Questionable doctrines in the KJV

Yes, I would say the Constitution is an original document, straight out of the AV 1611 KJB.
Of course John comes from where? So. Cal. The lxx?

 

No, I'de rather not.
For more than one reason.
First, the Constitution is not the Inspired Word of God.
Second The English that it was written in is not Elzabethan/Shakespearean English but the "koine" of it's day.
Third It is not a translation but in fact it is the original autograph.
I'll stop there.

HankD

 

The language of the Constitution doesn't closely resemble the KJV. I have no idea where you get your notions of fantasy.

Ah, yes. When you can't argue the facts, insult a person's geographical locale. It's such a good display of wisdom.

Problem? Don't tell me you've never heard of the LXX?

 

I will waste my time with this one. First, you did not quote the entire verse, you chose to quote what would help make your case. The verses are, I Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. II Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Second, I Kings 4:26 is talking about horses and II Chronicles 9:25 is talking about stalls. Look at it again, I Kings 4:26 says, "stalls of horses" and II Chronicles 9:25 says, "stalls for horses."

I do </font>[/QUOTE]2 Chr 9:25
25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
(KJV)

IKing 4:26
26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
(KJV)

So, Solomon had 40,000 horses and only 4000 stalls?

You consider this as an adequate explanation of an obvious error in the kjv? You must be a used car salesman.

 

Read it again. He had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots. If each war chariot was pulled by 10 horses (a la "Ben Hur") then the 4,000 stalls would house 40,000 horses with their chariots. Seems simple enough to me, but then I approach the bible in faith that any "error" is most likely my failure to study out the passage rather than just immediately assuming the bible is in error.

 

What's wrong with that? Must it be equated a stall for each and every horse? Aren't horses known for living in the outdoors? Doesn't the verse say 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots? Do you keep every horse a chariot in evry stall of yours? Did Solomon? Don't know? Read the Bible!

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, answer the quetion that was, on a now closed thread, dodged by you and What's-his-name: Are the following words inspired by Satan?-- Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JFYI, I didn't dodge the question, neither did I dodge the "what's his name". One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, Jesus is Lord. Now Who do you suppose will "MAKE" them bow? Hint: satan will bow too! So he ain't the one who inspires you to do anything, but sin against God. Uh, your even hinting that satan might have inspired the Word of God is SIN. Now, go back and notice the word "except" as the conjunction, but not joining the thoughts to agree, but exactly opposite in understanding of what the passive indicative is.

I suspect that you know what I quoted is a verse from a modern translation, the NAS. I'm not sure if what's-his-name has the brains to see that, but he was the one the question was really addressed to, because he claims that Satan is behind all modern translations. Therefore, it is a relevant question. Did Satan inspire the words in that translated verse? If he or you, or anyone, claims that Satan inspired that... that is atributing to Satan what the Word (any translation) says can only be said by the Holy Spirit-- which is the scriptural example we have of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

So, since you have latched onto a question that was directed at someone else, then quit skirting and answer... Are those words in the NAS of God, or are they of Satan?

 

I wouldn't condemn a good commentary. You asked a specific question in reference to a specific statement. You thought you had me snagged though huh? Why does the "easier" read nas"v" use the 6 letter word "except" where the "archaic" KJB uses the three letter word "but"? I know they both mean the same and are conjuntive, BUT gives more impact!

 

I'm sure your "but" does. The words mean the same thing, as you said, and I think "except" has an 'impact' greater than or equal to "but."

Nevertheless, I conclude you will not say those words come from Satan, therefore Satan is not behind the NASB-- correct? The poster we refer to as "what's-his-name" has clearly stated that Satan IS behind 'MV's'. That is why I wanted his answer.

 

Is the gluteous maximus, or maximus gluteous maximus?

The devil is known to give 99% truth and sneak in 1% lie.

Figure it out for yourself:

EXCEPT', v.t. [L. excipio; ex and capio, to take. See Caption, Capture.]

1. To take or leave out of any number specified; to exclude; as, of the thirty persons present and concerned in a riot, we must except two.

2. To take or leave out any particular or particulars, from a general description.

When he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted who did put all things under him. 1 Cor.14.

EXCEPT', v.i. To object; to make an objection or objections; usually followed by to; sometimes by against. I except to a witness, or to his testimony, on account of his interest or partiality.

EXCEPT', pp. Contracted from excepted. Taken out; not included. All were involved in this affair, except one; that is, one excepted, the case absolute or independent clause. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish; that is, except this fact, that ye repent, or this fact being excepted, removed, taken away, ye shall all likewise perish. Or except may be considered as the imperative mode. Except, thou or ye, this fact, ye shall all likewise perish. Hence except is equivalent to without, unless, and denotes exclusion.

BUT, part. for butan.

1. Except; besides;unless.

Who can it be, but perjured Lycon?

That is, removed, separated, excepted.

Lycon being separated, or excepted, who can it be?

And but infirmity,

Which waits upon worn times, hath something seized

His wish'd ability, he had himself

The lands and waters measured.

That is, except,unless, separate this fact, that infirmity had seized his ability,he had measured the lands and waters.

In this use but, butan, is a participle equivalent to excepting, and may be referred to the person speaking, or more naturally, it is equivalent to excepted,and with the following words, or clause,forming the case absolute.

Who can it be,Lycon being excepted?

And but my noble Moor is true of mind, it were enough to put him to ill thinking.

It cannot be but nature hath some director, of infinite power, to guide her in all her ways.

There is no question but the King of Spain will reform most of the abuses.

It is not impossible but I may alter the complexion of my play.

In the last three examples, that is omitted after but.

It is not impossible but that I may alter the complexion of my play.

In these and all similar phrases,but denotes separation, exception.

2. Only.

A formidable man, but to his friends.

There is but one man present.use of but is a modern innovation; but perhaps too firmly established to be corrected. In all such phrases, a negative, not, nothing, or other word,is omitted. He is not a formidable man, but to his enemies, that is, except. There is not but one man present, that is, there is not except or besides one present. So also, "Our light affliction is but for a moment." 2 Cor. 4. Our affliction is not, except for a moment.

If they kill us, we shall but die. 2 Kings.7.

The common people in America retain the original and correct phrase,usually employing a negative. They do not say, I have but one. On the other hand, they say, I have not but one, that is, I have not except one; except one, and I have none. This word but for butan is not a conjunction, nor has it the least affinity to that part of speech.

BUT, cong. [Eng.over.]

More; further; noting an addition to supply what is wanting to elucidate, or modify the sense of the preceding part of a sentence, or of a discourse, or to continue the discourse, or to exhibit a contrast.

Now abide faith, hope, charity, these three;

but, the greatest of these is charity. 1 Cor.13.

When pride cometh, then cometh shame; but with the

lowly is wisdom. Prov. 11.

Our wants are many and grievous; but quite of another

kind.

The house of representatives were well agreed in passing the bill; but the senate dissented.

This word is in fact a noun equivalent to addition or supply; but in grammatical construction, no inconvenience results from considering it to be a connective.

BUT, n. [L. peto.]

1. An end; a limit; a bound. It is used particularly for the larger end of a thing, as of a piece of timber, or of a fallen tree; that which grows nearest the earth. It is not often applied to the bound or limit of land; yet butted,for bounded, is often used.

2. The end of a plank in a ship's side or bottom, which unites with another; generally written butt.

BUT, v.i. To be bounded by; to lie contiguous to; a word used in America.

 

QS, you're losing it (IMO).

HankD

 

Nothing wrong with the KJV! Look at Numbers 14:18.

Some Greek MSS agreeing with the KJV had this verse. Some MSS agreeing with NASB.

But the word, "commandments" supporting the KJV is in John 12:50, 13:34, 14:15,21; 15:10,12,14,17; I John 1:7,8; 3:22,23,24; 4:21; 5:2,3; II John 4,5,6; Rev. 12:17; 14:12.

If God said, "the love of money is the root of all evil," it is not a root of all kinds of evil. The NWT on this verse said, "the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things.." NASB, NIV and NKJV follow suit with Christ-rejecting JW.

Can't you solve this problem on these verses? I answered the solution on them in other post before.

That's a basic math. Can you use the math on these verses? Nothing wrong with the KJV. No contradiction!

Blame on Hebrew MSS, not the KJV because the Hebrew MSS read 22 and 42 respectively. 2 Chron. 22:2 the Hebrew literally read, "a son of 42 years." It is possible that the 42 refers to his mother's age.

 

Now let me try my hand at that:

Hank, you've lost it (IMO),
at least I've still got my AV 1611 KJB to hold onto!

 

There are very good answers to all these silly objections you have to the KJB readings. I will address just one of them for now.

. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Turtle = turtledove


James White, in his book the King James Only Controversy, pokes fun at the King James Bible's use of the word "turtle" when referring to the turtledove. Mr. White says on page 235 in the section titled Problems in the KJV: "This is almost as humorous as Song of Songs 2:12, "The flowers appear on the earth: the time of the singing of the birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land." Then Mr. White comments: "Turtles are not known for their voices, and how these would be connected with flowers and the singing of birds is unknown. Of course, the passage is not referring to turtles at all, but to the turtledove, as the modern translations recognize."


Mr. White himself does not believe any Bible in any language or any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the preserved, inspired words of God. Mr. White also works for the NASB committee and apparently doesn't mind representing a version like the NASB that says God can be deceived in Psalms 78:36, or that God doesn't take away life in 2 Samuel 14:14, or that there are two Gods, one not seen and one begotten in John 1:18, and the NASB departs from the Hebrew texts scores of times and is continually changing its underlying Greek texts from one edition to the next; but he does have a bee in his bonnet with the KJB's use of the word "turtle" instead of turtledove.

Such are the ways of those who attack God's pure words as found in the King James Holy Bible.

Here are a few facts James may not be aware of. The Hebrew word is translated both as turtle and turtledove in the KJB. In fact, one of the meanings of the word turtle is turtledove, and the context always indicates that we are speaking about a bird and not the shelled reptile.

Here is another example of context clearly showing the Bible is speaking of a bird when it uses the word turtle. In Jeremiah 8:7 we read: "Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the TURTLE and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD."

It may surprise Mr. White, but not only does the King James Bible say "turtle" in the Song of Solomon and in Jeremiah 8:7 but so also do the Geneva Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version 1881, J.B. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Young's literal translation, the 1950 Douay version, the New Life Version 1969, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.


 Smith's Bible Dictionary

Turtle, turtledove
Turtur auritus (Heb. tor ). The name is phonetic, evidently derived from the plaintive cooing of the bird.

Several dictionaries do not even list "turtle", meaning the turtledove, as archaic.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Tur"tle noun. Anglo Saxon. turtle, L. turtur; probably of imitative origin. (Zoöl.) The turtledove.

Definitions from The Online Plain Text English Dictionary:
Turtle
* (n.) Any one of the numerous species of Testudinata, especially a sea turtle, or chelonian.
* (n.) The curved plate in which the form is held in a type-revolving cylinder press.
*(n.) The turtledove.

A similar word in English that can have several meanings is the simple word cow. When we say cow, are we referring to the bovine creature that gives milk, or to a whale, a seal or an elephant? The context will usually tell us which one is meant. In every case where the word "turtle" is used in the King James Bible and all the others listed that have come after the KJB, it is clear that the bird also known as the turtle dove is intented. Mr. White is again straining at gnats and mocking the time tested word of God as found in the King James Bible.

Will Kinney


-

 

[qb]3. The KJV says, "The love of money is the root of all evil," (I Timothy 6:10). This statement is certainly false.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/b]No, it is true. Human greed is base.
------------------------------------------------------------------------You didn't answer the issue. The love of money is not the root of "all evil." Some evil has another another "root".

Here is how I see the passage.

I Timothy 6:10


A verse that is frequently criticized in the King James Bible is I Timothy 6:10. "For the love of money is the root of all evil."

James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy, on pages 139 - 140 compares the KJB reading with the NASB (niv, nkjv) "For the love of money is A root of all SORTS OF evil". Then he comments: "First, is the love of money THE root of evil, or A root of evil? Secondly, is it a root of ALL evil, or ALL KINDS OF evil? Once again we enounter a situation in which something can be said for each translation."

"The word for 'root' in the Greek does not have the article before it, hence the more literal translation in this case would be 'a root', not the definite 'the root'. The text is not saying that the love of money is the only origin or source of evil, but that it is one of great importance."

"And is it ALL evil, or ALL KINDS OF evil? Literally the Greek reads, ' of all the evils', the terms being plural. The modern translations see this as referring to all KINDS of evils, while the KJV takes all evil as a whole concept. The KJV translation is a possibility grammatically speaking, but it seems to miss Paul's point."

" The love of money gives rise to all sorts of evil things, but there are, obviously, evils in the world that have nothing to do with the love of money. A minister friend of mine pointed out with reference to this passage that it is difficult to see how rape, for example, can be blamed on 'the love of money'. Such is surely a good question for a person who would insist upon the KJV rendering."

These are James White's comments and they are frequently brought up by those who criticize the KJB.


In the first place ALL Bible translations frequently place a definite article 'the' when it is not in the Greek text and omit it when it is there in the Greek. Even the Holy Ghost does the same thing when we compare the sayings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, the definite article being found in one and not in the other . This is not uncommon nor inaccurate in the least. There are several examples of both in all versions right here in I Timothy. A very small sampling of examples are found in I Timothy 3:16. There is no definite article before the flesh, the Spirit and the world, yet all versions put them in the English text.

Likewise the definite articles are not translated in the NASB in I Tim. 6: 1 in 'the' masters, 'the' God and 'the' doctrine. I can make a very long list of such examples in just this little epistle of I Timothy.

Secondly, at least Mr. White admitted that the KJB reading is grammatically possible. Mr. W. Robertson Niccoll, in his well known book The Expositor's Greek Testament, explicitly says on page 144 of Volume Four, regarding the root of all evil that the reading of the Revised Version 'a root of all kinds of evil' (which is the same as found in the NASB, NIV and NKJV) quote: "is not satisfactory. The position of riza (root) in the sentence shows that it is emphatic." End of quote.

Thus this other "scholar" is saying that the phrase in question should have the definite article 'the' before 'the root'. Mr. Niccoll is by no means a KJB only; he frequently corrects the Bible text according to his own understanding, just as Mr. White does, yet here his opinion is opposite to that of Mr. White.

Thirdly it should be noted that the readings of the NASB, NIV and NKJV all add the words KINDS or SORTS to the text, which is not found in the Greek either, and omit the definite article THE before the word "evil". Neither do they make the word "evil" plural, as Mr. White suggests.

Fourthly, not only does the KJB render this phrase as "the love of money is the root of all evil" but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale's New Testament 1534, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, The Great Bible, Wesley's translation 1755, Daniel Mace's N.T. 1729, Darby's translation, the Revised Standard Version, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay 1950 version, the New American Bible of 1970, the Living Oracles New Testament, Goodspeed's American Translation, the Spanish Reina Valera versions of 1569 and 1602, the Italian Diodati version, the New English Bible 1970, the KJV 21st Century, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the 2003 International Standard Version and the Third Millenium Bible.

Finally and most importantly James White is the one who is missing the meaning of the text and not the King James Bible. Mr. White sits in judgment upon the true words of God thinking that his own understanding is the only correct one to hold. I agree with him that the love of money is not the root of every form of evil out there like rape, the fall of mankind in Adam, pride, hatred or lust. But I believe Mr. White is ignoring the context and missing the true meaning of the verse in question.

ALL EVIL is not referring to every kind of evil but rather to a state of evil without mixture of any good. The word Evil can denote sin and / or the consequences of sin, like unrest of the soul, a guilty conscience, lack of contentment and other calamities both internal and external.

Notice the context beginning with verse 9 and continuing on through verse 10. "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

This person falls into a state of 'all evil' with no mixture of anything good in his life. He is drowned in destruction and perdition by many foolish and hurtful lusts. He is pierced through with many sorrows. There is no consciousness of anything good in this persons life and all he feels and experiences is a state of evil.

Compare the following verses to see that the phrase 'all evil' does not refer to every imaginable form of evil or sin, but rather to a state of being which consists of unmixed evil circumstances.

In Joshua 23:15 Joshua tells the children of Israel: "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you ALL EVIL THINGS, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."

Likewise in Proverbs 5:14 "I was almost in ALL EVIL in the midst of the congregation and assembly." And in Genesis 48:16 Jacob testifies: "The Angel which redeemed me from ALL EVIL, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them."

In James 3:16 we are told: "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." Are we to conclude from this verse that where there is envy and strife, there also exist the fall of man, rape, incest, greed and murder? No, rather the presence of these two sins contaminate and affect everything else going on around them, and result in a state of evil.


The experience of most Christians is living in a state of blessings of good along with the presence of evil or difficulties in our lives. But the Christian who pursues the love of money will soon find himself in a state of only evil, sorrows and hurtful lusts and will lose the sense of God's presence and approval in his life. He has erred from the faith. I believe this is the true sense of the passage as is found in the King James Bible.


Will Kinney

 

1 Kings 8:26 also literally reads the "the son of 22 years." You see, "son of x years" is the way that age is given in Hebrew. Every single age ever given in the OT Hebrew is given as "the son of x years" and it has nothing to do with the mother.

Skanwmatos attempted the following argument:

None of which answers the problem Ahaziah was not from the house of Omri and his right to rule was not from his mother. It was from his father as the text plainly says. This is an area where you are so desparate to support a position you will buy into a ludicrous argument in hopes of it making sense. It doesn't. It never has; it never will. Why go to these lengths to dispute what is an obvious error?

 

willie, you are prejudice against J. White more than he is "biased" against your worshiped VERSION. Personally, I would thouroughly (throughly??!!??)enjoy a debate between the two of you. (Guess who I'd "bet" on? )

 

I was reading in the KJ VERSION a couple of days ago, and came accross something that would appear to be an attack on God's Spirit, and an exaltation of the devil! Actually I think this is yet another of the myriads of double standards of our KJVO brethren, esp willie and qs. As a matter of fact qs stubbornly refused to acknowlegde the obvious that the proper name for Satan must be capitalized, as the KJV does! (if he did acknowledge it, I haven't came accross it yet). Zech 3:1 mentions the devil, and capitalizes his name; "Satan" and then the KJV, in the next chapter, mentions the Holy Spirit, but uses the lower case in the KJV (4:6). What's going on? KJVO's; be consistent, is this an "attack" on the Spirit, by not capitalizing, and then in the previous chapter "Satan" IS capitalized? Go ahead and squirm out of this,...willie will likely posts a couple thousand words to beat around the proverbial bush.

 

Seems a christian should know the difference. Maybe you should chastise the printers of the Bible and stop circumventing a schizm in the body of Christ.

 

So do I. In fact I have several, two of which I take to Church, a 1769KJV and a 1611 First edition facsimile.

Try to one-up that one!

HankD