Wrong Numbers in the Modern Versions

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Mar 28, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong Numbers in Modern Versions

    If you can't trust the numbers in the Holy Bible to be right then how can you trust the words that are between the numbers?

    The following examples show how modern versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV, NASB disagree with each other and often reject the Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Holy Bible. Numbers do not usually lend themselves to a variety of ways to translate them. That is why this specific study will focus on some of the differences in the numbers found in the various modern versions. All "bibles" are not the same, and they do not all teach the same truths but with different words.

    Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come."

    Here Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the so called oldest and best manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based, differ from each other. These two manuscripts differ in significant ways from each other more than 3000 times in the gospels alone. The reading of SEVENTY is found in the majority of all texts including, A, C and Sinaiticus. The NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV and the ESV all read 70 but the NIV, and the TNIV read "The Lord appointed seventy TWO others". 72 is the reading of Vaticanus. So, was it 70 or 72? Is your Bible the absolute, inerrant word of God or is one of the Probably Close Enuf Versions good enough for you?

    In Acts 10:19 "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, THREE men seek thee." The text says Three men because in verses 7 and 8 there were three men sent from Cornelius, two of his household servants and a devout soldier. Three is the reading of the majority of all texts, A, C and Siniaticus; D omits the number altogether, while Vaticanus has TWO men. Here the NASB and NIV wisely rejected Vaticanus and have "three men."

    In Acts 19:14-16 we are told of some vagabond Jews, exorcists, who tried to cast out evil spirits in the name of the Lord Jesus. There were SEVEN sons of one Sceva, and in verse 16 we are told "And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them and overcame them." This is the reading of the majority of all texts and the King James Bible. However in "the oldest and best" Siniaticus and Vaticanus there is another word added to the text - the word amphoteros, which means "both". This word is found 14 times in the King James Bible and is always translated as both, as in "Let both grow together", "they were both righteous before God", "he frankly forgave them both" and "he is our peace, who hath made both one."

    Around 1881 the Wescott-Hort Greek text began to be translated into the Revised Version, and was soon followed in 1901 by the the American Standard Version. This Greek text differs from the Greek text that underlies the King James Bible by about 4000 words. When the RV and the ASV came out they read in Acts 19:16 "the man in whom the spirit was leaped on them and overcame them BOTH."

    The NASB from 1960 to the 1972 editions also said "subdued BOTH OF THEM." A clear reading of the context shows there were seven sons overcome by the evil spirit, not two. So in 1977 the NASB changed their version to read "overcame them ALL." The NIV reads as does the NASB now. However, there is no word in any text for the word "all".

    The new ESV (English Standard Version) says in Acts 19:16 "the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered ALL OF THEM and overpowered them..." Then it footnotes: "or BOTH". Well, I'm sorry, but we can't have it both ways. "Both" does not mean "all of them" and the ESV is alluding to the false reading of two corrupt manuscripts.

    In Acts 27:37 Luke is relating the shipwreck of Paul on his way to Rome. The majority of all texts, and Siniaticus read "And we were in all in the ship 276 souls." But Vaticanus has the unique reading of "ABOUT 76 souls". It is possible to say "about 20, or about 100" but you would not say "about 76." There is a big difference between 276 and "about" 76. The Vaticanus reading is rejected in this place.

    In Matthew 13:33 all the texts read the same. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in THREE measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

    Many have seen this passage as representing the progressive introduction of error into the Christian church, affecting the doctrine of each of the three persons of the Trinity. The RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV correctly translate the word as "three measures" but the NIV says "a woman took and mixed into A LARGE AMOUNT of flour." The significance of the number Three is lost.

    The new TNIV (Today's New International Version) now says: "yeast that a woman took and mixed into ABOUT EIGHTEEN POUNDS of flour..." The 2002 paraphrase called The Message says: "yeast that a woman works into the dough for DOZENS of loaves of barley bread."

    In Matthew chapter 18 Peter asks the Lord Jesus how many times he should forgive his brother. He says: "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?". The Lord answers him in verse 22 "I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until SEVENTY TIMES SEVEN." This is the reading in all Greek texts. The single word "seventy times" (hebdomeekontakis) occurs only once in the entire New Testament and that is here.

    The RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Douay, Darby, NASB, NKJV, and even the new versions of the ISV (International Standard Version), The Message, and the Holman Christian Standard Version all read "seventy times seven" but the NIV and the TNIV read: "I tell you not seven times, but SEVENTY SEVEN times."

    In 2 Peter 2:5 we are told that God "spared not the old world, but saved Noah the EIGHTH person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." This is the reading of all texts. The Greek word used here is ogdoon and means 8th. The word for the number 8 is ogdos. The word is "eighth" as in "circumcised the eighth day".

    Agreeing with the King James reading of Noah being the EIGHTH PERSON, are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, Darby, and the NKJV. However the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV and NIV all say "Noah and SEVEN OTHERS." This reading is not found in any Greek text.

    You may ask, So what is the big deal?. Numbers often have a spiritual significance. Seven is spiritual perfection, and eight is the number of a new beginning. A man child was to be circumcised on the eighth day, Genesis 19:12, signifying a new relationship with the covenant God. The land was to be at rest from the sixth to the seventh year, and the eighth year the children of Israel were to sow there crops again - Leviticus 25:22.

    There are seven days in a week, ordained by God, and the eighth is the start of a new week. So too with Noah the eighth person and his family after the flood. God began again to repopulate the earth. The number 8 has a spiritual significance of a new beginning. All the texts read this way, and the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV have no right to change what God has been pleased to give us in His words.

    In 1 Samuel 6:19 the King James Bible reads: “And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.”

    The Bible versions that read 50,070 are the King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Italian Diodati 1602, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960, both the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English translations from the Masoretic text, the New American Standard Version 1960 -1995, modern Italian, the Modern Greek bible, the Portuguese, French and Rumanian bibles, the World English Bible, the modern Hebrew Names Version, as well as the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJV. These versions translate what the preserved Hebrew texts actually read.

    However the NIV, RSV, ESV tell us in 1 Samuel 6:19 "But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting SEVENTY of them to death, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD.”

    The NIV, RSV, ESV just made this number up! The ESV footnote tells us the Hebrew reads "of the people seventy men, fifty thousand men." You have to admit, there is a slight difference between 50,070 men slain, and 70. So, which one is right?

    For a more detailed study of this passage see my article at

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/50070.html

    My friend and brother in Christ, Martin Shue, has also written a very good article about this passage which can be seen at his Authorized Version Defense site here.

    http://www.avdefense.com/50070.html

    In 1 Samuel 13:1 the King James Bible, NKJV, Geneva, Webster's translation of 1833, Lamsa's translation from the Peshitta of 1933, Catholic Douay, Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB say: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel...”

    The NASB 1972 says: ”Saul was 40 years old when he began to reign and he reigned 32 years over Israel.” The NIV has:”Saul was 30 years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel 42 years.” Gleason Archer, one of the translators of the NIV and the NASB, says in his book Bible Difficulties on page 171 that the Hebrew text here has been lost. Did God lose some of His words or has He preserved them as He promised?

    Versions like the RSV, ESV actually read this way: "Saul was...years old when he began to reign, and he reigned...and two years." Then in a footnote tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew and Septuagint."

    Which reading is correct - ONE/TWO years, or 40/32 or 30/42, or ...years and...and two years? The NASB and NIV not only disagree with each other but contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned for 40 years. The Hebrew text is not lost. Check out the concordances of NASB - NIV and you will see they have at times translated the words “one” and “year” just as found in the King James Bible.

    For my more detailed article on this passage see

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/wdslost.html

    While here in 1 Samuel, in verse 13:5 we read: "And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, THIRTY thousand chariots..." Here the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, NASB read as the King James Bible - THIRTY thousand. But the NIV says "THREE thousand chariots." A footnote tells us in the NIV: Some LXX manuscripts and Syriac 3000, Hebrew 30,000.

    The NIV tosses out the clear Hebrew text, and substitutes the reading of SOME LXX texts and the Syriac. Why? Because it simply is relying on human reasoning rather than believing God's word as He preserved it.

    Gleason Archer (Bible Difficulties) says regarding this passage: "Much more likely is the possibility that 3000 was the original number and somehow in later transmission it was miscopied as 30,000. The accurate preservation of statistics is notoriously difficult and 1 Samuel has more than its share of textual errors."

    It is sad to see so many Christians following the opinions of scholars like Gleason "Scribal Error" Archer, and modern versionists like Hank Hannegraf recommend his book.

    In 2 Samuel 24:13 we are presented with what at first appears to be a contradiction, but in reality is not. Trust the King James Bible, believe it and you will not go wrong, even if you do not undersand it at first - it is always right. In verse 13 the prophet Gad is sent from God to confront king David about his sin of numbering the people to boast in the power of the flesh. The prophet Gad tells him to choose one of three things that should come upon him. He says: "Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land?"

    Here the Hebrew texts clearly say SEVEN years, and so do Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Hebrew Names Version, Jewish Publication 1917 version, the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, and the Third Millenium Bible. However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NIV have changed this number to THREE. "Shall there come upon you THREE years of famine in your land?" But the NIV, RSV, ESV all have a footnote that tells us the number "THREE" comes from the Greek LXX, while the Hebrew texts say SEVEN years.

    Why did they feel free to change this number? In my opinion, it is because they don't believe God has preserved His inerrant words. They are unwilling to solve an apparent contradiction, and they don't know how to properly read the Scriptures. In 1 Chronicles 21:12 Gad is reported as saying to David "THREE years of famine, or three months or three days"- hence the APPARENT contradiction. Is it three years or seven years of famine? The RSV, NIV, ESV editors could not figure it out so they abandoned the Hebrew text, thought God's word was wrong, and went with the LXX reading.

    The solution is found in 1 Samuel itself, which has the reading of "seven years", and which provides us with information not found in 1 Chronicles. The seven years of famine would be the total number of years of famine in the land. You see, in 1 Samuel 21:1 God tells us "Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year". The famine also continued an additional 9 months and 20 days while Joab went through all the land numbering the people. "They came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days." Thus there had already been virtually 4 years of famine upon the land at the time Gad came to David and offered him the three choices. 4 + 3 = 7. Both the numbers 7 years and the 3 years are correct. The King James Bible is right, and the RSV, NIV, ESV are wrong.

    Erroneous number 2 Samuel 23:18

    In case you think I am just picking on the NIV, here is one (of many) for the NASB. In 2 Samuel 23:18 we are told of "Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief among THREE." If we compare this with 1 Chronicles 11:20-21 we see that Abishai was one of a group of three men, probably the three mighty men who broke through the lines of the Philistines to get David some water from the well of Bethlehem. He was not one of the chief three over the whole army. Abishai was a captain over the other two mighty men.

    The NASB follows the liberal RSV, and the new 2001 ESV and says in 2 Samuel 23:18 that Abishai was chief among the THIRTY, rather than the THREE. The RSV, NRSV, and ESV have a footnote which tells us "Thirty" is found in 2 Hebrew manuscripts, and the Syriac, but that the Masoretic text says THREE.

    Agreeing with the King James Bible reading that Abishai was chief of the THREE, and not the THIRTY of the NASB, are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva 1599, the NIV, NKJV, Revised Version, the American Standard Version (the precursor to the NASB), both the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English translations from the Masoretic text, and the modern Hebrew Names Version, even the LXX, the Spanish of 1909, the Italian Diodati 1602, Websters 1833, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Third Millenium Bible, World English Bible, and the Living Bible. So even the NIV and the ASV differ from the NASB.

    2 Samuel 15:7 forty years or four years?

    In 2 Samuel we read of Absalom's rebellion against his father king David. Verse 7 says: "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go a pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron."

    Here all known Hebrew texts read FORTY years. The versions that agree with the King James Bible are the NKJV, 1917, 1936 Hebrew-English versions, the NASB, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Douay, Geneva, Darby, Spanish, Young and many others.

    However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, and ESV read "after FOUR years Absalom...". The footnote in the RSV and NRSV says the number 4 comes from the Greek and Syriac, while the Hebrew says 40. The NIV footnote says SOME LXX, Syriac and Josephus say 4 while the Hebrew says 40. My copy of the LXX says 40. The NKJV also includes the sitting on the fence footnote of "Septuagint manuscript, Syriac and Josehpus have 4". The scholars like to help one another out in sowing disbelief and doubt, don't they?

    Rather than believing God knew what He was doing when He said 40, the NIV, ESV editors thought 40 years was impossible, it must be wrong, so we will follow the traitor Josephas instead of what God recorded in all Hebrew manuscripts.

    There are three possible ways I know of to explain this number of "after 40 years". One possibility is the number refers to 40 years after his father David was originally anointed to be king, before he actually took the throne. See 2 Samuel 2:4 and 3:1.

    A second possibility is the 40 years refers to the age of Absalom himself at this time.

    A third possibility, and the one I find the most likely, is the 40 years refers the time when David invaded the Geshurites and killed off the men, women and children. Absalom's mother was daughter of the king of the Geshurites, (2 Samuel 3:3), and it could well be that Absalom was taking revenge upon David on behalf of his mother. In the context of "after 40 years" the very next verse mentions Absalom's vow that he had taken while he abode at Geshur in Syria.

    I think God puts things like these difficult numbers in his precious word to cause Bible critics to stumble and to reveal their unbelief and readiness to exchange the words of God for carnal, human reasoning. "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 1 Corinthians 1:19.

    Jeremiah 6:19-21 "Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it...Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons shall fall upon them."

    Always give the benefit of the doubt to the King James Holy Bible, but never to its critics. God has given us many "clues" and evidence as to where His pure, inerrant words are found today. Believe the promises of God to preserve His inerrant words and ask Him for wisdom to understand them. May God grant us the grace to be like king David who said: "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." Psalm 119:18

    Will Kinney
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    There's one problem, the original text did not have verse numbers.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will J. Kinney: "So, was it 70 or 72? Is your Bible the absolute,
    inerrant word of God or is one of the Probably
    Close Enuf Versions good enough for you?"

    All the so called "Probably Close Enuf Versions" individually
    and collectively are more significant than
    the 70 V. 72.

    My friend, Brother Will: you have shown yourself
    ingorant of arithemetic here.
    I couldn't have wished it for a more deserving person.
    There is no significant soul-saving signifance between
    70 and 72. In fact in the world of arithemetic rounding
    72 = 70. But sucked up by the cult-like KJVO teachings
    of anti-education, you don't know this.

    BTW, My NKJV is is the absolute, inerrant written
    word of God.

    And again, I ask which of the following is
    absolute and inerrant?
    1. the written word of God: the Holy Bible
    2. the living word of God: Messiah Iesus

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Gb93433 -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    But, of course, in the KJVO method of things
    the unspecified KJV that becomes the KJV
    is PERFECTER than the original text.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    In regards to 2 Samuel 15:7 Will says:
    "The footnote in the RSV and NRSV says the number 4 comes from the Greek and Syriac, while the Hebrew says 40. The NIV footnote says SOME LXX, Syriac and Josephus say 4 while the Hebrew says 40. My copy of the LXX says 40. The NKJV also includes the sitting on the fence footnote of "Septuagint manuscript, Syriac and Josehpus have 4". The scholars like to help one another out in sowing disbelief and doubt, don't they?"

    Interesting but illustrative.
    This comment takes the side of the KJVs that HIDE THE NOTES
    against those versions that reveal the information.
    The term "occult" refers to the worship of the hidden.
    I is better to reveal information than to hide it.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I see all you brothers have come up with some really sound refutation for this article. Keep up the good work fellas.

    Say Ed, since you think the nkjv is infallible, along with all the other ones too, see if you can explain this one for me.

    Thanks,

    Will

    An apparent contradiction that is in fact a contradiction in the NKJV, NIV and NASB.

    One of the proofs of the true Holy Bible, which in English is the King James Bible of 1611, is that is contains no proveable errors. The modern bible perversions all contain numerous real and not just apparent contradictions. A case in point is the differences between 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 where both sections speak of the molten sea constructed by king Solomon that stood upon twelve oxen. How much water did this molten sea actually contain?

    In 1 Kings 7:26 we read: "And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: IT CONTAINED TWO THOUSAND BATHS." However in 2 Chronicles 4:5 we read: "And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and IT RECEIVED AND HELD THREE THOUSAND BATHS."

    This obviously looks, at first glance, like a contradiction. The NKJV, NIV and NASB all read slightly differently and it is this critical difference that in fact creates a very real rather than an apparent contradiction. The NKJV in 2 Chronicles 4:5 reads: "It CONTAINED THREE thousand baths." yet in 1 Kings 7:26 the NKJV, NIV and NASB all say: "It contained TWO thousand baths." (Some modern versions, like the NASB, say it "could hold 2000 baths" - "it could hold 3000 baths" which results in the same real contradiction.)

    Smith's Bible Dictionary also gets it wrong. It says: " It is said to have been 15 feet in diameter and 7 1/2 feet deep, and to have been capable of containing 2000, or according to (2 Chronicles 4:5) 3000 baths (16,000 to 24,000 gallons).

    Easton's Bible Dictionary also gets it wrong. It likewise says: " It was placed on the backs of twelve oxen, standing with their faces outward. It was capable of containing two or three thousand baths of water (Compare 2 Chronicles 4:5)

    The solution is really quite easy once you look closely at the correct reading found in the KJB. Not only does the KJB read the way it does but so also do both Jewish translations of the Jewish Publication Society of America and the Hebrew Pub. Company of 1917 and 1936, Young's translation, Green's interlinear, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, Hebrew Names Version, Webster's translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    There are two verbs found in the Hebrew in 2 Chronicles and only one verb in 1 Kings. The NKJV,NIV, NASB, Darby, Geneva Bible, RSV, NEB, NRSV, and ESV are all wrong and create a real contradiction by not translating the second verb found in 2 Chronicles 4:5. One verb is RECEIVED # 2388 and the second verb is HELD # 3557 three thousand baths.

    1 Kings 7:26 tells us that the molten sea actually contained 2,000 baths of water, while the 2 Chronicles passage tells us that it could receive and hold 3,000 baths but it only contained 2,000 - thus is was only filled to two-thirds of its capacity. It is like saying "This gas tank holds 25 gallons; it contains 15 gallons of gas now."

    Matthew Henry, the Bible commentator, got it right. He notes: ". There was the molten sea, a very large brass pan, in which they put water for the priests to wash in, v. 2, 6. It was put just at the entrance into the court of the priests, like the font at the church door. If it were filled to the brim, it would hold 3000 baths (as here, v. 5), but ordinarily there were only 2000 baths in it, 1 Ki. 7:26."

    There is no real contradiction in the KJB, but a very definite contradiction in the NKJV, NIV and NASB because they did not translate that second Hebrew verb. The other bible versions are false witnesses to the truth. This is only one of many such examples that prove them to be false bibles. By their fruits shall ye know them. "A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5
     
  7. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Kings 7:23 (KJV1611):

    And he made a moulten Sea,
    ten cubits from the one brim to the
    other : it was round all about
    , & his height
    was fiue cubits : and a line
    of thirtie cubits did
    compasss it round about
    .

    The Sceptics Bible comentary notes that
    if "it was round all about" means it was
    round, then the circumference (30) divided
    by the diameter (10) is 3. Yet pi (the
    circumference divided by the diameter)
    is 3.1415... (i.e. should be 31 cubits
    maybe 31½ cubits)

    Explaine this correctly and i will share what God
    has told be about your "question".

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will, actually what you are showing helps prove that God can keep his Word in most translations Bibles, because none of the numbers have any effect on the doctrines we believe. IE Jesus Christ is THE Son of God, born of a Virgin, Died for our sins, Rose again on the third day, etc. [​IMG]
     
  10. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    /ed runs off revising his doctrines
    in light of the 2,000 v. 3,000 bath
    problem. BTW, what is a bath?/

    :rolleyes:
     
  11. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Among the many infallible proofs the KJV is not among any of them.
     
  12. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Noah Hutchings, in his book GOD THE MASTER MATHEMATICIAN, defends the King James Bible in chapter 3 called Why All the Fuss Over Bible Versions?

    "If we are not to change one jot or one tittle, by what authority do men take liberties in changing numbers? The King James Bible is proven to be God honored in that it was the Bible used in spreading the gospel around the world from 1611 to our present century. In numerical design, why tamper with something that is already perfect?"
     
  13. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    It was men who added the verse numbers not God. They were never there originally. If one were to follow your reasoning then they we would not have verse numbers today.
     
  14. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Ed, good question you present.

    Member # 4203
    posted March 28, 2004 10:50 PM                       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 Kings 7:23 (KJV1611):

    And he made a moulten Sea,
    ten cubits from the one brim to the
    other : it was round all about, & his height
    was fiue cubits : and a line
    of thirtie cubits did
    compasss it round about.

    The Sceptics Bible comentary notes that
    if "it was round all about" means it was
    round, then the circumference (30) divided
    by the diameter (10) is 3. Yet pi (the
    circumference divided by the diameter)
    is 3.1415... (i.e. should be 31 cubits
    maybe 31½ cubits)

    Explaine this correctly and i will share what God
    has told be about your "question".

    Ok brother, this explanation is provided by some other guy and I think it is right.

       Does the Bible contain a mathematical error relative to the dimensions of Solomon's temple basin? Critics so claim, but what are the actual facts?

    A skeptic claims that the Bible contains a mathematical mistake in 1 Kings 7:23 (cf. 2 Chron. 4:2). The writer states that the great basin in Solomon's temple was fifteen feet in diameter, and forty-five feet in circumference. According to these figures, the circumference was three times the distance of the diameter. Actually, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is called pi, and the precise measurement of pi is 3.1415, not 3.0. Supposedly, then, this demonstrates the biblical text to be in error. How does the Bible believer respond this?

    This alleged "mistake" is a classic example of the desperation of those who, for their own base motives, wish to discredit the Scriptures. The effort is futile. Consider the following points.


    1.        No contradiction or error can be charged against the biblical text unless all relevant facts are known. And all facts are not known in this instance.

    For example, it is not certain whether the diameter of this "sea of brass" was based upon the inside dimensions of the basin, or the outside (the thickness of the vessel was a "handbreath" (1 Kgs. 7:26) -- approximately three and one-half inches). It appears that the top of basin was fashioned with a "brim" (see 7:24) that turned outward (which perhaps reflected the fifteen feet), while the inner diameter was less, in which case there could have been absolute mathematical orthodoxy.

    While this explanation is possible, there really is no reason to expect, or demand, a mathematically precise formula.

    2.        It is common in literature to employ "rounded" numbers, i.e., a definite figure to represent a general number, in providing descriptions. This procedure is utilized frequently in the Bible without hesitation or apology.

    When Israel was preparing to enter Canaan, the bulk of the nation was to remain "about two thousand cubits" away from the ark of the covenant (Josh. 3:4). On the day of Pentecost, "about three thousand souls" constituted the church (Acts 2:41; cf. 4:4). The children of Israel were in the wilderness of Sinai "about forty years" (Acts 13:1 . The biblical writers were not under moral obligation to cite measurements in terms of feet, inches, and fractions thereof.

    If someone were to ask the skeptic (who framed the objection posed above) to state the length of a day, would he reply "twenty-four hours," or would he be compelled to specify -- twenty-three hours, fifty-six minutes, and 4.09054 seconds (the actual measurement)?

    In fact, our critic stated that pi is 3.1415, whereas not even he was precise. Pi actually is 3.14159265+ (i.e., indefinitely imprecise). It is hardly consistent, therefore, to frame an imprecise objection against the Bible's alleged imprecision.


    PI AND THE BIBLE

    Some mathematical comments are in order to add to the discussion of pi. If one
    takes a more analytical look at the Bible verses noted (II Chronicles 4:2-5 and
    I Kings 7:23-26), one will arrive at a ratio that is startlingly close to the
    real value of pi (3.14159+).

    One fact that is overlooked in discussions of this sort is that the wall of the
    "sea" (bowl) was "one handbreadth" in thickness (I'm assuming that a
    handbreadth is about four inches and a cubit is about 18 inches, but more on
    this later). Taking the thickness of the walls into account, and assuming that
    the 10 cubit diameter was measured from the OUTSIDE edge and that the 30 cubit
    circumference was measured along the INSIDE edge, we compute pi thus:

    Ci = 30 cubits                inside circumference
    = 540 inches

    Do = 10 cubits                outside diameter
    = 180 inches

    T = 4 inches                wall thickness

    given the following relationships:

    Ci = pi x Di

    Di = Do - 2 x T                inside diameter

    and substituting, we get:

    Ci = pi' x (Do - 2 x T)

    Ci
    pi' = ------------                described value of pi
    Do - 2 x T

    540 inches
    = --------------------
    180 - 2 x 4 inches

    = 3.139534+

    The difference between the described value of pi (pi') and the actual value of
    pi is:

    pi - pi'
    error = ---------- x 100%
    pi

    3.141592+ - 3.139534+
    = ----------------------- x 100%
    3.141592+

    = 0.0655%

    This means that, given the assumptions above, the Biblical description of pi
    differs from the real value of pi by less than a fifteenth of a percent, or a
    measuring error of about a third of an inch. Not bad for measurements done by
    hand. This also agrees with the description of a "circular" bowl and not some
    other shape (such as a hexagon) that some scholars have postulated.
     
  15. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Phillip, you say: "Will, actually what you are showing helps prove that God can keep his Word in most translations Bibles, because none of the numbers have any effect on the doctrines we believe. IE Jesus Christ is THE Son of God, born of a Virgin, Died for our sins, Rose again on the third day, etc. "

    Dear Phillip, your position is getting just a tad shaky, don't ya think?

    "proves that God can keep his Word (should be "His words") in most translations"

    Phillip, as I asked at the beginning, If you can't trust the numbers, then how can you trust the words that are found between the numbers?

    Your NASB has the wrong Greek texts, departs scores of times from the inspired Hebrew texts, and contains many factual and doctrinal errors. They are there in many subtle ways to be discerned by those whom God has opened their eyes to see.

    I know the fundamental facts of the gospel are in all translations and God can use them to save His people. I do not dispute this. But I do believe what God said about preserving His perfect and complete words till heaven and earth pass away, and they are not found in this fashion in any other popular Bible today except the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

    That is my stated position and through all my study and prayer, this has only been again and again confirmed to me by God. That is how I see it.

    Your NASB continues to deliberately change both its underlying texts and meanings from one edition to the next. It is NOT the pure, inerrant words of God.

    If you want to use an inferior bible, go right ahead. I cannot stop you. Only God can show you the truth in this vital matter.

    Thanks and God bless you,

    Will
     
  16. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Psalms 145, good point.
    Dr. Noah Hutchings, in his book GOD THE MASTER MATHEMATICIAN, defends the King James Bible in chapter 3 called Why All the Fuss Over Bible Versions?

    "If we are not to change one jot or one tittle, by what authority do men take liberties in changing numbers? The King James Bible is proven to be God honored in that it was the Bible used in spreading the gospel around the world from 1611 to our present century. In numerical design, why tamper with something that is already perfect?"
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gb&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;It was men who added the verse numbers not God. They were never there originally. If one were to follow your reasoning then they we would not have verse numbers today.


    gb, your being silly. We are not talking about the numbers for the verses, but about the actual numbers found in the Hebrew and Greek texts that underly the Holy Bible.

    The RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV all show their true colors by perverting God's words and casting doubt on their preservation.

    That is the philosophy behind men like Gleason Archer who was a translator on both the NASB, and NIV, and a lot of the changes are the same ones as found in the liberal RSV put out by men who denied the inspiration of the Scriptures.

    The New Evangelicals of today are following the methods and same principles as the apostates of years gone by. You just won't admit it yet.

    May God open more eyes to His precious and pure words as found ONLY in the King James Bible today.

    God bless,

    Will Kinney
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NIV says "After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others" and includes a footnote that reads "Some manuscripts seventy; also in verse 17".

    So it looks like the NIV includes the information from all the main source texts. It's clear that the NIV attemps to hide, change, or "pervert" nothing, as KJVOlaters would claim.
     
  18. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johnv, you post: "The NIV says "After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others" and includes a footnote that reads "Some manuscripts seventy; also in verse 17".
    So it looks like the NIV includes the information from all the main source texts. It's clear that the NIV attemps to hide, change, or "pervert" nothing, as KJVOlaters would claim. "

    John, which is the inerrant word of God, the text or the footnotes, or both?

    Are you aware that there are literally hundreds of times where there are textual omissions, additions, and other variations where the Niv makes no mention of them in their footnotes?

    I believe in and defend only the TEXT of the King James Bible as being the complete, inerrant words of God.

    What do you defend? - Apparently a whole variety of conflicting versions and footnotes, and various readings, and you end up with no sure words of God.

    You are free to do this, of course. Have a nice trip.

    Will Kinney
     
  19. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will,

    What's your take on the 8,000 footnotes that appeared in the original AV1611? These usually no longer are printed in modern editions of the KJV, but wouldn't your same objections to footnotes in MV's apply to those that appeared in the AV1611? Were the KJV translators confused, or ignorant, or attempting to "change" or "hide" anything?
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    No translation is the inerrant word of God. Not the KJv, not the NIV. They are only translations.

    Are you referring to an omission from the source texts, or from another translation, like the KJV? If you're referring to the latter, you proceed from a false assumption, since the KJV was not (and should not be) a source text.

    For you to adhere only to the KJV for yourself, that's perfectly fine and appropriate. However, if you to assert that the KJV is to be the sole translation for all people, then you're adding to the Bible, which makes you a "liberal" (since you don't adhere to biblical fundamentals), not to mention a believer in a heresy.

    If I HAD to choose only one, I'd choose the oldest source texts, such as the LXX, since it predates the TR (used by the KJV translators) by a considerable length of time. IF the Dead Sea Scrolls included the NT, I'd actually prefer them, since they predate the all the Greek texts by a wide margin. I'd be curious as to what the Dead Sea Scrolls say in regards to the OT verses in question. No doubt, however, if the DSS disagrees with the KJV, KJVOlaters will certainly discount this source as well.

    However, since I biblically DON'T have to choose, I will make use of as many resources that are available to me. Since the NIV includes the source texts from the TR where they conflict with older source material via footnote, it is, for my use, the most complete translation available. I have a well-used copy of the NIV next to my KJV, NKJV, and NASB.

    Since the Bible does not forbid me, yes I am. I will continue to use the KJV, Geneva, NIV, NASB, et al, as much as possible to understand God's word. This doesn't even begin to touch upon the Bibles I've got in foreign languages, like a Dutch Bible and a Gutenburg Bible (in German).
     

Share This Page

Loading...