Questionable doctrines in the KJV

Cambridge 1762.

 

How can you tell?

I have a KJV my Maternal Grandmother used.
It ends at Revelation 5 (rest is missing).
It says: "New York American Bible Society 1851".
So it can't be a KJV1873.
But Ruth 3:15 is a "she" Bible, so it can't
be KJV1769.

Is the KJV1762 a "he" or "she" bible?

 

Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.

Also if one will take notice, Ruth is the one being "laiden" with the barley, so it is easily determined she would be the one traveling into the city, whether Boaz actually did or not really isn't distinguished by this one verse out of context, but Ruth being the one to travel into the city is.

I've got several KJB's and none of them read "he".

Could it just be that the printers of the ones that read "he" simply left off the "s"?

There are many Bibles being published as KJB but are having many printer's mistakes in them, sometimes even using totally different words having other meanings.

Stick with the Cambridge 1762, you won't have these sort of questions, or at the least you'll have the right answers to any questions, except from those who don't know that the Lord is God.

 

Well, folks, you heard it here first! Pastor Larry is so desperate to cover his mistake in claiming that I was thinking of the wrong man when I said Ahaziah was descended from Omri that he now openly says the bible (all those references I posted) is wrong and Ahaziah was not descended from Omri through his mother, the wife of Joram, King of Judah.

It is really sad that a man will deny the bible instead of just saying "oops, I must have missed the fact that Ahaziah was descended from Omri!"

 

English Bibles in my Library
(I'm not counting my Wifes half-a-dozen
Bibles, only mine:

1. Good News America, God Loves You [N.T.]
----(unable to determine what KJV this is)
2. KJV, 1851 ABS Edition
3. KJV Prophecy Marked Reference Study
----Bible (Grant JEffrey) /KJV1769/
4. Revised Berkley Edition
5. Serendipity New Testament for Groups (NIV)
6. TEV = Today's English Version [N.T.]
7. The Way (The Living Bible)
8. Truth Teen Bible (nKJV)
9. Williams [N.T.]

 

Regarding Ruth 3:15
Precepts: //Could it just be that the printers of the ones
that read "he" simply left off the "s"?//

No, it is NOT a simple omission of the "s".
We cannot find the answer in our KJVs.
The KJV1611 has "he".
The KJV1769 has "she".
The KJV1873 has "he".

1. We can find our answer if we go over to the
New International Version (NIV) Bible.
NIV says "he" in the script and has this footnote:

b.15 Most Hebrew manuscripts;
many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syric she

2. We can find our answer if we go over to
the New Living Translation (NLT)
" .. Then Boaz* went to town."

3:15b Most Hebrew manuscripts read he;
many Hebrew manuscripts, Syhriac version, and
Latin Vulgate read she

3. We can find a clue to our answer
if we go to the NASB = New American Standard Bible.
The NASB says "she" in the text and has this footnote:

3:15 so with many mss; M.T. he

4. So we see many of the accursed Modern Versions (MV)
have the answer: there is a variation in the
Hebrew sources. We don't have guess it is some
printer error, by comparing versions, we find the
truth is known and we can know it also.

Precepts: "Stick with the Cambridge 1762, you won't have
these sort of questions, ..."

Please give us a measure whereby we can determine a
copy is "Cambridge 1762" and not of the KJV1769 family of Bibles.
Thank you.

 

Skanwmatos just can’t seem to help himself. He can’t seem to keep from saying things that aren’t true. Let’s examine this post and see it firsthand.

I said

Skanwmatos replies with:

Where did I say that he was thinking of the wrong man? Can anyone show me that? If you can’t, then someone please tell me what skanwmatos is lying about what I said.

I didn't make a mistake and I sure didn't need to cover it up. I didn't question what the Bible said. I merely pointed out that Skanwmatos traced the right to rule incorrectly in an effort to support his position.

I didn’t miss that. Nor did I deny the Bible. Your confusion is due to your own unwillingness to read what is said and respond to that rather tha making stuff up.

If you understand the right to rule in the monarchy, you would have saved yourself from this foolishness. The right to rule comes, as I said, through the father, not the mother. To my knowledge, I never said that Ahaziah was not a descendant of Omri. That was never the question. The question was about the right to rule. And that is, strange as it may seem, why I said his right to rule was not from his mother. It was from his father as the text plainly says. Folks, words are there because they mean things. Read them. Don’t make stuff up.

As I said, and as the Bible confirms, he got that right to rule from his father, not from his mother. (I keep saying that because you have managed to miss it so far; maybe this time you won't). I don't understand what that is so difficult. Jehoram and Ahaziah were kings of Judah. Omri was a king of Israel. Two different ruling families in two different countries. Review the story and get your facts straight.

Jehoshaphat (of Judah) and Ahab (of Israel) made an alliance that included the marriage of Ahab's daughter (Omri's granddaughter) to Jehoshaphat's son (Ahaziah's father). Ahaziah was the offspring of that marriage. If Ahaziah was ruling in Israel, then you would be right … it would have come from his mother. However, he wasn’t. The Bible tells us he was ruling in Judah and that right to rule came from his father. The right to rule comes through the father (the present king). Therefore, Ahaziah's right to rule came through his father (Jehoram), not through his mother. Political marriages do not give dynasty rights.

This is so basic and you have the audacity to come in here and attack me for knowing the basic truth. This is your fault for not reading and your fault for not understanding. You can’t blame me for that. I did nothing wrong. I am right on this one.

There is an awful lot of absolute trash being thrown out here and you guys should be embarrassed for yourself and your compatriots. Just when you think it can’t get any worse, you try a stunt like this. Did you really think I wasn’t going to read it? Did you think I was going to let you spew this and not say anything?? You know, you don’t have to agree with me, but do not twist what I say and make something up so you can attack me. You need to back off and take a break until you are able and willing to proceed as a gentleman in this conversation.

 

Larry, you seem incapable of admitting you were wrong, and now not only lie about what you said, but accuse me of lying as a smoke screen to cover your own error and lying to cover it up. You said:

I then posted the scriptural proof that Ahaziah, the King of Judah, the son of Jehoram, was of the house of Omri through his mother 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. If you would actually read the bible instead of criticizing it you would note:

You are in serious denial!

You are lying again. I never mentioned his "right to rule." I simply quoted what the bible says of him. He ruled Judah because he was the son of his father, but to deny he was of the house of Omri is to deny the bible itself.

I read exactly what you wrote. Ahaziah was of the house of Omri. The bible says so. Get over it. You erred. You claimed I was thinking of another Ahaziah due to your ignorance that Ahaziah of Judah was of the house of Omri.

Please stop lying. I never mentioned a "right to rule."

I know and most of it is coming from you and Quickening Spirit.

I am embarrassed for you, your congregation, and the school you attended. They didn't teach you to lie like that. You need to back off and take a break until you are able and willing to proceed as a gentleman in this conversation.

 

Soyintunly Ed, m'boy! Soyintunly. The Cambridge Edtion 1762 will have the word Cambridge on the outer binding and with the words "Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge" on the inside pages before the Contents page.

 

qs-Now, I gotta actually work and write out "precepts"? "For qs must be upon qs" Hey just yankin' yer chain. I am totally jealous...You have only been on the BB less than two months and over 1000 posts! and me, well.... at this rate, you'll pass Dr Bob, in a matter of months!

 

Some of the above posts are sad indeed, not because they disagree, but because they're not disagreeing agreeably.

 

Skanwmatos,

Are you even reading?? You quote me, make an accusation about me, call me a liar, when your own quote proves I am right and you are wrong. This is unbelievable. Your quotes prove me right and you accuse my of lying .. what a joke.

Let's look:

Larry, you seem incapable of admitting you were wrong, and now not only lie about what you said, but accuse me of lying as a smoke screen to cover your own error and lying to cover it up. You said:

I then posted the scriptural proof that Ahaziah, the King of Judah, the son of Jehoram, was of the house of Omri through his mother 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. If you would actually read the bible instead of criticizing it you would note:

</font>[/QUOTE]All of this proves me right and you wrong. I said that Ahaziah was king of Judah, through his father, not through his mother. If you cannot accept that, then you deny Scripture. Either way, I didn’t lie. I told the truth. You are wrong. I am sorry to have to be that direct. I tried to handle it earlier by simply pointing out the error, but you wanted to push the issue. That is unfortunate.

He was the son in law of Ahab (which I said earlier). The right to rule doesn’t go to son in laws, but to sons. 2 Kings 8:26-27 proves me right. Why would you quote that??? It doesn’t help your case at all.

And I am not incapable of admitting I am wrong. I have done it many times. You don't make 8000 posts on this board without being wrong. And when I am wrong, I admit. This simply doesn't happen to be a case of that. Sorry

When you talk of being of the house of Omri, then you are talking of right to rule. But more specifically, that is what I was talking about. When you accuse me of talking about something else, you are dead wrong.

You need to find out what it means to be “of the house of someone.” It is an idiom that references right to rule. A “house” is a ruling dynasty. If you didn’t know that, you should have said so. As it stands, you were incorrectly using a phrase, and then making accusations against me because you don’t understand the issues.

Where did I claim this??

To be “of the house of someone” is the right to rule. Learn before you pop off about something you don’t know about,.

I am proceeding as a gentlemen. You own lack of knowledge has unfortunately led you to make some wrong assertions and some wrong accusations. I never lied one time and the proof is right here. I was perfectly willing to point out the errors people made and let it go at that. You wanted to push the point by repeating the errors and calling me wrong.

The resolution needs to be this:
1. Find out what “of the house of” means. It means “right to rule” and is the basis for a claim to the throne.
2. Make a public apology for your false accusations against me.

I am really tired of this kind of stuff. It should not be happening. If you are going to say something, please knwo what you are talkign about. What happened here was that I was talking about one thing and you were talking about something else. The problem was that the words you were using are words people use to talk about what I was talking about. Your failure to use the words with the generally accepted meaning lead you to be confused.

 

Larry posts: Originally posted by skanwmatos:
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um .... Wrong dynasty. Omri was a king in the northern kingdom. This Ahaziah was king in the southern kingdom.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/qb]Look at when Omri assumed the throne of Israel. 832-790=42. Do the math. Coincidence? I don't think so!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/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.


Ok, Larry. I also have a different view of this passage, but I do not change the Hebrew text here. The Hebrew reads 42, not 22.

Is this one of the many places where you think the Hebrew texts have been corrupted and you need to go to the Syriac or something else to try to "restore" it?

Will Kinney

 

Good points, skanwmatos.

Here is my understanding of the passage as it stands in the Hebrew texts and in the KJB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, and many others which have not departed from what the Hebrew says.


How Old Was Ahaziah, 22 or 42?

This is an apparent contradiction that frequently is thrown in the face of Christians who believe we have an inspired Bible. Many Atheist, Islam and Bible dubunker sites bring up this example. Sad to say, most of the “Christian” apologetic sites which promote the new bible versions cave in here and say the number 42 is a copyist error.

Here is a typical response by those Christians who use and promote the modern versions. This one comes from Techtonics Apologetics. This “defender of the faith” answers: “ Was Ahaziah forty-two or twenty-two (per 2 Kings 8:26) when he ascended the throne? More likely 22, and 2 Chronicles has been hit by a copyist error. See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background. In favor of the "22" reading in 2 Chronicles: The 2 Kings reading; some LXX and Syriac manuscripts.

This typical Christian response is not limited to this one example, but in many objections brought up by the infidels or the curious, this same rote answer is given. There is a copyist error. There is a typo in God’s book. The skeptics laugh and the modern version proponent looks like a fool.

2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Douay 1950, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati 1602, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, New Jerusalem, Webster's 1833 translation, the New English Bible 1970, New Jerusalem, KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

        The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old. The masoretic scribes were very scrupulous in copying their sacred trust. No word or number was written from memory but each word was carefully checked before he recopied it. The copies were checked and checked again and if there were a single error, the whole was discarded and and new one begun.

        God promised to preserve His words. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. When our Lord mentions the jots and tittles He is speaking of the Hebrew language.

        The King James Bible Old Testament is solely based on the Hebrew text. All modern versions depart from the Hebrew text in numerous places. Versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV, NRSV even tell you this in their footnotes. The NASB rejects the Hebrew text in at least 40 places too, but it doesn't let you know this. You have to consult other versions and compare them to find this out.

The NASB, ESV and NIV change the number 42 to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. The NIV footnote says: "Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac read 22; the Hebrew says 42".

The Septuagint version I have says 20 years old, not 22 nor 42.

Not only do the NASB and NIV change the Hebrew text here and say 22 rather than 42, but so also do Young's, Darby's, the Bible in Basic English, the 2001 English Standard Version, the Living Bible and the New Living translation.

There is a solution to this apparent contradiction.

Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab. Ahab was the king of Israel, not of Judah. But Ahaziah was related to Ahab by marriage because his father Jehoram "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 21:6.

In 2 Chronicles 22:7 we read: "And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against JEHU the son of Nimshi, WHOM THE LORD HAD ANOINTED TO CUT OFF THE HOUSE OF AHAB.

Ahaziah was son- in-law of the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 8:26 -27 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER (grand-daughter) OF OMRI KING OF ISRAEL. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE WAS THE SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Ahaziah is counted as a son -in- law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself.

Ahaziah was thus related by marriage to the house of Ahab through the marriage of his father with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab.

When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab.

The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab who reigned for 22 years and his son Jehoram was in his twelfth and final year at the time Ahaziah began to reign. 22 + 12 = 34. This would be the house of Ahab on the king's of Israel side.

When we look at the house of Ahab on the king's of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah's father.

22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab.

Ahab's other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram and died childless is excluded from this equation because he was not related in a father to son relationship with either Jehoram of Israel or Ahaziah of Judah. He had no children.

Furthermore, the two years of Ahaziah, Ahab's son, are overlapped on one side by both Ahab his father and on the other by Jehoram his brother. 1 Kings 22:41 tells us that "Jehosaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel." Ahab reigned for 22 years, so at the time Jehosaphat begins to reign, Ahab has 18 more years to go as king of Israel.

When Ahab goes out to battle the Syrians, his son Ahaziah is made coregent. 1 Kings 22:51 tells us "Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel."

The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab's 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle so Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign. However this Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him.

2 Kings 3:1 tells us: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years." Notice that Aahaziah began to reign in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat's 18th year.

We see that Ahaziah was coregent to his father Ahab for one year and Jehoram, his brother, was coregent to Ahaziah for one year during his sickness. Looked at in this way, his two year reign is overlapped by both that of his father and his brother. We are left then with the 22 years of Ahab, 12 years of Jehoram of Ahab and the additional 8 years of Jehoram of Judah which again totals 42 years of father's and sons who have offspring which reign till the time of Ahaziah of Judah.

Ahab's reign of 22 years does not overlap the 12 years of his son Jehoram. Likewise the one year of Ahaziah, king of Judah, does not overlap the reign of his father Jehoram. 2 Chronicles tells us that the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest sons, so the only one left to sit on the throne was the youngest son, Ahazhiah.

The house of Ahab was then cut off by Jehu when he killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Athaliah, that wicked queen, destroyed the rest of the seed royal of the house of Judah, except the baby Joash who was stolen away and hid for six years while Athaliah reigned. The continuous reign of successive "sons" of the house of Ahab ceased with the death of Jehoram and Ahaziah.

Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram.

The new version editors like Gleason Archer, and many Christian apologetic web sites say, “This is a scribal error.” They are clearly wrong and are guilty of unbelief and using human reasoning when dealing with the infallible words of the living God. I believe God has preserved his words without error, and we have those inspired words today in the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

 

Amen, well said.


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

 

Still in serious denial. I suggest you seek profession mental health help immediately.

You really are seriously ill, aren't you! I NEVER SAID AHAZIAH WAS KING OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUDAH AND NEVER SAID HE WAS KING DUE TO HIS MOTHER! You just make this stuff up as you go along because you lack the character to admit you popped off at the mouth before thinking!

Yes, it is unfortunate that you erred and lack the character to just say, "Oh, yeah, Ahaziah was descended from and had many of the spiritual characteristics of his ancestor Omri! I hadn't noticed that before. Thanks for pointing it out." But instead you make up idiotic falsehoods to try to cover your gaf!

Still trying to change the subject and make this about your fictitious "right to rule." That is not and never was the subject, but then, you already know that, don't you!

Great! Then do so!

No, Larry, when I, and the bible, speaks of his being of the house of Omri it is talking about his descent, not of his right to rule in Judah.

Still trying to change the subject to avoid having to say, "Oh, yeah, Ahaziah was descended from and had many of the spiritual characteristics of his ancestor Omri! I hadn't noticed that before. Thanks for pointing it out."

Still making things up to avoid having to admit your error. The bible says over and over again that Ahaziah was descended from Omri, that he was "of the house of Ahab." I know you are desperate to save face, but why not just admit you spoke without checking out the facts and let it go at that. That would be the Christian thing to do.

Wrong again! Ahaziah was of the house of Ahab and descended from Omri. Period. The bible says so.

No, gentlemen don't make up silly stories, attack truth, and muddy the waters in a pathetic attempt to avoid having to admit they spoke too soon.

You still continue to deny what the bible says and claim that Ahaziah was not, as the bible clearly says, of the house of Ahab, and a descendant of Omri, and even links his spiritual condition and rule to that house ("he walked in the way of the house of Ahab").

Then stop doing it!

I agree. Just stop it!

I do. Ahaziah was descended from Omri and the bible says he was son-in-law of the house of Ahab.

I was talking about Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah and you assumed, wrongly, that I was thinking of the wrong country and king.

You are the one confused. The bible says what it says. I quoted what it says. You denied what it says. End of story.

 

Let’s see if we can make some headway in the midst of Skan’s accusations here.

All the way back on page 2, someone attempted to argue that the “42 years old of Ahaziah” was a reference to the dynasty of Omri. I correctly pointed out several things:

1) Omri’s dynasty was not 42 years old. Omri began to reign in 885 though there is some dispute on this. The 832 date that Skan gave is way off. Ahaziah became king in 841. So the time difference is 44 years most likely. But that is really a small point compared to the bigger point.

2) Why would the southern kingdom reference a dynasty in the northern kingdom? They were two different countries. The kings in the north were separate from the kings in the south. Kings are sometimes dated by the “xth year of so and so’s reign,” but never by the “son of x years” formula that is used strictly for age. In every single instance, it refers to the age of the king when he begins to reign. The "son of x years" formula is never used to refer to anything other than an age. This would be the only occasion in the whole OT. It simply won't work.

So from the beginning, failure to recognize these issues in the Hebrew text got us off on a bad foot. To summarize, “son of 42 years old” is designating an age of a person, not a dynasty. And even if it were a dynasty it was an irrelevant one since it was unconnected in dynastic rights and that is what the point of bringing it out would be.

To say that “42 years old” refers to Omri’s dynasty is simply wrong. It does not. It is an error in the text which is corrected by other texts.

There was an unfounded retort that I needed to study Ahaziah because I didn’t know that he was Omri’s great grandson. Well, in fact, I did know that. But it had no bearing since we were discussing a king of Judah and his right to rule. There is no reason to mention how old Omri’s dynasty was. It made no difference in the text.

Now, unfortunately, Skan has upped the ante by loading up on some ridiculous comments about my mental stability. The only thing that would call that into question is the fact that I am still having this conversation. On that ground, I probably should seek some help.

But before I do, let’s address some things. (The quotes are Skan’s words).

I never said you said this. My point was that you are trying to make the text appeal to a dynasty from another country. The text does not do that. When you say that the 42 years old refers to the reign of Omri, even if the dates worked out (which they don’t), you are injecting the facts from another country. The text had no intent of that.

Let’s talk about the house issue. 2 Chron 10:19; 2 Chron 21:6; 2 Chron 22:7; Isa 7:2; Isa 22:22; Jer 21:12 – These are all places where the “house of” metaphor is used in the sense of ruling. That is my point. If you were talking about something else, then fine. I was using “house of” in the standard sense of ruling rights.

Now moving on, you have accused me of lying, of needing mental help, of being seriously ill, of lacking character, of making up idiotic falsehoods, and of denying Scripture (among other things). None of these are true. My record stands clear. You have made false accusations.

I didn’t make a gaf. I did make up an idiotic falsehood. I had noticed that before. So I had no need to apologize. The fact that you did not (and probably still do not) see what the issues are here is not my fault.

That my issue from day one. If you were talking about something else, then you should have stayed out of my conversation.

No it wouldn’t be the Christian thing to do. It would be a lie for me to do that. I don’t need to save face. I didn’t lose it. You are the one who doesn’t understand the point I am making. That is not my fault. I know the facts.

I didn’t do any of this.

I made no such claim.

Not under dispute.

Simply false.

The thing I have been wrong about is continuing this conversation with you. I made clear my points and I should have dropped it at that. It is unfortunate that you stooped to baseless charges and personal attacks because you failed to understand what the discussion was about. You have a personal vendetta. That is unfortunate. I did nothing to you. I simply pointed out a couple of problems in your position. The truth is the truth whether you like it or agree with it or not. I hope that you will seek the truth. In the end, this is not that big of a deal. It is a clear problem in the KJV and it should be left at that. Fortunately, the modern versions have corrected this error and eliminated the need for these kind of distorted explanations of what the text says.

I hope that you will find it within you to back off the personal attacks. They are unfounded, inaccurate, and unnecessary. Debate the issues.

 

According to the bible Elah began to reign over Israel in the 26th year of Asa, King of Judah (1 Kings 16:8). That would be in the year 834 BC. Zimri killed him in the 27th year of Asa's reign and sat on the throne for only 7 days. Omri was then made King (1 Kings 16:16) and began to reign in the 31st year of Asa. However, he was counted as being King during the contest with Tibni whom he defeated, and Tibni died. So, Omri reigned from 832. The bible says Ahab began to reign in the 38th year of Asa (1 Kings 16:29) and Jehosaphat began to reign in the 4th year of Ahab. Ahaziah (of Israel) began to reign in 802, and Jehu in 798. Jehoram of Judah began to reign in the 5th year of Jehoshaphat according to 2 Kings 8:16. Ahaziah began his co-regency 2 years before his father's death and reigned alone in the 12th year of King Jehoram of Israel according to 2 Kings 8:25. Therefore, according to the bible, Ahaziah reigned 42 years after Omri ascended to the throne of Israel. In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah's chronological age is given as 22 when he began to reign (790) during the 2 years of his father's incapacity. His father, Jehoram, we 32 when he began his reign with his father Jehosaphat 2 years before Jehosaphat's death (2 Kings 8:16). That was in 796 BC. Therefore, Jehoram was born in 828, and Ahaziah was born in 812. Do the math!

The bible clearly tells us that Ahaziah was of the house of Ahab, the son of Omri. The bible references the dynasty in the northern kingdom to connect the evil conduct of the southern kings to the influence of the northern kings, all of whom the bible says "did evil in the sight of the Lord" or words to that effect.

Well, yes, we know that. What's your point (other than creating a smoke screen)?

Yes, they were. I am not aware of any conjoined twins, one sitting on the throne of Israel and the other on the throne of Judah.

Except in the case of Ahaziah where the bible goes out of its way to make sure we understand he was the grandson of Ahab and learned his wicked ways from the northern kings, as did his father who was condemned for taking a wife of the house of Ahab.

Now you are getting it!

That's what it says! Ahaziah was of the house of Ahab, the son of Omri. You can wiggle and dance all you want, but you can't change the fact that his mother was the daughter of Ahab and he (and his father) learned their wicked ways from the northern dynasty!

Yes, your failure to recognize that Ahaziah was of the house of Ahab and followed in that wicked dynasty's evil ways was what started all this.

No, it is stating the age of the source of his wicked ways.

No, the point is the bible shows us that Ahaziah learned his wicked ways (as did his father) from the wicked ways of the northern kings. It traces the evil influence from Samaria to Jerusalem.

Yes, of course. Rather than admitting it is entirely possible that the bible is warning us of the terrible consequences of failing to avoid wicked influences, and especially in the marriage relationship, you would rather assume the bible is wrong. Well, Larry, I have some bad news for your overly inflated ego. The bible is not wrong. You are.

Great! You learned something!

No, Larry, we weren't. That was just the smoke screen you threw up to hide your gaf.

Other than, of course, to show us the source of the evil in Judah, which you seem to want to overlook.

&lt;much empty rhetoric snipped&gt;

I know what the issues are. The issue is that the bible is not wrong, that Ahaziah was of the house of Ahab, the son of Omri, and that was the source of the evil influence in Jerusalem.

It was my conversation! You were saying the bible has an error and I pointed out there was a perfectly good alternate explanation to the charge of the bible being wrong!

It was you who said I had mixed up the kings and kingdoms so it is obvious that it was you who failed to understand what the discussion was about.

You bet I do! Against falsehood and attacks against the bible!

No, that is the right thing to do.

Other than making an error of understanding and refusing to admit it.

I am. Ahaziah was 22 years of age when he ascended the throne of Judah and it was 42 years after the evil influence of the house of Omri had been having its evil effect on Judah. The bible is right and you are wrong.

 

Scott, your blind hatred towards God's true words has caused you to put out some really foolish statements. Here is one of them.

"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."

"taken from the Latin Vulgate" ..."no Greek manuscript in existence that has the KJV reading."!!??!!

Scott, you really should do a bit more research before posting such nonsense. Here are a few things you are blissfully unaware of.

Can we expect an apology? Not in your dreams.

Revelation 22:14

"Blessed are they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

This verse is sometimes criticized as teaching a works salvation, and being based on inferior Greek texts. Let's examine the issues more closely.

Other modern versions that began to appear with the Revised Version of 1881 are based on a very different Greek text than the Traditional text of the King James Bible. Westcott and Hort introduced textual changes in the New Testament affecting some 5000 words, most of these being omissions; but there also were some additions, and other cases of substitutions.

The case presented in Revelation 22:14 is one of substitution. The traditional texts read as does the King James Bible - "Blessed are those that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS". This is the reading found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as some Old Latin copies (these come from a version that precedes the Latin Vulgate and anything we have in the Greek copies), the Syriac versions (Harkelian, Philoxenian), Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, the Coptic Boharic (3rd to 4th century), and the Armenian ancient versions.

It is also so quoted by several church Fathers, such as Tertullian 220, Cryprian 258, and Tyconius 380 A.D.

It is the reading found in all English translations that were based on the Greek texts done before the Westcott-Hort texts began to be accepted. This includes Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, and the 1611 King James Holy Bible. After 1611 it continued to be the reading in Wesley's 1755 translation and Webster's 1833 version. It is also that of Young's, the NKJV, KJV 21st Century version, the Hebrew Names Version, the Third Millenium Bible, the modern Greek version, Luther's German, Italian Diodati, as well as the widely used Spanish Reina Valera 1960 used throughout the Spanish speaking world.

The reading found in such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and all Catholic versions is quite different. These versions read: "Blessed are those WHO WASH THEIR ROBES, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city."

This reading is found in very few Greek manuscripts, the most notable being Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. The book of Revelation is missing from Vaticanus. The reading of "those who wash their robes" is also that of the Latin Vulgate 425, and some Old Latin manuscripts, as well as the Coptic Sahidic, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also so quoted by Athanasius 373.

The Greek evidence for the King James reading of "those that do his commandments" is far more extensive and numerous, but there is also evidence for the reading found in the NASB, NIV, ESV. However the Greek evidence is primarily limited to that of the Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus copies, and it should be noted that these two frequently differ from each other and Sinaiticus is notoriously wild in some of its readings.

For instance, Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both these verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

To affirm that Sinaiticus is one of the oldest manuscripts and therefore the best, is to ignore the plain evidence of its many erratic readings and omissions.

Now, to address the issue of the meaning of the verse as found in the King James Bible.

"Blessed are they that do his commandments...that they may enter in through the gates into the city." This cannot mean that we do them all perfectly, for no one can possibly attain unto perfect obedience in this life, but there is a degree of change and submission to Christ as our Lord and Saviour. This is in contrast to those described in the very next verse which reads: "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

Our ability to believe in Christ and obey Him are themselves the results of His grace working in us. Christ Himself is the Author and Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2), and "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13). Again, we read in Hebrews 13:20-21 "Now the God of peace...make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Even king David, who had sinned grievously at times as a believer, could say in Psalms 119:166 "LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments." Had he done them perfectly? By no means, but there was a change in David's life resulting from his knowing the true God.

The principal commandments of our Lord and Saviour are to believe on Him and love other Christians. "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." 1 John 3:23.


John Gill remarks concerning Revelation 22:14 that the commandments of Christ are "done evangelically, when they are done in the strength of Christ, from love to God, in the exercise of faith upon him, with a view to his glory, and without dependence on them, acknowledging the imperfection of them, and looking unto Jesus for righteousness and life, and so are blessed persons."


Will Kinney

 

What amazes me is that I read the same arguments by seevral of the KJVO's that I hear from the Jehovah's Witnesses about the text.