Questionable doctrines in the KJV

Why do you find "Jesus wept" (John 11:35) so interesting?

 

Skan, I see where you're comin from. I'll remember that from now on when I post.

See QS, this weasel can learn a few things too.

 

You must have learned that line of reasoning from Bill Clinton.

 

And you must have learned logic from QS. I can't help but notice you haven't answered my question. Got a problem? Can't do it?

Here, I will even post it again just in case you missed it the first time:

 

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?

I do believe that was Augustus' decree.

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?

Yup.

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?

This is allegorical prophecy. Unless there is to be literally a 7-headed dragon, what follows about the pronouns of how many 'wondered' after it doesn't mean anything outside the allegorical prophecy.

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.

 

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

 

I do </font>[/QUOTE]HomeBound, I think you'd say the KJV is superior in the Apocrypha too! Maybe Hezekiah 1:18 too.

 

And it would have either lost a lot of it's meaning or would have had many, many more words "ADDED" to it. Depending on the bias of the translators of modernistic thinking, but why is the nkjv wrong in places if that were true?

Now if we were to consider the attitude of the KJB translators to be instilled in the modern, uh, translators, then the modern would have the benefit of the common man involved instead of capitalism, else there wouldn't have to be a copywrite in the mv's.

So let's go ahead and start deducting the royalty checks from the bank accounts of the mv translators and get back to the Bible, uh, you know which one.

 

The only folks here on the BB who use words like or similar to these you use: "full of errors and contradicitions and untruths" are the KJVO folks concerning the NIV, NASB, NKJV (This one someone said that it was the most dangerous) etc...

I don't recall any MVer ever saying that the KJB is FULL of errors and FULL of contradictions and FULL of untruths but I do remember KJVO folk (at least one) calling several of the MVs "satanic counterfeits".

Unfortunately the KJVO have bought into the RCC urban myth of the Latin Vulgate, that a translation of the Inspired Word of God can be superior to that Inspired Word simply because the self-proclaimed mouth-pieces of God have said so.

Same error different folks.

HankD

 

Um .... Wrong dynasty. Omri was a king in the northern kingdom. This Ahaziah was king in the southern kingdom.

[/qb]Not only is it not a coincidence, it is not even accurate. Omri reigned in the northern kingdom of Israel from 885-874. Ahaziah (of Judah, not Israel) became king in 841 after his father Jehoram died.

Several problems come to light:

1. Kings in Israel and JUdah sometimes had similar or the same names. There was a Joram (or Jehoram) in both; there was an Ahaziah in both; there was a Joash (or Jehoash) in both. Failure to distinction which one is being talked about leads to wrong conclusions.

2. Some people accept explanations for things without reading the text. To buy the explanation of the dynasty of Omri, you have to totally disregard the text. Omri was in the northern kingdom, not the southern; Ahaziah was not his son and had no rights of accession. The text says nothing of Omri and with good reason ... he is irrelevant in the Southern kingdom.

 

See, I do have a positive effect on some people.

Private joke, sorry you don't get it.

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.

Thank You, Homebound, I remember that now. I guess I was sort of enraged at the time I first answered. There is a distinct difference in stalls for horses and horses for stalls. The key is that Solomon had 36,000 more horses than he did stalls.

BTW,anybody know anyone who has 4,000 stalls for horses today? How about 40,000 horses for those stalls?

Well, back to the, uh, discussion.




[ February 11, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: QuickeningSpirit ]

 

You've got it backwards, Light comes to problems.

 

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
"...then the modern would have the benefit of the common man involved instead of capitalism, else there wouldn't have to be a copywrite in the mv's."

Now, you KNOW the copyrights argument stinx. Why even mention it again?

 

Also, Pastor Larry, the Jewish kings were of the line of david, from which JESUS eventually came as a man. They ruled Judah until the Babylonians deposed Zedekiah.(which brings up another subject for debate in another forum-God promised David an UNBROKEN dynasty-but that can be discussed elsewhere.)

Yes, some kings of Judah were righteous while others were evil. but God didn't end their dynasty because of His promise to David. And that dynasty was quite a bit older than 42 years in Ahaziah's time.

 

Then you haven't been reading the posts. Several of the non-KJVO posters have posted "errors" in the KJV and two have posted entire lists of errors and contradictions in the KJV.

 

Um, better do some more study! Ahaziah was of the house of Omri through his mother. He was the son of Joram, or Jehoram and his mother was Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and the wife of Jehoram, king of Judah (2Kings 8:18) who "walked in the ways of the house of Ahab" (2Chron 21:6) and is called "daughter" of Omri in 2Kings 8:26. On the death of her husband and of her son Ahaziah, she conspired to assume the throne. She killed all of Ahaziah’s children except Joash, the youngest (2Kings 11:1,2). After a reign of six years she was put to death following a rebellion (2Kings 11:20; 2Chron 21:6; 2Chron 22:10-12 & 23:15) stirred up by the people in connection with Josiah’s being crowned as king. The bible says "he walked in the way of the house of Ahab" and that he was "the son in law of the house of Ahab." His mother, the daughter of Jezebel, counseled him in the ways of wickedness and the house of Ahab led him to his destruction. Ahaziah dedicated "hallowed things" to the Lord(2Kings 12:18), but he did evil in the sight of the Lord.

I have snipped all the rest as it has been rendered moot by your failure to study to know who Ahaziah's mother and grandfather were.

 

If that is so then we need to be careful what we mean by "FULL" of errors, etc.

The King James Bible is NOT “FULL” of errors.
It has some errors when compared to the Greek text (which Greek text makes a difference also).

True, archaic grammar and syntax would appear as an error to the modern reader.
But archaic language does NOT constitute an error but a reason to upgrade the KJB (but then it would no longer be the KJB) or a reason for the Church (If we could ever agree upon an authoritative text) to translate afresh the Word of God in the “koine” of the 21st century generation man dwelling upon the earth.

Personally, it seems to me that many have turned this KJV/MV issue into a “I am holier than thou” ego massage.

Isaiah 65:6
Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These [are] a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

HankD

 

Now, Hank, apply this same reasoning to the Constitution of These United States and you'll see who's behind this motivation that is denying our freedoms while we speak.

I don't believe we are really getting any smarter than our founding fathers, just faster at processing information, and when it slows our ability to process said info, then the ulterior motive is to change the info as it will be more easily and expediantly processed. Guess what? The substance is diluded in the end result and we end up with a cheap imitation of the original.

Our AV 1611 KJB isn't just another translation like so many try to handle it's inner beauty as such, but the KJB is the completion of the texts which it is derived. The only way anyone can deny it's purity is to sling the mud of contrasting and too often flat out contradictory MSS.

All this has come about by the claim of higher intelligence, but instead we have only higher intellectuals, uh, holier than thou's, of lower intelligence. These types alwys turn things into a challenge of wits, not unlike the Greeks, uh-hum, of yesteryear, ever-learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the Truth.

 

The Constitution is an original document. The KJV is not. If you were to do a compariston, you'd have to compare the Constitution to the TR or LXX. Once you do that, your reasoning fails.