I'm Not Attacking The Bible...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Baptist4life, Jun 23, 2012.

  1. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saw this posted and have to say, I thought it was pretty good.


    "I'm not attacking the Bible...

    ...but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible has errors in it."

    "I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not given by inspiration of God."

    "I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God is contaminated by human depravity."

    "I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible has obvious mistakes in it."

    "I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not perfect."

    "I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God has man made additions in it."

    "I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible really should be abandoned by the churches of Christ."

    "I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not inerrant."

    "I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God has many portions that should not be considered as genuine."

    "I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible is not the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

    "I'm not attacking the the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God cannot be trusted in every verse, phrase or word."


    ^^^^^^^A lot of people on numerous Christian forums hold the above views of Scripture. Just makes me scratch my head in wonder.
     
    #1 Baptist4life, Jun 23, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2012
  2. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    55 views and not ONE comment?
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    we're shy.

    HankD
     
  4. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Example: Age of Ahaziah

    2 Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

    2 Chron 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

    Which verse is correct? In Kings he began his reign at 22 and in Chronicles he began his reign at 42.

    Just one of many examples of errors in a translation. This happens to be the KJV.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  5. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/487-is-there-a-bible-contradiction-regarding-ahaziahs-age
     
  6. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand the error in a copy of scripture, and it is a copy, not the original. I believe this is the point to be made.

    For most of us, we believe the original manuscripts to be absolute, but not the following copies.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  7. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    "I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible has errors in it."

    The unequivocally professed existing Bible, even if the implied reference is the critical text, is indeed a copy made by men and therefore copyist errors exist even in it. Is it an attack on God's inspired Word to claim it has not been perfectly preserved? Nope, for the Bible tells us to speak truth, as we understand the truth. It is an attack on the man-made doctrine that modern copies are without error.

    "I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not given by inspiration of God."

    The original scriptures were given by God's inspiration, including the very words written down. Therefore, this statement is an unequivocal attack on the Bible.

    "I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God is contaminated by human depravity."

    The existing copy of God's inspired Word that I have on my desk, while containing corruptions, remains fully trustworthy and reliable and we can trust our very lives to its Truth.

    "I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible has obvious mistakes in it."

    There are no mistakes in its message, no need to undercut its message by pointing out inconsistencies in math, grammar or spelling. The message has been preserved perfectly.

    "I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not perfect."

    There are no mistakes in its message, no need to undercut its message by pointing out inconsistencies in math, grammar or spelling. The message has been preserved perfectly.

    "I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God has man made additions in it."

    True, but none of the additions alters the message of the Bible. And modern translations have removed or bracketed many of the additions made by copyists.

    "I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible really should be abandoned by the churches of Christ."

    Seem like the ship has left the dock of truth and sailed into oblivion.

    "I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not inerrant."

    Again its message is inerrant, and the original autographs were the very words of God.

    "I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God has many portions that should not be considered as genuine."

    "Many portions" undefined presents untruth because it suggests some parts present an errant message. Not so!

    "I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible is not the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

    Sadly, while nearly everyone pays lip service to scripture alone as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, in reality, they allow the traditions of men to make scriptures to no effect.
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Sorry, Jim, but you couldn't be more wrong. This is not an error of translation for every Hebrew manuscript reads 22 in Kings and 42 in Chronicles.

    As all the Hebrew texts and manuscripts read the same the most likely explanation of the difference between 2 Chron 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26 is that forty-two years does not refer to the age of Ahaziah, but of the reign of the family of Omri, king of Israel, which is what the majority of Jewish commentaries tell us.

    Ahaziah's mother was of the family of Omri, and it was through her that evil crept into the godly line of the kings of Judah, which is what is being recounted in these verses.

    Ahaziah was 22 when he assumed the throne of Judah, but the wickedness that he did dated back 42 years to the ascension of wicked Omri, king of Israel. Thus he was "Two and twenty years old . . . when he began to reign" while, at the same time "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah," that is, the wickedness he was raised in, when he began to reign.

    It is always an error to assume the bible is wrong and you are right. :)
     
  9. Fred's Wife

    Fred's Wife
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    May I ask where you found this? If it was on another forum, you can PM me the link. Thanks!
    Same here...but in these last days, it is really no big surprise.
     
  10. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    PM sent. :thumbs:
     
  11. Steadfast Fred

    Steadfast Fred
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,983
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen! We need to ponder on this statement each time we find what seems contradictory in the Word of God. Most "contradictions" turn out not to be contradictions when one studies the Word diligently.
     
  12. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    I believe these two things. I assert these two statements and do not attack the Bible in the making of these statements. And you and anyone else who wants to "scratch their head and wonder" over it aren't able to deny what I'm about to tell you.

    Someone who is much more learned than myself about this please correct me if I am in error. I have studied (off and on - mostly off) the process of how the Bible came to be, but it isn't my area of confidence. But this is what I found in some of my computer notes where I keep a mountain of material that I can never seem to sort out. (I digress)




    But back to the OP, can you deny any of this?
    1. The Bible contains all Truth and is Truth - perfect Truth - because it is the Word of God, Himself, and He cannot lie.
    2. Because God cannot lie, when He said that He would preserve His words, we can trust Him and trust the truth/message of the scriptures.
    3. Mankind is not so reliable, however, even IN the flawed translations of mankind, the supernatural Truth of God is unaltered. Period. The message is preserved even though copies may contain flaws. For example....
    • Before the New Testament was even WRITTEN and before Jesus Christ was ever even born, the Old Testament had been translated from Hebrew (with a little Aramaic) into Koine Greek. Supposed by about 70 men in about 70 days - ergo called the Septuagint. By all accounts that I can find, it was not a perfect translation. It contained some minor errors.
    • About 600 or so years later, Jerome, under the direction of one of the Catholic popes, translated the scriptures into Latin. And for 1200 or so years, corrections kept being made to this translation - called the Latin Vulgate.
    • Well, by the time the printing press arrived, people were calling for the scriptures to be translated BACK into Greek again. So another man - named Erasmus did so and it was called the Textus Receptus. And he had to revise it at least three time over three decades to correct his many errors.
    • While this was going on - some translations were being made into other languages - English being one of them. John Wycliffe (1300's) made an English translation based off of the Latin Vulate. Tyndale published an English New Testament and he used Erasmus' Greek Re-translation. The Coverdale English translation used some German texts, more than one Latin text, and Tyndale's incomplete Old Testament. The English Geneva Bible was the first one to use the oldest texts available.
    By the time that the King James Bible came along, the translators put a preface in the King James that is no longer published in modern copies. I find that sad. They explained WHY the need for yet another English translation when there were some good ones already out there.



    They stated that it was an opportunity to revise and correct existing Bibles. Their exact words were “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” They included over 8000 marginal notes because at time the King James translator’s themselves weren’t sure of how BEST to translate very single word.


    They were convicted that they had the best translation for the time, but in no way asserted that theirs was an inspired translation (stating only the originals were) and no way asserted that their version of English would last forever - as they stated that the Word should be in the language of the common man. They did not condemn other translations, but claimed that only the original texts were inspired.

    Here's are some of their vertabim words.

    o “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.”
    o Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
    o "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”


    The Bible has been translated over and over and over and over and every time, it is what the King James translators were striving for - a Bible in the language of the people and to correct previous errors.

    Error, made by translationists, CANNOT override the message of Truth that comes from God.

    His Word - His message is preserved - in spite of any flawed human effort to painstakingly NOT make an error.

    I see no need for head scratching on this.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2

    How can it be good when it actually attempts to misrepresent and distort and perhaps mock the views of believers who actually accept the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles but do not accept the unproven claim of inerrancy or inspiration for one English translation--the KJV?
     
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192

    I agree that the Septuagint (LXX) had errors. Ironically, hough, there was a Septuagint Only movement back in the day that considered it to be an inerrant translation.
    Actually, there were various Latin translations made possibly from shortly after the time of Christ. These are usually called the "Old Latin" (Vetus Latina in Latin) translations, and are prime representatives of what is called the Western Text in textual criticism. They had many errors, including many additions (typical of the Western text type). What Jerome did was a new translation based on these translations but done from what he felt were better Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It was called the Vulgate (Common) translation, as you have said. And again ironically, the Catholic church especially considered Jerome's Vulgate to be an inerrant translation. :type:
     
  15. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    Thanks, John!! :thumbs:
     
  16. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Lawyers get really big bucks for the ability to take all the known facts and arrange them to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of an assertion. You can find several "explanations" that demonstrate the 42 and 22 are both correct, thus the KJV is inerrant. However, most modern scholars believe the 42 is a copyist error and that is why the NIV, ESV, NET, NASB, HCSB and YLT all read 22 with a footnote referring to the Hebrew 42.

    And yes Jim, I can read and can see you said errors in a translation, not errors of translation. :)
     
    #16 Van, Jun 24, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2012
  17. Steadfast Fred

    Steadfast Fred
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,983
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two plausible solutions:

    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.

    The only question which remains is: Who was his biological father? The affinity struck between Ahab and Jehoshaphat appears to be somewhat sordid--—a tangled web in fact! Consider that Ahaziah is said to be:

    1. The son of Jehoram – 2Ch 22:1

    Since Ahaziah was two years older than his ‘father’ Jehoram, he must have been his step-son - brought into that relationship with his mother Athaliah when she married Jehoram.

    2. The son-in-law of the house of Ahab – 2Ki 8:27

    This relationship would have been established by his marriage to Zibiah (2Ch 24:1), who must have been either a daughter or grand-daughter of Ahab.

    3. The son of Jehoshaphat – 2Ch 22:9

    It seems Ahaziah was given a decent burial only out of respect for the fact that he was a son of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 22:9). Could it be that in earlier times, Jehoshaphat followed the custom of cementing royal ties (1Ki 3:1) by going in unto Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter?? Perhaps it is at this point that the Biblical record ceases to give sufficient details for anyone to know for certain.

    Almighty God is never pleased with unholy alliances – 2Co 6:14-17. The Lord never recognized the reigns of Jehoram and Azariah, who both sought to introduce Baal worship into Judaea -- along with Joash, they are omitted from the genealogy of the Saviour. When Ahaziah died, God Himself cut off the house of Ahab, 2Ch 22:7-9 from the royal line (Pastor Robert J. Sargent, Bible Baptist Church, Oak Harbor, Washington).
     
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    A plausible argument is one that seems reasonable on the surface, but is in fact intended to deceive, i.e. plausible deniablity.

    There is a solid reason the modern translations go with concluding the 42 is a copyist error, rather than these pieces of legerdemain.
     
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Any time! :wavey:
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78


    Did you know there was an early translation fight in Ireland between the OLT onlyists and the Vulgate 'modernists?'
     

Share This Page

Loading...