Questionable doctrines in the KJV

That is just another STUPID derogatory remark. Like the jw's name the name of Christ

Intelligence rooted in pure idiocy and utter nonsense.

 

That is just another STUPID derogatory remark. Like the jw's name the name of Christ

Intelligence rooted in pure idiocy and utter nonsense. </font>[/QUOTE]Pot calls kettle...gb9 is saying that if you take Rev 22:14KJV at face value, as the Russelites do that they interpret it as teaching works salvation. That's a fact, Jack. willie doesn't take Rev 22:14KJV at face value but gives another detailed explanation (Amplfied Version )Why the KJV is right, even though when you read this verse it still teaches plain old works salvation, no matter how many rabbits willie pulls out of his hat.

 

Orvie, I never take something as serious as scripture at face value, and if anyone wants to prevent looking like an idiot they want either,(one Greek word doth not a doctrine make) but some scholars would love for anyone to believe that. Semantics, nothing but idiological semantics.

 

That is just another STUPID derogatory remark. Like the jw's name the name of Christ

Intelligence rooted in pure idiocy and utter nonsense. </font>[/QUOTE]Pot calls kettle...gb9 is saying that if you take Rev 22:14KJV at face value, as the Russelites do that they interpret it as teaching works salvation. That's a fact, Jack. willie doesn't take Rev 22:14KJV at face value but gives another detailed explanation (Amplfied Version )Why the KJV is right, even though when you read this verse it still teaches plain old works salvation, no matter how many rabbits willie pulls out of his hat. </font>[/QUOTE]What I should have said was the text of the Bible.

 

O.K., rsr will be stocking up on you next, or we'll all horde together and crucify you.

 

Lying flat in the middle of a cow pie isn't considered still standing down here in the, uh, sunny South.

 

That is just another STUPID derogatory remark. Like the jw's name the name of Christ

Intelligence rooted in pure idiocy and utter nonsense. </font>[/QUOTE]The only thing in this quote that could possibly be classified as "stupid", "pure idiocy", or "utter nonsense" is the phrase "What amazes me".

There should be no amazement at all that two groups that persist in twisting scripture to facilitate their false doctrines would have common arguments. The verbose arguments presented by Will are filled with unfounded presuppositions, consistencies, illogical ramblings, and are laden with double standards.

In his all out effort to "defend" the KJV, he constantly and disrespectfully has to prove that the KJV does not say what in fact it says... just like the JW's and other cults.

 

Then by all means, get up!

 

Still slingingit, huh? We've got enough sense to step around cow patties in Ga, you have proven those in the Volunteer state do more than just poke a stick at what you've fallen into, so enjoy!

 

Yep, and yall have to resort to try and tell us what your "veersions" say in English.

[editted at the request of precepts]

[ February 15, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

I don’t know where you are getting your dates from. They are incorrect. I don't have time to go through and correct them all. The early dates (that you are referencing) are not clear and there are differences in the dating systems of the North and South (accession/non accessions etc.). You need to read Thiele’s book “Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings” for starters and then work out from there. It just doesn’t work the way you have set it up.

Elah reigned form 886-885, not 834. In 834, Jehu was king in the north. He reigned from 841-814. YOu can probably start with ISBE's article on "Chronology of the Old Testament" to clarify some fo these things in your mind.

But that is not the point of mentioning Ahaziah’s age of 42 years. You have two parallel accounts and you have them referring to two entirely different things, one of which is never referred to in such a manner in all of the Bible. You have located the miraculous one exception in your effort to support a wrong reading.

But this is your contention. It is not the contention fo the text and it makes no sense in the text. The formula used never means that.

Why would I wiggle and dance? I am not denying that. Never have, never will.

That wasn’t the issue. I agree with that.

I didn’t say the Bible was wrong. You keep throwing that out and it is false every time you say it. I believe the Bible. What I believe is your interpretation. Why? Because I have studied the issue and I know what the facts are. I am not snowed by your comments about it.

[qb]Great! You learned something! </font>[/QUOTE]What?? I didn’t learn anything. I already knew that. This is but another case of you not reading what I said and then commenting on it. The only thing I have learned here is that you are unfamiliar with the dates of the Hebrew kings and with the point made by the chronicler.

No, Larry, we weren't. That was just the smoke screen you threw up to hide your gaf. </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, I was discussing the right to rule. If you were discussing something else then you have either made that clear or stayed out of the conversation.

Judah had evil in it long before Ahaziah.

It is not perfect and it is not a good explanation. It is wrong.

Based on your comments, that seemed the only logical explanation. Most people are not that far off unless they have made a mistake. I was willing to grant you that latitude. Now you have pushed the issue and shown that you were wrong intentionally.

The Bible is right and it agrees with me. You are the one who missed the boat here.

 

"In his all out effort to "defend" the KJV, he constantly and disrespectfully has to prove that the KJV does not say what in fact it says... just like the JW's and other cults."
This is what I've been trying to say all along, but it was my, "Sheboleth" well....anyhow...I think that for qs and willie it's like the "Ceiling Joke"...above their heads. To say the KJV doesn't say in Rev 22:14 what it does say, is worse than what the KJVO's accuse the MV Proponents of; Bible correcting.

 

Missouri is the Volunteer state? Now, I know how you reason the English of the KJV is superior to the Greek!

 

Missouri is the Volunteer state? Now, I know how you reason the English of the KJV is superior to the Greek! </font>[/QUOTE]
Either you just confessed or you have accused Scott of the same thing you are guilty? Both!

 

No, they are correct. It is your dates which are incorrect.

They don't need correcting, you do.

I see. The dates are unclear so you don't know what they really are, but regardless of what they really are, mine are wrong and need correcting with your unknown dates. Yeah. Okay.

You need to do a bit more study then reading the commentary of an unsaved man.

Of course not! If it did you would have to admit your error and your arrogance won't allow that!

OF COURSE YOU DID! You have said repeatedly the bible, every Hebrew manuscript and text, is WRONG when it says "42 years."

So are you now retracting your charge of error and admitting "42" is not an error, just something you don't fully understand?

No, Larry, you weren't. I said the 42 years was the age of the dynasty of evil, and you said it was not and that I was thinking of the wrong nation. Please don't drag the straw man of "right to rule" back into the discussion.

Must you resort to lying? Why? Can't you prevail using only the truth?

The Bible is right and it agrees with me. You are the one who missed the boat here.

 

From: Ussher’s Time Line for the Divided Kingdom:

Although Ussher does make the often repeated error of early dating some of the Kings, as well as the Exodus, his explanation is still correct.

 

Thiele is not a commentary of an unsaved man. Theile is recognized as the watershed work on teh dating of the Hebrew kings. If you are unfamiliar with Theile, then you are unfamiliar with the dating problems in Hebrew history. If you think your dates are correct, then you should be able to give us some resources who agree with you. You have offered nothing but your own opinion, and you have repeatedly shown that not to be trustworthy. Give us someone who supports your dates and plugs them in. If you don't, we will have no basis to believe you.

Of course not! If it did you would have to admit your error and your arrogance won't allow that!</font>[/QUOTE]My arrogance has nothing to do with it. Scripture gives some years for the lenght of reign. It gives no absolute dates. We find the absolute dates in secular history and work our way back through the chronology to establish the dates of Hebrew kings.

[/b]The 42 is wrong. The Bible read "22" and that is testified to by manuscripts.

[QUOTENo, Larry, you weren't. I said the 42 years was the age of the dynasty of evil, and you said it was not and that I was thinking of the wrong nation. Please don't drag the straw man of "right to rule" back into the discussion.[/quote]I am not sure where you got the audacity to tell me what I was talking about. I have had these discussions with people who know what they are talking about. I am well familiar with the issues. I know what I was talking about. You did not. The dynasty of evil was not 42 years old. That was another dynasty. Omri was a northern dynasty. Ahaziah was in the southern kingdom. You keep missing that and it is unfortunate. You repeat it here again for some reason. Who knows why ...

I haven't lied one time. I have used only the truth. I don't need to resort to lying. I have no reason to. The truth is what it is. You have resorted to personal attacks for some reason. Why not just stay with the issues? Why go after me personally?? Did you run out of evidence for your position?? Are you so unprepared that you have to attack me about it?

Show your source for dates and let's talk about it. That should be fairly easy. I have already told you where I got my dates from. Virtually every source will agree with me, unless you know of something I don't (which is entirely possible). If you do, then show it. I want to see it. I am interested in seeing this 832 date supported.

 

I’m probably going to regret jumping into this but I wanted to point out that both passages, 2 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 22, go out of their way to make sure we understand that Ahaziah was the grandson of Ahab and learned his wicked ways from the northern kings. In other words, they are parallel passages, making the same point, using nearly identical wording. How would anyone get to your explanation of the 42 years UNLESS he was trying to reconcile 42 with 22? There is nothing in the text of 2 Chronicles that is any different from the text in 2 Kings that would lead anyone to your position. The text in both cases points exclusively to his physical age.

Of course this is not the only instance of a textual corruption in the Chronicles. We also have 1 Chronicles 19:18 which appears to be in error when compared with 2 Samuel 10:18.

1 Chronicles 19:18
But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.

2 Samuel 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.

And before anyone says that one verse is talking about the number of chariots and the other the number of riders, please notice the italics in the above verses. Both passages are refering to the same thing -- the Hebrew wording is the same in both passages (lit., slew David from Syrians seven hundred/thousand chariot).

Andy