Questionable doctrines in the KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by ScottEmerson, Feb 10, 2004.

  1. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. James 5:11 states that: "the Lord is very pitiful." (KJV) I vehemently disagree with saying that about God.

    2. Revelation 22:14 teaches salvation by works in the KJV. It says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life." This is a verse taken from the Latin Vulgate and inserted by Erasmus because he did not have a complete Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation. The KJV translators continued this error. There is no Greek manuscript in existence that has the KJV reading. The NASB says, "Blessed are they who have washed their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life."

    3. The KJV says, "The love of money is the root of all evil," (I Timothy 6:10). This statement is certainly false. Adam and Eve did not sin for the love of money. Satan's fall was because of pride, not love of money. The adulterer and the fornicator do not do it for money, neither does the rapist. What God actually said was that money can be a root of all sorts of evil. People will do any kind of sin for money. The NASB says, "The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil."

    4. In Acts 9:7 when Paul was converted, it says in the KJV the men "stood speechless hearing a voice, but seeing no man." In Acts 22:9 it says, "They heard not the voice of him that spake with me." Of course these verses make the Bible contradict itself. The NASB says, "Did not understand the voice of the one who spoke with me." The actual meaning of these verses is that the men heard but did not understand. The KJV makes the Bible contradict itself. The NASB does not.

    5. In Song of Solomon 2:12 the KJV says, the "turtle" was singing. The NASB says the "turtle-dove." We all know that turtles do not sing but turtledoves do.

    6. In the KJV it says in I Kings 4:26 that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses and in II Chronicles 9:25 it says he had four thousand. These verses are an obvious contradiction. The NIV says four thousand in both places. Who would say the KJV is superior here?

    7. In the KJV it says in I John 3:9, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin." This contradicts plain scriptures in many places. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says, "There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not." The NASB says in I John 3:9, "No one who is born of God practices sin." This translation is more in harmony with other scripture and with Christian experience. We sin but we do not practice sin. Our life is not characterized by sin.

    8. In the KJV it says in II Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign. In II Chronicles 22:2 it says he was forty-two years old when he began to reign. Of course, this is a contradiction. The NIV says he was twenty-two years old in both places. Everybody knows this is better.

    --- from Robert Joyner, "Is the KJV Bible Inerrant?"

    ---------------------------------------------
    What say ye?
     
  2. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    If your God is not full of pity for His children why would he save them?
    No, it doesn't. You just misinterpret it to mean that.
    No, it is true. Human greed is base.
    No, they don't. "Hearing" is often used in the context of "understanding."
    Yes, and we all also know that in 1611 "turtle" meant what today is called a "turtle dove" and only came to mean a sea tortoise around 1660.
    No, there is no contradiction. Different things are being referred to.
    No, it doesn't. The new nature never sins, only the old nature.
    No, it isn't. The Hebrew reads 22 and 42. It is obvious that the 2 Chronicles reference is to the age of the dynasty at the time of his ascension to the throne.
    I say if Christians would spend more time preaching the bible and less time running it down a whole lot more could be accomplished for the Kingdom of God!
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Speakest thou for thyself John Alden?

    HankD
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it is true. Human greed is base.</font>[/QUOTE][/b] You didn't answer the issue. The love of money is not the root of "all evil." Some evil has another another "root".
    No, they don't. "Hearing" is often used in the context of "understanding."</font>[/QUOTE] There is nothing contextual to make this distinction. These are or should be complementary accounts.
    No, it isn't. The Hebrew reads 22 and 42. It is obvious that the 2 Chronicles reference is to the age of the dynasty at the time of his ascension to the throne.</font>[/QUOTE] These are absolutely parallel accounts. They are worded almost identically with the exception of the number and nothing in the context indicates your explanation. It is a copyist error correctly translated in the KJV.
     
  5. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, that is not the normal understanding of pitiful. I would hate for an unlearned person to read that and wonder why God was described in that way.

    The KJV says what it says, and the facts show that no Greek manuscript contains that version of the translation. The passage was taken from the Vulgate, which was incorrect.

    Somehow, I don't think that money played a part in Adam and Eve's sin, or in Cain's murder. Therefore, the KJV is wrong.

    Scott #2 already addressed this. (Or is he Scott #1, I don't know...)

    Why wasn't it changed, then, when the text was revised in 1769?

    Is that a matter of forcing reality so the text fits?

    Which is still found in he who is born of God, right?

    This is evidence of a copyist error which the KJV mistakenly used. It's not obvious that two different things are being referred to at all - only when one has the presupposition that the KJV is blameless and one must alter reality to make the KJV remain that way.

    Churches are being destroyed because of the KJVO myth. If a few of them could be saved because of the realization that KJVO is, indeed, error, how is that not a good thing?
     
  6. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Basically, I'm in agreement w/ Scott E on this one (similar to "Double-Standard" thread). For better, or for worse,(it's worse :( )at first glance the old English obscures the intent (in my view) of the author whom God inspired. I still don't get why we have to "force" the KJV to be right, when it is simply not clear. Now I know Will K and perhaps QS will insult my intelligence, but let the "bottom-line" speak. ;) [​IMG] ;)
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I volunteered for Scott #2.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    "Pitiful" used to mean "filled with pity". Now it means "deserving of pity". In today's language, a more accurate translation is "The Lord is merciful".
    I would agree with your assessment. Earlier manuscripts translate the verse as "Blessed are they who have washed their robes..."
    The verse is correctly translated "The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil." The context in the Greek is "a root", as in one of many; not "the root", as in the only one.

    I would agree with your assessment.

    You're correct. The name of the bird tranlsated is "turtle-dove".

    The earlier Greek texts both concur with your conclusion.

    A more accurate translation in today's language is "none who is born of God..."
    Some Septuagint and Syriac manuscripts say 42, but others say 22, which corresponds with scripture elsewhere.
     
  9. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I did, you just failed to understand it. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. "All" does not necessarily mean "all, everywhere, without exception." Just ask any Calvinist! [​IMG]
    Sure there is! The great context of comparing scripture with scripture. Look at the number of times the word "hear" has the meaning of "understanding" in the bible!
    I disagree. Look at when Omri assumed the throne of Israel. 832-790=42. Do the math. Coincidence? I don't think so! [​IMG]
     
  10. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not responsible for your failure to understand what "pitiful" meant in 1611.
    Nobody mentioned Adam, Eve, or Cain. "All" does not necessarily mean "all, everywhere, without exception." The problem is not that the bible is wrong, the problem is that you don't know what "all" means. [​IMG]
    You will have to ask them.
    No, it is a matter of studying the passages in more than a superficial way. [​IMG]
    Sorry, but your question makes no sense to me. Could you rephrase it?
    The truth is often not all that obvious. And you are the one with the false presupposition, I.E., that I believe the KJV is "blameless" and that I "must alter reality to make the KJV remain that way." [​IMG]
    The heathen have no reason to believe the bible. Christians themselves keep saying it is full of errors, contradictions and untruths. If we don't believe the bible how can we appeal to them to believe what it says regarding Christ and His work on the cross?
     
  11. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    So all doesn't mean all. I guess all those dictionaries are wrong. [​IMG]
     
  12. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    If "all" means "all people everywhere without exception" how do you explain the following passages of scripture:

    Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

    Do you believe that "all people everywhere without exception" on the entire planet were taxed?

    Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

    Do you believe the dearth affected "all the world everywhere without exception?" Australia? Borneo? Sumatra?

    Rev. 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

    All people everywhere without exception? Even the saved?
     
  13. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skan stated, "Yes, I did, you just failed to understand it. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

    Thank you Skan, You just made the ASV an authority. It agrees with you.

    Take a look:
    Ti 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

    the word "kinds" is not in the KJV, but is in the ASV
     
  14. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ASV was not called "The Rock of Biblical Honesty" for nothing. It is an excellent translation. I believe its underlying texts are flawed, but its translation of those texts is one of the very best in the English language. I have a first edition on my desk which I value very highly.
     
  15. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Main Entry: 1all
    Pronunciation: 'ol
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English all, al, from Old English eall; akin to Old High German all all
    1 a : the whole amount or quantity of &lt;needed all the courage they had&gt; &lt;sat up all night&gt; b : as much as possible &lt;spoke in all seriousness&gt;
    2 : every member or individual component of &lt;all men will go&gt; &lt;all five children were present&gt;
    3 : the whole number or sum of &lt;all the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles&gt;
    4 : EVERY &lt;all manner of hardship&gt;
    5 : any whatever &lt;beyond all doubt&gt;
     
  16. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I for one believe we have the Bible. I for one can't explain why there are differences in the king's reign, looks like skwan did. I for one know money is gain is the root of all evil. I for one know I John 3 is referring to the soul as blood-washed. I for one "hear" / understand by hearing the Word of God, that's where faith has it's birth, toddles, mature's. I for one believe that all who come to Jesus for salvation are obeying the commandment to come, receive final atonement that secures the Work of Christ in the believer's heart that he can have the law written upon the tables of his heart.I for one know turtles don't sing, so the context has to mean a turtle dove, the 1769 Blaney revisionist didn't see the need to meet present demands of illiterate beings that have to have things handed to them in a lollipop wrapper. I for one understand the context of "very pitiful" when the next four words say, "and of tender mercy" to couple the real meaning of very pitiful to be full of pity towards the sinner, my God man, what other kind of pity do you think the Lord has towards sinners?

    I can almost picture Robert Joyner with his hand on one hip and pointing his finger while Scott Emerson Clark puts a hand on his hip and says, "Yeah! me too!" (and if I could have found a smilie that portrayed that, I would have posted it too!)

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    All means all in the context, there's forum for arguing whether all means all and not all.
    [​IMG]
     
  18. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Skan, I honestly thought you were KJVO.
    Are you KJVP? I like the ASV also.
     
  19. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use the KJV for preaching but I use other versions for study and reading.

    The reason I defend the KJV against those who claim it is full of errors, contradictions, and untruths is that I will defend ANY bible that is attacked. All we do by declaring the bible, any bible, is full of errors, contradictions, and untruths, is give the devil ammunition to use against us, and the souls of men, women, boys, and girls are lost in the petty squabbles between Christians who ought to know better!
     
  20. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought this interesting:

    edakrusen o ihsouV
     

Share This Page

Loading...