Questionable doctrines in the KJV

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

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

Perhaps these were 2 different divisions of the Syrian army led by two different men?

HankD

 

Go back a couple verses and you will see that, in both cases, he is the captain of the host of Hadarezer. Again, it's a parallel account of the same event.

Scribes are human and make mistakes. Even the Masoretics made mistakes. All it shows is that they were not operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at the time. God does not make mistakes, though -- when He breathed out 1 and 2 Chronicles, there were no errors in them. Copiests and translators can make mistakes, God cannot.

Andy

 

No matter, it is still within the realm of possibility that "Shophach" and "Shobach" are two different men over the host of Hadarezer

The definite article is missing in the Hebrew and could be " a captain" in both passages.

I don't discount the possibility of a scribal error in the Masora however.

HankD

 

Once again we see Larry trying to divert attention away from his error and focus on the exact dates rather than the issue under discussion, the age of the Northern Dynasty which influenced Ahaziah to the point that he was considered to be "of the house of Ahab." The 42 years, according to the two most respected commentators on OT issues, Ussher and Bullinger, refers to the age of the Omri Dynasty due to Ahaziah being the grandson of Ahab.

 

The exact dates, as has already been explained twice, is not the issue. The issue is the duration of the dynasty of Omri and its application to Ahaziah. Don't let Larry fool you with his diversionary tactics. The issue is "42." Not 832 or 887 or anything else. Even if the dates are later, as some commentators say, that is irrelevant to the discussion. The duration of the dynasty, regardless of the date of its inception, is the issue.

 

Orvie says: "Pot calls kettle...gb9 is saying that if you take Rev 22:14KJV at face value, as the Russelites do that they interpret it as teaching works salvation. That's a fact, Jack. willie doesn't take Rev 22:14KJV at face value but gives another detailed explanation (Amplfied Version )Why the KJV is right, even though when you read this verse it still teaches plain old works salvation, no matter how many rabbits willie pulls out of his hat."

Uh, Orvie, do you know how the JW "bible" reads and which texts they follow in Rev. 22:14? Check it out. It reads the same as your nasb, niv, esv.

By the way, do you believe that those who are children of God can lose this relationship and NO LONGER be the children of God?

If you do not and you believe in eternal security, then I have some news for you about your NIV, ESV. I know of at least one passage where they say those who were God's children are no longer His children because of some particular sin. How is that for "works salvation"


And then we can take you all to 1 Peter 2:2 where the ESV, niv, nasb, etc. by following Vaticanus have Peter saying we should feed on the milk of the word that we may grow up TO salvation (ESV).

How about it? Can a child of God no longer be a child of God because of some carnal sin?

Will K

 

I'm more than happy to admit that I am wrong. I found this site (http://www.bibleexplained.com/revelation/r-seg19-20/r19x-article.html) which was a nice article on Revelation 22:14. I will also pass along this information to Dr. Joyner, who originally wrote the posted article.


Thank you Scott. I appreciate it.

Will K

 

Willie- I acknowledge that I assumed the N.W.T. read the same as the KJV at Rev 22:14 since they teach works salvation...but I still just don't get how anyone can read Rev 22:14 in the KJV and say it doesn't teach works salvation! I don't know if you addressed this already, since I don't wanna read your looooooooooooooooonnnng post (too lazy), but what Greek support did the verse at hand have? i.e. didn't Erasmus translate the Latin into Greek then into Rev 22:14? (if you already wrote about this, direct me where).
As far as 1 Peter 2:1 goes, I can see how reading it appears to teach works too in most MV's. (although it more than likely teaches growing in maturity,i.e. mature salvation) hey, I actually prefer the KJV's rendering here!

 

Andy, I am not sure your assertion is correct. The Hebrew of 2 Sam 10:18 reads literally "But fled Aram before Israel, and killed David from Aram seven hundred chariots and forty thousand horsemen."

The Hebrew of 1 Chronicles 19:18 reads literally "and they fought with him, and fled Syria from before Israel, and killed David of Syria seven thousand chariots and forty thousand men foot, and Shophach captain of the army he killed."

I see a couple differences in the Hebrew. The first being "Aram" vice "Syria" and the second is what is being counted. We know from elsewhere in the bible that "the children of Aram" was another name for the Syrians, so that is no problem. However, the second difference is not necessarily a scribal error. According to verse 18 of 2 Samuel 10 when Hadarezer had reinforced his army with Mesopotamian reserves, after losing the first battle, David smote 700 receb (Bear in mind the word receb is a form of rakab meaning "to ride.") and 40,000 parashim (or horsemen) of Aram. The 1 Chronicles passage (19:18) says he smote 7,000 receb and 40,000 footmen (iysh). The Chronicles do not mention any parashim at all but foot soldiers only. So what we have is a report of infantry, cavalry, and chariots. It is quite possible the difference is simply due to the citing of different groupings. The 700 may have been the count of the chariots and the 7000 may have included the horsemen or infantrymen who accompanied them. Either way, it is not necessary to say the bible errs. It is important to remember the one account is greatly abbreviated and is more of a synopsis of the other and may not include all information.

 

oops! I meant 1 Peter 2:2, not verse 1.

 

Skan-I wonder how accurate the statistics were for battle casualties in those days? Some armies, especially the victorious ones, took care of their dead, while the losers often abandoned theirs. is it possible that the writers guesstimated the numbers of casualties? There are no figures given for wounded or illness within the various armies. And no doctrine would be changed by either exact or inexact figures.

 

Skan,

Thank you for your Hebrew analysis.

HankD

 

I don't know how accurate causality figures may have been then, but I do know the bible, even the boring historical parts, was inspired by God so my presupposition is that the causality figures are correct as given and it is up to me to figure out what they are.

 

You're welcome.

 

If you look at the entire verse, you are correct. I was focusing on just part of the two verses.

I think the most likely scenerio is that the 40k footmen and 40k horsemen refer to the same group. I suppose it is technically possible to reconcile the accounts by suggesting that there were 80k infantrymen and cavalry, combined. However, given the parallel nature of the entire passage, I think your suggestion is unlikely.

In any event, one passage says 700 receb and the other says 7000 receb. These are chariots or chariot riders. I don't see how you can agrue that in one passage receb means # of chariots while in another it means the # of riders.

I don't understand, 2 Sam. 10:15-19 and 2 Chron. 19:16-19 cover the same material in about the same space. They are nearly identical to each other.

Andy

 

I often believe that, far as the 'historical narrative' Scriptures go, that God inspired certain people to write, from their human perspective, the accounts He had already chosen to become Scripture before they were written. Thus we have differences in the various accounts of the same events in Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles. In fact, both Kings & Chronicles show there was at least two other accounts written that did not make Scripture.

The time-honored method of estimating the size of an enemy force was to have some knowledge of latrine construction & base the estimate upon the length or number of latrines. This method was even used in WWII until the Japanese began concealing their latrines or making phony ones to fool the enemy into believing their forse was much larger.

The last large army to use the modes of transport and personal care used from ancient days was the Army of the Potomac in the American Civil war. This army consisted of about 500 K people, with almost as many animals, including civilain supporters such as cooks, launderers, laborers, animal husbandmen, and "hookers".

This army never strayed too far from a river, as it took a river to supply enough water for all the men & animals, and it was never all committed to battle at once. And NNE ever knew exactly how many fighting men were available for duty at any time. What makes you think that an ancient army, with no better messenger service than the Civil War armies, had more accurate accounts of their personnel?

 

Cranston finally admits he believes one thing for awhile and then is subject to believing something different. But them we are faced with the question, "What does he really believe?" If he answers one thing, how is it we are to know that he only "often" believes this, but them other times he believes something else?

I'm sure that was the pinacle of the war, and according to the oldest Japanese mss, the United States actually lost.

Not "what" Cranston, Who. Uh, God.

These "hookers" Were they General Hooker's Brigade or Jezebel's ladies of the evening?

No wonder you're so confused about the Bible, you intermingle the Civil War with the O.T.

 

I didn't. I believe the larger number probably included the infantrymen who accompanied the chariots into battle.

Yes, they agree as to details and succession of events, but the accounts in Samuel also include details regarding David's family life which are missing from the accounts in Chronicles. The differences are minor, but I have already pointed out the one I was referring to, namely that the accounts deal, collectively, with infantry, cavalry, and charioteers but each account only deals with two of the three with only the charioteers being mentioned in both accounts.

 

If you think Ussher and Bullinger are the two most respected commentators on OT issues, you have bigger problems than not being able to support your date.

I am not disputing that Ahaziah was affected by Omri. But that is not the point of the text in 2 Chron 22. Sorry, Skan, that is just the way it is.

The issue with the dates is simply this: If you use actual dates (rather than the made up ones), you can't get to 42 years. You assert a 832-790 date because it works. The actual dates from history do not add to 42 years and thus ruins your proposition.

The end of all this is that your distinction is creative but cannot be supported from the text.

 

Yes, of course! You have to down play their excellent work because it contradicts your Papal pronouncement that Ahaziah was not of the house of Ahab/Omri.

Oh really? Wasn't it you who said the dates were "in doubt?" So how can you authoritatively claim they don't add up if you don't even know what they are?

It sure beats your blatant denial of the veracity of scripture! The point was, and still is, that we don't have to resort to the Modernistic solution "well the bible is wrong." There are alternate explanations which suffice to explain the apparent discrepancy without saying the bible is wrong, as you do.