Dec 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2008
  9. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #9 Baptist4life, Dec 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2008
  10. ray Marshall

    ray Marshall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    May I ask three small favors of you. It is a simple request, really. Read (not recall from memory, but actually read) from your copy, Jn. 3:16. Then do the same with I Jn. 5:12. BTW, these are not "trick" questions, either. And I doubt you will even need any other to help, as well.

    Assuming you have done that, now compare with the verses in the renderings, as I have copied them, below.
    Which ones reads most like your Bible does, here? Are they, as I would suspect, "B" and "C"? Which ones reads most unlike yours? Do they happen to be "A" and "D"?

    Does your Bible contain the Apocrypha? The KJV-1611 does.

    Uh- "A" and "D" happen to be the ones from the KJV-1611. "B" is from the KJ21 , 1994. "C" is that of the WEB of 1837.

    Hmmm! Text like "B" and "C"? Most likely from the 1769 KJV revision of Blaney, or possibly (but unlikely) the 1762 KJV revision of Paris. In either case, it is probably almost certainly a century and a half newer than the KJV-1611.

    No Apocrypha? That would make it another 50-100 years newer, at a minimum. Big difference between 150 and 400 years, though.

    I do not particularly care what version or edition any person uses or prefers. That does not bother me in the least. We can and do "cuss and discuss" the merits of versions here in this forum.

    But something factually incorrect, even when offered ignorantly, does annoy me. Thus I tend to factually correct it, just as I have done here. I will only get upset, should one continue to misrepresent something, after being better informed. Does that sound fair enough to you? Its legit to identify a KJV as a KJV, at anytime, IMO. But it is not accurate to claim one much later as a "1611", when that is not the case. So please just say KJV, if that is the case. Fair enough??

    Ed
     
  12. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray, I'm not asking you a question I expect you to answer publicly. I'm not trying to put you on the spot or discredit you. I'm passing on something that is intended for your information.

    If this verse appears in your Bible as it appears in the first quote, then the Bible you're using is the original KJV. If the verse reads in your Bible as it reads in the second quote, then the Bible you're using really isn't the 1611 KJV - it's a later (and different) KJV. Despite the arguments of some KJVOs to the contrary, the various KJVs really are different in places.
     
    #12 Keith M, Dec 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2008
  13. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for the almost duplicate post, Ed. I read Ray's post and replied to it before I saw your post.

    Ruh-roh!

    There's that dog again!

    :laugh:
     
  14. ray Marshall

    ray Marshall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if you are thinking I am using a different Bble than the KJV 1611. I use the KJV1600, not another. Hope that answers your question correctly.
     
  15. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray, if you're using the 1611 KJV, then you're using a Bible translation that omits something.

    Let's take a look at 1 John 5:12.

    The Oxford KJV agrees with the Cambridge KJV in this verse.

    Ray, do you see a difference in the quoted verses above? Forget about the differences in the spellings of some of the words (Sonne, Son; hee, he) - those changes are just updates in the language. See what's missing from the 1611? It's the phrase "of God." Either the 1611 omitted something, or else later KJVs added something. But which is it?

    The KJV with Strong's numbers available at http://www.studylight.org links the number 2316 to the phrase "of God." Then apparently this is in the TR. The NASB with Strong's numbers also available at the same web site also links 2316 to "of God."

    Strong's 2316 is the Greek word theos which is defined as God (see Strong's link for a more detailed definition).

    And from the witness of other early Bible translations we can see "of God" was a part of the manuscripts.

    "hath not the sone of God" Wycliffe (1395)
    "hath not the sonne of god" Tyndale (1526)
    "hath not the sonne of God" Coverdale (1535)
    "hath not the sonne of God" Bishops' (1568)
    "hath not yt Sonne of God" Geneva (1587)
    "does not receive the son of God" Mace (1729)
    "hath not the Son of God" Wesley (1755)
    "hath not the Son of God" Webster (1833)

    Don't just take my word for it. This information is verifiable at the Studylight web site. All the translations I quoted above are available online at Studylight.

    From this evidence it's very easy to see that even the original KJV was not totally error-free. Those who insist any of the KJVs or any other Bible translations are completely free of human error ignore the truth.

    The original autographs were error-free, but copies and translations of those original autographs are not error-free because man had his imperfect hand in the copies and translations that came later.

    And yet, despite the human errors we find in every Bible translation, the miraculous thing is that God has preserved His message to us perfectly. No legitimate early translations and no legitimate modern translations teach "another gospel." They all proclaim the same message to us - God's message.
     
  16. ray Marshall

    ray Marshall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Who are thou that seeketh council, without knowledge?"
    What is it that you are saying, and to what manuscript are you compairing, whatever you are babbling about?
     
  17. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't like "goofs," I prefer "better translated as..."

    "Goofs" carries a connotation that I don't think belongs with the word of God.

    Just MHO.
     
  18. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray, Keith pointed out translational discrepencies between different KJV's. What say you to that? Which KJV do you use? (for me, it's the 1769).
     
  19. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Sigh!] What's in Your Bible??

    [Sigh!]

    FTR, There is no such thing as any KJV1600. (Pretty tough to use something that doesn't exist!)

    FTR, There was not, nor had there ever been even a King James of England in 1600.

    FTR, James VI, King of Scots also became James I, King of England in 1603.

    FTR
    , The King Jame Version did not appear until 1611.

    FTR, I seriously do question as to whether you, or most other BB members, have ever "used" an actual, authentic 1611 KJV. I certainly have not, and I have likely personally held well over 500 different Bibles in my hands, over 60 years, and have actually seen several thousand Bibles. [I am a four year graduate of a Bible College that had 1000 students, in the student body, every one of whom had their own copy of a KJV, which was the 'official' Bible used there for memory verses, just for starters. As I look back on my Bible College days, one regret I have is that I did not then possess (And I still do not possess one, even today.) a reproduction 1612 edition, in roman type, just for the sole purpose of memorizing from it, with its spellings, thus highly annoying most of my teachers, there!]

    I have been privileged to see two pages of an opened 1611 Edition through glass in a traveling Bible Exhibit in Lexington, plus some other historical Bibles and pages, including two "Gutenberg" pages, some other things and a 'moveable type' style reproduction printing press that weighed a coupla' tons, even made from wood, and not steel, and printed only two pages at a time. BTW, the Gothic type was beautiful and ornate ( the Gothic print was also extremely difficult to read, as well), and I consider myself extremely blessed just to have seen the exhibit. Truly, I considered that I was almost standing on "holy ground" just by being there. :praying:

    I would never carry around any 400 year old Bible valued at many thousands of dollars, to further wear out and destroy, any more than I would enter a Ferrari in a "Demolition Derby", when I can get a very good Bible for 50 bucks a pop, or pick up all the 'derby clunkers' I want for five bills, but maybe that one is just me. :rolleyes:

    FTR, if your Bible does not, in fact, contain the Apocrypha, it is not an authentic 1611 KJV, regardless of who may claim otherwise.

    FTR, in fact, it is not even an authentic KJV 1769 revision, the textual basis for the most common of the KJVs, of which I have a handful, and the Bible I use as my regular Bible has "King James Version" on the flyleaf, so I at least presume it is some sort of a King James :thumbs: , if it does not contain the Apocrypha, as well.

    FTR, ALL the early King James Versions contained the Apocrypha.

    One cannot find any King James before 1800 that does not contain the Apocrypha, I do not believe.

    Ed
     
    #19 EdSutton, Dec 28, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2008
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Almost duplicate post, by me. :rolleyes:
     
    #20 EdSutton, Dec 28, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...