Perfection of the Bible [Archive] - Prophecy Fellowship Forums

NetHog

May 20th, 2002, 05:45 PM

Theophilus's followup:

Originally posted by Theophilus
Originally posted by NetHog
This is going into the realm discussed in the KJV thread, so I'll just summarise here.

(I understand you're not suggesting this, but an observation from these verses)

If the "Word" is talking about the bible, then
1) The bible was written on paper before man existed
2) The bible is God.

Obviously "Word" in this case doesn't mean the bible.

*The "Word" is talking about the Bible. The Living "Word" of God, made manifest in Christ, is the Bible.

Psa. 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

The "Word" is more than words on a page of a bible. In the context of John 1, it's understood John is talking about Jesus.

However, the context you put this in, I believe you're making the observation that God made (through his Prophets/Servents) the bible - I totally agree.

*I am, we agree.

The Words spoken by God to his prophets and his servents were - as I've written in another thread - "refined in a fire" pure. You seperate Gold from it's impurities by refining it in a fire. So this is absolutely pure, no impurities.

The bible is a record of these pure words, but due to the human nature in copying the bible, small errors creep in. If a small amount of impurities crept into Gold, the Gold is still 'pure', but not "refined in a fire" pure.

*Seems you may have it a bit backwards Sir, God tries us, not we Him.

Zechariah 13:9
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

*Your statement about the Bibles "impurities", from those "small errors creep[ing] in" seems in contradiction to this verse...

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

*It's my opinion that *those who most often claim "human" error in translation is the reason their version of scripture doesnt 'line-up', are more often than not out of line themselves.
(Im not implying this is your case, as i have yet no idea what parts of the bible you feel are in error.)

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

That's one of the reasons why we need the Holy Spirit to refine God's spoken Word out of the written word.

*Surely your not saying the Bible of today is a mere bastardization of it's original self? If this were so, then why bother to read & learn God's message at all, if it's errant?

*Why not just wait for the Holy Spirit to 'lead'? Sounds great & seems to work for many, one problem tho, if one is unaware of God's 'word', how would one discern that a spirit is 'leading' them in God's ways? A majority of the people in the world today are following all types of deceiveing spirits!

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

*I would concede as to a few possible minute discrepancies in translation, but would hardly make any issue out of all but a small handful of them. I would be glad to discuss any specific errors you may believe exist, that you seem to perceive to be significant enough to 'compromise' God's message, the Bible. I imagine we'll start with "*Easter (Acts 12:4, i.e., *Eastre) vs. pascha" [We always do].

*Many claim that Easter is derived from the pagan celebration of "Eastre", & rightfully so, but then fail to notice Herod was the one celebrating "Eastre", not the apostles! Acts 12:3 shows what holiday the apostles were observing (Ex 12:13-19).

Therefore, considering the context in which "Easter {Eastre} " appears, its usage is correct. It's certain denominations of Christianity who celebrate it that have gotten it wrong.

*The Bible stands autonomously.

[*I'm not suggesting you are among "*those" i've refered to above, in fact, im not really sure what your trying to say Sir. Are you speaking from 1 Cor 12:13?]

NetHog

May 20th, 2002, 05:48 PM

Rapturite/Theophilus:

Originally posted by RapturiteSean
John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.

You stated:
===========================================
*The "Word" is talking about the Bible. The Living "Word" of God, made manifest in Christ, is the Bible.
===========================================

The bible is a RECORD OF the word of God. The bible is not THE Word/Jesus. The bible is not God.

Jesus is the Word. Jesus is the Perfect.
The verse you quoted is obviously talking about Jesus...not the bible.
Originally posted by Theophilus

And where have i contradicted myself?
I also quoted John 1:1-2, as you do above.

You keep saying "Jesus is the Word", if not the "word(s)" in the Bible, then what word?

Are you saying the Bible is not the 'word' God wishes to impart to His followers? Or are only it's parts you agree with applicable?

You say: "The verse you quoted is obviously talking about Jesus...not the bible."

The "Word" is not talking about the Bible?, then what? Certainly I realize Jesus is wider than the scope of the Bible, but the Bible is what we have been given by God to go by. Should I go by what you tell me or rely on the Bible? See my point Sir?

I agree with the existance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, nowhere have i said differently, but what if one of the "human" errors in translation affect &/or cause one or more of these gifts to mean something other than what the translator(s) has rendered?

Have you ever read the letter from the translators of the 1611 KJV?

NetHog

May 20th, 2002, 05:54 PM

Other exchanges (pasted from other thread)

Originally posted by RapturiteSean
The "Word" is not talking about the Bible?, then what? Certainly I realize Jesus is wider than the scope of the Bible, but the Bible is what we have been given by God to go by. Should I go by what you tell me or rely on the Bible? See my point Sir?
====================================

As I've stated , the bible is a Record of the Word.
The Bible is a book....not God.

Yes, the bible contains the word of God and yes, Jesus is the Word. But the Bible is only a record of that Word.
Originally posted by Theophilus

...and we disagree how/where?
Originally posted by RapturiteSean
I think this should continue on the thread to be introduced by Nethog.

All I am saying here is that the bible contains the word of God, but the bible is not God.

As for my picking and choosing from the bible, I would point out that I believe the whole bible. I do not pick and choose what I want to accept.

I know there are some translation/copyist errors in all versions, but I balance that against what other versions say.

Example: KJV.....2Kings8:26 tells us Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king.

KJV......2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us he was 42 years old when he became king.

That is an obvious contradiction. One of them has to be wrong.
Originally posted by RapturiteSean
Theophilus,

if you have a link to the letters of the 1611 translators as well as a link to the preface I would be grateful to receive it.
Originally posted by Theophilus

I have neither on-line. Perhaps someone else may...?

I think I'm caught up now

NetHog

May 20th, 2002, 06:00 PM

1611 Translation Preface (from http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/ )

THE HOLY BIBLE,
Conteyning the Old Testament,
AND THE NEW:
Newly Translated out of the Originall
tongues: & with the former Translations
diligently compared and revised, by his
Majesties Special Commandment.
Appointed to be read in Churches.
Imprinted at London by Robert
Barker, Printer to the Kings
most Excellent Majestie.
ANNO DOM. 1611.

Revisions:
1629, 1638 by John Bois and Samuel Ward, Cambridge
1762 by Thomas Paris, Cambridge
1769 by Benjamin Blayney, Oxford
1873 Paragraph by Scrivener, Cambridge

And from http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/thesis.htm

...
Of course the Translators made no such claim; indeed, their account of their method of work fits very poorly with such an idea:

"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. ... Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, ... and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, ... that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, .... There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, ... so that we cannot be helped by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. ... Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? ... Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must need do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
These candid, scholarly words of the Translators are not the words of inspired men, oracularly confident of every word they use; they are the unmistakable words of careful, sincere scholars, well aware of the inevitable limitations of their knowledge. The doctrine of the inspiration of the Translators was not held by them, and it is difficult to see how it can be held by anyone who will read even this much of their Preface.
...

NetHog

May 20th, 2002, 06:10 PM

The whole text is transcribed here:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/PREF1611.html

An excert is below:

Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. [Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderibus.] These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. Yea, Epiphanius above named doeth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect [S. August. 2::de dectrin. Christian c. 15]; and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) [S. Jerome. de optimo genere interpret.] that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.

RapturiteSean

May 20th, 2002, 07:06 PM

Okay,
if we look at the Ahaziah problem, we see the KJV contradicts itself. He cannot be 42 years old and 22 years old at the same time.

Can we deny there is an error there?
Whether it is copyist or translation error....is it an error?

*Note to readers.....I am not saying that only the KJV has minor errors. All the versions have.

Theophilus

May 20th, 2002, 09:27 PM

Nethog said..."These candid, scholarly words of the Translators are not the words of inspired men,"

Hi Jamie, i guessed you missed my edit in the "Sure, just let me know where." thread, as i've already about said all i can regarding this issue, i excused myself from further participation.
(I will be glad to answer Sean's alleged 'contradiction', if he would add any/all verse pertinent. A short PM, if possible, would insure i receive it).

Frankly (& speaking in general), i find those who claim the Bible errant personally offensive & do not usually hold council with such, because, & speaking only for myself, imo, these types almost always have an ulterior motive. I also question (but not judge) the 'Christianity' of many of these individuals/groups.

There, said.

I'd rather be up-front w/ you then beat around the bush. Im sorry if i offend, but i believe in being truthful w/ people.

If i believed the Bible to be errant in even the smallest detail, i'd throw the whole thing out as flawed, & would seriously question the omnipotence of a God who couldn't even get His book published 'His way'. Obviously i do not. More on this is moot.

Thank you for your time.

Jeffer

May 20th, 2002, 09:28 PM

There are no errors or contridictions in The King James Bible.

Psalm 12
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

NetHog

May 20th, 2002, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Jeffer
There are no errors or contridictions in The King James Bible.

Psalm 12
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Putting vs 6 and 7 together is taking this out of context. Let me repaste my post from another thread:

I think the Good News Bible paraphrases this very well (I was going to paraphrase the KJV similar to this, but after checking other translations for verification, I found GNB puts this very well)

Psa 12:3 Silence those flattering tongues, O LORD! Close those boastful mouths that say,
Psa 12:4 "With our words we get what we want. We will say what we wish, and no one can stop us."
Psa 12:5 "But now I will come," says the LORD, "because the needy are oppressed and the persecuted groan in pain. I will give them the security they long for."
Psa 12:6 The promises of the LORD can be trusted; they are as genuine as silver refined seven times in the furnace.
Psa 12:7-8 The wicked are everywhere, and everyone praises what is evil. Keep us always safe, O LORD, and preserve us from such people.

When God spoke, He gave his Word, and he keeps his Word. It's pure. If he's made an unconditional promise, he keeps that promise. It's proven in the bible and in history that he keeps his promise. He's the most trustworthy of trustworthy. If he says it will happen, it will happen.
That's the context of 12:6.

BTW, the Hebrew for "words" in 12:6 is "commandment, speech, word"

As always I suggest you don't take my word for it, but you study this and pray about it yourself.

----
If you read the prefix, even the translators of 1611 KJV were aware of the imperfect recording of God's Word. You should read the letter from the translators, link above.

Sadly people make the bible a god, rather than a record of God's words.

God Bless

Jamie

Theophilus

May 20th, 2002, 11:06 PM

No need to send me the specs on your erroneously alleged 'contradiction' regarding "Ahaziah" Sean, this one's easy!

You have failed to notice that the "Ahaziah" mentioned in 1 Kings 22:40 was the son of *Ahab [1 Kings 22:40 "So *Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead."], while the "Ahaziah" spoken of in 2 Kings 8:24 was the son of "Joram".[ 2 Kings 8:24 "And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.]

While related, they are two distinct individuals. Your trying to make one person out of two.

No contradiction. Just a lack of rightly dividing the 'word' on your part Sean.

You also missed this 'little hint' as well... 2 Kings 1:17 "So *he [i.e., the first "Ahaziah", son of Ahab] died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son.

...death would severely limit his further actions.

Some friendly advice, less posting, more study, and you'll begin to pick up on 'little hints' like those (just a suggestion).

Notice also the first "Ahaziah" died in Samaria of illness(2kings1:17), while the other died in Megiddo of a wound (2Kings9:27).

As I have spent several years debating the so-called 'contradictions' contained in scripture, as well as those individuals bent on proving these alleged 'contradictions', thereby bringing into question the infallibility of God, I feel qualified to state unequivocally that there are NO errors in Gods 'word', only in peoples perception of it.

Thank you for your time,

NetHog

May 21st, 2002, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Theophilus
No need to send me the specs on your erroneously alleged 'contradiction' regarding "Ahaziah" Sean, this one's easy!

You have failed to notice that the "Ahaziah" mentioned in 1 Kings 22:40 was the son of *Ahab [1 Kings 22:40 "So *Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead."], while the "Ahaziah" spoken of in 2 Kings 8:24 was the son of "Joram".[ 2 Kings 8:24 "And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.]
Hmmm, this interesting synopsys drove me to scripture (always a good thing :))

I totally agree with your comment above, however the comparison was of Ahaziah in 2Ki8:26 with 2Ch22:2

Let me do the synopsys here.

First let's look at Ahaziah in 2Ki8:26 (KJV translation)
2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
2Ki 8:26 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 of Omri king of Israel.
2Ki 8:27 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.
2Ki 8:28 And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramoth-gilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram.
So if I understand this right, Ahaziah (Son of Jehoram) was 22 years old when he started to reign, and his reign was one year in Jerusalem. From above we know this isn't Ahaziah son of Joram as "he went with Joram" (vs 28)

Let's compare this with 2Ch21-22
2Ch 21:5 Jehoram was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.
...
2Ch 21:20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchers of the kings.
2Ch 22:1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.
2Ch 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Now, maybe I'm seeing double, but surely (apart from the age) this is the same Ahaziah?

Also note that according to 2 Ch 22:2, Ahaziah was supposedly 42 years old. This cannot be the case as his father died at the age of 40 and Ahaziah immediately succeeded. So although this particular record disagrees, the "Word" comes forth - that Ahaziah must have been 22, not 42.

God Bless

Jamie

RapturiteSean

May 21st, 2002, 07:17 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Theophilus
No need to send me the specs on your erroneously alleged 'contradiction' regarding "Ahaziah" Sean, this one's easy!
==============================
Obviously your confidence is VERY misplaced.
As seen below........

You have failed to notice that the "Ahaziah" mentioned in 1 Kings 22:40 was the son of *Ahab [1 Kings 22:40 "So [b]*Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead."], while the "Ahaziah" spoken of in 2 Kings 8:24 was the son of "Joram".[ 2 Kings 8:24 "And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his
stead.]
===================================
The reason I omitted to notice that is because YOU are talking about two different people.

2 Kings 8:25-26 Ahaziah, son of Jehoram....son of Athaliah, daughter of Omri.

2 Chron:22:1-2 Ahaziah, Jehorams youngest son...son of Athaliah, daughter of Omri.

Very much the SAME PERSON!
Contradiction is indeed there!!

You are right when you say the Ahaziah in 1 Kings 22:40 is not the same Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8: 25-26 or 2 Chron 22: 1-2.

While related, they are two distinct individuals. Your trying to make one person out of two.
====================================
On the contrary. The Ahaziah I have spoken of in both verses I GAVE are one and the same.
This cannot be denied!

No contradiction. Just a lack of rightly dividing the 'word' on your part Sean.
===============================
Methinks this is exactly what you have done above!
I did rightly divide......you didn't.

Some friendly advice, less posting, more study, and you'll begin to pick up on 'little hints' like those (just a suggestion).
============================
Might I point out that I studied the above verses correctly.......you didn't..........
Perhaps adopting a little of your own advice would be in order....

As I have spent several years debating the so-called 'contradictions' contained in scripture, as well as those individuals bent on proving these alleged 'contradictions', thereby bringing into question the infallibility of God, I feel qualified to state unequivocally that there are NO errors in Gods 'word', only in peoples perception of it.
===========================
People will point out the fallibility of the bible.....NOT the fallibility of God.
Out of your several years expertise in debating the contradictions, perhaps you can explain the Ahaziah contradiction?
Can you 'unequivocally' state the above is not an error???

RapturiteSean

May 21st, 2002, 07:31 AM

Theophilus

May 21st, 2002, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by NetHog

Now, maybe I'm seeing double, but surely (apart from the age) this is the same Ahaziah?

God Bless

Jamie

You are seeing double indeed Sir.

I suspect the death of the first "Ahaziah" threw a bit of a wet blanket on his being the second "Ahaziah", nes pa?

You may have deduced that I also read the references in 2Chronicles as well.

Another hint as to the 'duplicity theory' which is clearly shown, is the identity of each of "Ahaziah's" mothers, if the fact that each "Ahaziah" had a different father, ruled at different times, for different legnths of time, died a different way, in a different place & time is not enough...?

I have included all search references relating to Ahaziah in link below, let those who read decide.

Ahaziah... Two Men, One Name (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=Ahaziah&SearchType=AND&version=KJV&restrict=&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0)

Please enjoy your study on the kings Jamie, but keep the aspirin near, as personally i find it a bit of a headache.

If I sounded a bit harsh in my first post, it was not aimed at anyone in specific, especially yourself, as conversation between myself & any affable individual is always a welcomed pleasure, whether in agreement or in discussion.

Perhaps my involvement w/ a certain 'sect' has left me a bit jaded in this topic, as it was their standard operating procedure to claim everything opposed to their desired dogma as a 'translation error'. They even declared satans direct hand in the 1611 KJV translation! (all other translations were disallowed, of course!)

Yet, as we know satan is bound by God's allowance (Job 2:4), and that satans twisting of scripture wherever he is quoted in scripture is made apparent (e.g., Gen3;1), do you really think God would give satan permission to secretly manipulate one jot or tittle of scriptural translation?

It still makes no common sense to me how one can say in one breath that God is all-capable, and in the next that He couldn't get His desires in print? Instead, imho, He would, and did, inspire it!

Thank you for your time.
___________________

To Sean, mistaking fact for confidence is another of your errors Sir.

RapturiteSean

May 21st, 2002, 09:25 AM

You obviously cannot explain how 2 kings 8:25 and 26
does not contradict 2 Chron 22:1 and 2..........
.
Anyone reading those verses can see very clearly that the verses speak of the same person!

But then, an ostrich can hide its head in the sand when it doesn't WANT to see the obvious!

The NIV in both verses state his age at 22 years old.
The KJV states his age at 22 years old and at 42 years old.

There are many more minor errors that can be pointed out.
This is why I like to use different versions so that these small problems can be ironed out.

Of course God can have any version printed exactly as He wants it, but obviously He has allowed people to print His words as they have.

NetHog

May 21st, 2002, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Theophilus

You are seeing double indeed Sir.

I suspect the death of the first "Ahaziah" threw a bit of a wet blanket on his being the second "Ahaziah", nes pa?

You may have deduced that I also read the references in 2Chronicles as well.

Another hint as to the 'duplicity theory' which is clearly shown, is the identity of each of "Ahaziah's" mothers, if the fact that each "Ahaziah" had a different father, ruled at different times, for different legnths of time, died a different way, in a different place & time is not enough...?
If you re-read the above contexts, both Ahaziah's that are being compared have the same father and the same mother. They lived for the same length of time, and both reigned in Jerusalem. (Compare this with Ahaziah Son of Ahab, who was King of Israel not Jerusalem, and he reigned two years, not one year). Ahaziah of 1 Ch 22:5 went to war against Hazael and returned to be healed in Jezeel, which is exactly the same account as in 2 Ki 8:25-29.

So, given that in mind, looks like the same Ahaziah to me.

Please enjoy your study on the kings Jamie, but keep the aspirin near, as personally i find it a bit of a headache.

If I sounded a bit harsh in my first post, it was not aimed at anyone in specific, especially yourself, as conversation between myself & any affable individual is always a welcomed pleasure, whether in agreement or in discussion.

Always a pleasure!

Perhaps my involvement w/ a certain 'sect' has left me a bit jaded in this topic, as it was their standard operating procedure to claim everything opposed to their desired dogma as a 'translation error'. They even declared satans direct hand in the 1611 KJV translation! (all other translations were disallowed, of course!)

Yet, as we know satan is bound by God's allowance (Job 2:4), and that satans twisting of scripture wherever he is quoted in scripture is made apparent (e.g., Gen3;1), do you really think God would give satan permission to secretly manipulate one jot or tittle of scriptural translation?

It still makes no common sense to me how one can say in one breath that God is all-capable, and in the next that He couldn't get His desires in print? Instead, imho, He would, and did, inspire it! I believe God inspired it, but the weakness of man caused minor errors to creep in. Comparing scripts that have been found with differences in (noting the above example, 22 was in some manuscripts, 42 in others, but the text for twenty and for forty look similar) also shows only very minor errors have crept in. Although God has allowed minor copying errors to creep in, He hasn't allowed any significant changes to creep in, and amazingly there's enough "redundency" (engineer talk here) that allows the errors to be checked and corrected so that the original Spoken Word can be determined. However, it's important to put scripture in context.

Certain cults would have people believe that significant errors have got in. This is comparing a gold bullian with a drop of lead contaminent (reality) vs made up of 10% lead (what the cults would have people believe).

[/B][/QUOTE]

[Edited for some minor cleanup and clarification]

God bless

Jamie

Naldacon

May 21st, 2002, 03:09 PM

...moved to new thread..."Jehovah/Yahweh"

Theophilus

May 21st, 2002, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by NetHog

If you re-read the above contexts, both Ahaziah's that are being compared have the same father and the same mother. They lived for the same length of time, and both reigned in Jerusalem. (Compare this with Ahaziah Son of Ahab, who was King of Israel not Jerusalem, and he reigned two years, not one year). Ahaziah of 1 Ch 22:5 went to war against Hazael and returned to be healed in Jezeel, which is exactly the same account as in 2 Ki 8:25-29.

So, given that in mind, looks like the same Ahaziah to me.

Huh?

Three questions, please answer each yes or no.
____________________

1.) Is this one man with two different fathers?

1 Kings 22:40
So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.

2 Kings 8:24
And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.
_____________________

2.) Is this one man who died twice, in different cities, in different ways?

2 Kings 1:2
And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.
17 So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son.

27 But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in the chariot. And they did so at the going up to Gur, which is by Ibleam. And he fled to Megiddo, and died there.
28 And his servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and buried him in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of David.
___________________

3.) Is this one man who had two mothers?

1 Kings 21:25
(There was never a man like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord , urged on by Jezebel his wife.

2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.
_____________________

This paragraph, if read carefully, should allow anyone to plainly see we are speaking of Two seperate men, both related, both named Ahaziah.

The first Ahaziah was the son of Ahab, see his death above in 2 Kings 1:2-17.

The second Ahaziah was...

Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Chronicles 22)

1 The people of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, Jehoram's youngest son, (who's youngest son?) king in his place, since the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the older sons. So Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.

2 Ahaziah was twenty-two [1] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His *mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

3 He too walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his *mother encouraged him in doing wrong. 4 He did evil in the eyes of the Lord , as the house of *Ahab(*remember who this Ahaziah's father was, not *Ahab, but Jehoram! see vs 1 above!) had done, for after his father's death they became his advisers, to his undoing. 5 He also followed their counsel when he went with Joram [2] son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Aram at Ramoth Gilead.
_________________

E.W.Bullinger comments in his 'Companion Bible'...

2Cro. 21:17 that Jehoahaz is the same name as Ahaziah(22:1),or Azariah (22:6), all meaning "Jehovah take hold". This may alieve some of the confusion. Or cause more.

Ahaziah (son of Ahab) 851-850
Jehoram/Joram (son of Ahab) 850-842
Jehu 842-814
Jehoahaz (son of Jehu) 814-800

above is a listing of the kings who ruled in this time in question.

Seems we've got a plethera of 'azas' involved in this thread, havent we ;).

This is as much as i can beat a dead horse without feeling a bit ill for one day. I'll bbo Thursday Jamie.

Seems that wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Selah.

ZZZzzz....

RapturiteSean

May 21st, 2002, 05:12 PM

There are indeed two different Ahaziah's. No one is denying that.

Ahaziah #1 is the son of Ahab and Jezebel

Ahaziah #2 is the son of Jehoram and Athaliah.

The contradiction we are pointing out clearly refers to Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and Athaliah:

2 Kings 8:25-26 speaks of Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and Athaliah.
2 Chron 22:1-2 .speaks of Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and Athaliah.

* Note, neither of these two verses refer to Ahaziah, son of Ahab and Jezebel. They clearly say it is Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and Athaliah.

The contradiction is that the two verses above give two different ages for him. One says he was 22 years old and the other says he was 42 years old.

FirstCor123

May 21st, 2002, 05:16 PM

RapturiteSean

May 21st, 2002, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by FirstCor123
<An ostrich has never actually been observed hiding its head in the sand.>
=============================
:D :D :D

NetHog

May 21st, 2002, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Theophilus
Huh?
I wrote "1 Ch 22:5" instead of "2 Ch 22:5" maybe that added to the confusion.

1.) Is this one man with two different fathers?

I don't know why you keep bringing 1 Ki 22:40 into this, I totally agree Ahaziah of 1 Ki 22:40 is different to Ahaziah of 2 Ki 8:24. THat would be beating a dead horse. However I attest that the Ahaziah of 2 Chronicals 22:5 is the same as the Ahaziah of 2 Kings 8:24. They match up attribute by attribute other than age.

The Ahaziah of 2 Ch 22:5 has the same father as Ahaziah of 2 Ki 8:24. 2 Ch 21 describes the death of his father, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram reigned from age 32 for 8 years before dying of 'sore diseases'. 2 Ch 22 describes Jehoram's son Ahaziah reign. Referring back to 2 Ki 8, Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat began from age 32 for 8 years. In the 12th year of "Joram - son of Ahab" did "Ahaziah son of Jehoram" begin to reign (in Judah).

So the two Ahaziah's I'm comparing have the same father

2.) Is this one man who died twice, in different cities, in different ways?

Again, let's pull you to the Ahaziah's I'm comparing, not the ones you keep wanting compare.

2 Ki 9:27 (paraphrased) Ahaziah (son of Jehoram) the king of Judah was chased by Jehu. Ahaziah was struck on his way to Gur and died in Megiddo.

Compare with 2 Ch 22:9 (paraphrased) Jehu sought Ahaziah (son of Jehoram) who was hid in Samaria, was caught and brought to Jehu and was slain.

These appear to be two complementary accounts of his capture and death.

3.) Is this one man who had two mothers?

Again, referring to the verses I'm comparing.

2 Ki 8:26: And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. (This is the same verse that states his age as 22)

2 Ch 22:2: His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. (This is the same verse that states his age as 42 in KJV and some hebrew manuscripts, but 22 in other hebrew manuscripts. His age cannot be 42 as his father just died at age 40)

So yes, without a doubt, same mother.

This paragraph, if read carefully, should allow anyone to plainly see we are speaking of Two seperate men, both related, both named Ahaziah.

If you compare the correct scriptures (ie, the ones I want you to compare) then the above comparison shows that they are speaking of the same Ahaziah, which is Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, not Ahaziah the son of Ahab.

This is as much as i can beat a dead horse without feeling a bit ill.

Seems that wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Selah.

I would appreciate if you look at this again with the correct verses in mind.

Jamie
(And yes, I did need some headache tablets :))

[edited for clarification]

RapturiteSean

May 21st, 2002, 07:10 PM

Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Chronicles 22)

1 The people of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, Jehoram's youngest son, (who's youngest son?) king in his place, since the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the older sons. So Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.

2 Ahaziah was twenty-two [1] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His *mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.
============================

Herein lies the confusion. The scripture you have quoted above is from the NIV.

The contradiction is in the KJV. The KJV states he was 42 years old........not 22 years old as the NIV states above.

Perhaps we should have made it clearer that we were speaking about the KJV contradicting itself.

Now, using only the KJV, if you check 2 Kings 8:25-26 against 2 Chron. 22:1-2 you will see it is indeed speaking about the same person but in 2 Kings 8:25-26 it says he became king at 22 years old, but in 2 Chron 22:1-2 it says he became king at 42 years old.

In your post you have quoted from both the KJV and the NIV. This is purely a KJV matter.

NetHog

May 21st, 2002, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Theophilus
The second Ahaziah was...

Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Chronicles 22)

...

2 Ahaziah was twenty-two [1] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His *mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

[/B]Kinda amuzing. 2 Ki 8 and 2 Ch 22 acounts were so similar, I totally missed that Theophilus was quoting out of 2 Ch 22, n'mind that he wasn't quoting out of KJV 1611.

Anyway.... as Sean says... in KJV 1611, [1] says "fourty-two", hence the footnote:

[1] 22:2 Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 2 Kings 8:26); Hebrew forty-two.

For a comparison:

KJV 1611: "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri."

Other translations available here:

2 Ch 22:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2CHRON+22:2&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)

:lol

Jamie

Theophilus

May 21st, 2002, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by NetHog
Originally posted by Theophilus
Huh?
I wrote "1 Ch 22:5" instead of "2 Ch 22:5" maybe that added to the confusion.

1.) Is this one man with two different fathers?

I don't know why you keep bringing 1 Ki 22:40 into this, I totally agree Ahaziah of 1 Ki 22:40 is different to Ahaziah of 2 Ki 8:24. THat would be beating a dead horse. However I attest that the Ahaziah of 2 Chronicals 22:5 is the same as the Ahaziah of 2 Kings 8:24. They match up attribute by attribute other than age.

The Ahaziah of 2 Ch 22:5 has the same father as Ahaziah of 2 Ki 8:24. 2 Ch 21 describes the death of his father, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram reigned from age 32 for 8 years before dying of 'sore diseases'. 2 Ch 22 describes Jehoram's son Ahaziah reign. Referring back to 2 Ki 8, Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat began from age 32 for 8 years. In the 12th year of "Joram - son of Ahab" did "Ahaziah son of Jehoram" begin to reign (in Judah).

So the two Ahaziah's I'm comparing have the same father

2.) Is this one man who died twice, in different cities, in different ways?

Again, let's pull you to the Ahaziah's I'm comparing, not the ones you keep wanting compare.

2 Ki 9:27 (paraphrased) Ahaziah (son of Jehoram) the king of Judah was chased by Jehu. Ahaziah was struck on his way to Gur and died in Megiddo.

Compare with 2 Ch 22:9 (paraphrased) Jehu sought Ahaziah (son of Jehoram) who was hid in Samaria, was caught and brought to Jehu and was slain.

These appear to be two complementary accounts of his capture and death.

3.) Is this one man who had two mothers?

Again, referring to the verses I'm comparing.

2 Ki 8:26: And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. (This is the same verse that states his age as 22)

2 Ch 22:2: His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. (This is the same verse that states his age as 42 in KJV and some hebrew manuscripts, but 22 in other hebrew manuscripts. His age cannot be 42 as his father just died at age 40)

So yes, without a doubt, same mother.

This paragraph, if read carefully, should allow anyone to plainly see we are speaking of Two seperate men, both related, both named Ahaziah.

If you compare the correct scriptures (ie, the ones I want you to compare) then the above comparison shows that they are speaking of the same Ahaziah, which is Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, not Ahaziah the son of Ahab.

This is as much as i can beat a dead horse without feeling a bit ill.

Seems that wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Selah.

I would appreciate if you look at this again with the correct verses in mind.

Jamie
(And yes, I did need some headache tablets :))

[edited for clarification]

Its all about dividing the word. one would need to make a chart, 3 graphs & a business plan to deal w/ this. Then study them carefully to see the relationships in kings & chron. I don't know what Sean is saying, he's on ignore. I dont have time for arguments for arguments sake. If one needs to be right, be right, the Bible can be whatever you want to make it. (Tip, it's thin pages lend themselves well to orgami.)

OK.... tirade over. please send a concise para. asking your exact ? re the years he ruled when you get time, im off till Thurs., im trying to tell ya you are inserting one for the other, but im not getting anywhere but in OOO (circles) this way. So lets try it your way Jamie.

peace

NetHog

May 21st, 2002, 08:50 PM

Hmmm, another starter

1 Ki 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls (herding place) of horses for his chariots and twelve thousand horsemen"

compare with:

1 Ki 10:26 "... and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen..." (Also 1 Ch 1:14)

Now compare with

2 Ch 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen..."

The Hebrew for horsemen here is actually:

From H6567; a steed (as stretched out to a vehicle, not single nor for mounting (compare H5483)); also (by implication) a driver (in a chariot), that is, (collectively) cavalry: - horseman.

So the implication in this hebrew word is that there is one horseman to one horse, so it is literally "Steeds" but implicatively "Horsemen"

Now, if he had 40,000 stalls for horses (1 Ki 4:26 account), each stall containing on average say 3 horses, Solomon would have to have 120,000 horses/horsemen. (Even with only one horse per stall, there would have to be 40,000 horses/horsemen, but you would want at least two per stall)

On the otherhand, if he had 4,000 stalls (as supported by 2 Ch 9:25), this would be a much fairer number of stalls for the number of horses/horsemen.

Using KJV 1611 translation, 2 Ch 9:25 appears to contradict 1 Ki 4:26. Logistics would favor the 2 Ch 9:25 account rather than the 1 Ki 4:26 account (so the true Word does come through).

BTW The Septuagint specifies 4,000 stalls in 1 Ki 4:26.

Looking at the Hebrew for "four" and "forty" it's visible how a translator could make this mistake.

Jamie

NetHog

May 21st, 2002, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Theophilus

Its all about dividing the word. one would need to make a chart, 3 graphs & a business plan to deal w/ this. Then study them carefully to see the relationships in kings & chron. I dont know what Sean is saying, he's on ignore. I dont have time for arguments for arguements sake. If u need to be right, be right, the Bible can be whatever you want to make it. (Tip, it's thin pages lend themselves well to orgami.)

peace. out. It would seem, re-reading your earlier post that you also consider Ahaziah of 2 Chronicals 22:2 to be the same as Ahaziah of 2 Ki 8:26. So we don't seem to have any debate here. The question is how old is Ahaziah given these two verses?

God Bless.

Jamie

Theophilus

May 21st, 2002, 09:17 PM

E.W.Bullinger comments in his 'Companion Bible'...

2Cro. 21:17 that Jehoahaz is the same name as Ahaziah(22:1),or Azariah (22:6), all meaning "Jehovah take hold". This may alieve some of the confusion. Or cause more.

Ahaziah (son of Ahab) 851-850
Jehoram/Joram (son of Ahab) 850-842
Jehu 842-814
Jehoahaz (son of Jehu) 814-800

above is a listing of the kings who ruled in this time in question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Kings of Israel (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Kings.html)

The three original kings of Israel were Saul, David and Solomon. After the death of Solomon, the ten northern tribes revolted and established the kingdom of Israel in the north. The remaining tribes remained loyal to the son of Solomon and formed the Kingdom of Judah in the south.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeroboam 928-907
Nadab (son of Jeroboam) 907-906
Baasha 906-883
Elah (son of Baasha) 883-882
Zimri 882
Omri 882-871
Ahab (son of Omri) 871-851
Ahaziah (son of Ahab) 851-850
Jehoram/Joram (son of Ahab) 850-842
Jehu 842-814
Jehoahaz (son of Jehu) 814-800
Joash/Jehoash (son of Jehoahaz) 800-785
Jeroboam II (son of Jehoash) 785-749
Zechariah (son of Jeroboam) 749
Shallum 748
Menahem 748-737
Pekahiah (son of Menahem) 737-735
Pekah 735-731
Hoshea 731-722

See ya thursday, your turn to bring the aspirin, x-tra strength please.

Grace Believer

May 21st, 2002, 11:06 PM

After a gracious invitation from NetHog, I am joining this discussion (I wasn't watching it). As NetHog already knows, I am here to "defend" the KJV position in a scriptural and cordial way.

As several have rightly pointed out, the books of Kings and Chronicles can lead to significant headaches. Why? It is a VERY complicated history with the division of Judah and Israel, multiple kings, etc.

That being said about the headaches, I'm only going to engage in a discussion on singular point at at time. Let's be logical and throrough. Until we finish a point with mutual agreement, I would ask that we continue with that point. I'm probably going to ignore other tangents or topics.

Also, since the KJV is being questioned, all study and responses should use KJV citations. Please do your best to be objective, and make a conscious effort operate under the assumption that the KJV could be right for the purposes of this study (it won't kill you!!).

The KJV passages that are being questioned as contradictory are as follows:

II Chronicles 22:1 KJV "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri."

II Kings 8:24 KJV "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 of Omri king of Israel."

The first point that I want to study with all of you is WHO IS AHAZIAH'S FATHER? Well get to the 42 and 22 later. For your clarification, I AGREE that these two passages are CLEARLY the SAME Ahaziah.

Now, please study II Chronicles 22 KJV entirely and tell me who is Ahaziah's father?

NetHog

May 21st, 2002, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Grace Believer
Now, please study II Chronicles 22 KJV entirely and tell me who is Ahaziah's father?

I did so earlier in this thread, I'll repost it here:

The Ahaziah of 2 Ch 22:5 has the same father as Ahaziah of 2 Ki 8:24. 2 Ch 21 describes the death of his father, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram reigned from age 32 for 8 years before dying of 'sore diseases'. 2 Ch 22 describes Jehoram's son Ahaziah reign. Referring back to 2 Ki 8, Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat began from age 32 for 8 years. In the 12th year of "Joram - son of Ahab" did "Ahaziah son of Jehoram" begin to reign (in Judah).

God Bless, and great to see you join in this fun!

Jamie

Grace Believer

May 22nd, 2002, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by NetHog
I did so earlier in this thread, I'll repost it here...God Bless, and great to see you join in this fun! Jamie

You mean "fun" (in quotes) right? :D I don't mind as time permits. I have to be selective about topics because of time constraints, but I do appreciate you pointing me over here.

I was driving you towards II Chronicles 22:9.

More tomorrow...

NetHog

May 22nd, 2002, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Grace Believer

You mean "fun" (in quotes) right? :D I don't mind as time permits. I have to be selective about topics because of time constraints, but I do appreciate you pointing me over here.

I was driving you towards II Chronicles 22:9.

More tomorrow... Ah, that's simple, (BTW, this parallels 2 Ki 9:27) The Hebrew for son here also means grandson, so there's no conflict. (H1121, From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc.,)

Going back to 2 Ch 21:1, Jehoshaphat is the father of Jehoram.

In the context of 2 Ch 22:9, they are saying "Ahaziah is a descendent of Jehoshaphat".

2 Ch 22:10 picks up at 2 Ki 11:1 where Ahaziah's mother Athaliah takes over while Joash, Ahaziah's son is hid.

God Bless

Jamie

RapturiteSean

May 22nd, 2002, 05:12 AM

I AGREE that these two passages are CLEARLY the SAME Ahaziah.
==========================================

Good.
Then why is his age given at 22 years old in one of the two passages and at 42 years old in the other?

RapturiteSean

May 22nd, 2002, 05:25 AM

I dont know what Sean is saying, he's on ignore. I dont have time for arguments for arguements sake. If one needs to be right, be right, the Bible can be whatever you want to make it. (Tip, it's thin pages lend themselves well to orgami.)
===========================

Without clouding the issue why don't you answer a very simple question?

Is the Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8:25/26 the same Ahaziah in 2 Chron 22:1-2?

Yes or no?

And if you agree the verses speak of the same person, why does one of them say he was 22 years old, while the other verse says he was 42 years old?

I do not at all mind your sarcasm, but straightforward, honest answers would be useful.

RapturiteSean

May 22nd, 2002, 06:08 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grace Believer
[B]After a gracious invitation from NetHog, I am joining this discussion (I wasn't watching it). As NetHog already knows, I am here to "defend" the KJV position in a scriptural and cordial way.
======================================

Actually this thread is not just about the KJV. It is about small errors/contradictions in all versions.

To start with, I think it would be fair to say that it is your opinion that the modern versions have errors.

Didn't You say in the King James Bible thread that the modern versions have mistakes and 'flat out errors'?

We don't know if Theophilus position is the same as yours...that only the KJV is inerrant.
Otherwise you are already in disagreement with him.

If you believe that the KJV is the only one without error, then we concentrate on the KJV.

And we concentrate on the different revised versions of the KJV........not just one particular revision.

Theophilus

May 22nd, 2002, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Grace Believer
After a gracious invitation from NetHog, I am joining this discussion (I wasn't watching it). As NetHog already knows, I am here to "defend" the KJV position in a scriptural and cordial way.

As several have rightly pointed out, the books of Kings and Chronicles can lead to significant headaches. Why? It is a VERY complicated history with the division of Judah and Israel, multiple kings, etc.

That being said about the headaches, I'm only going to engage in a discussion on singular point at at time. Let's be logical and throrough. Until we finish a point with mutual agreement, I would ask that we continue with that point. I'm probably going to ignore other tangents or topics.

LOL...Tho I have been thru this same discussion before, you've noticed how doggedly Im avoiding the math! In fact, i try to stay clear of 1&2Kings&Chronicles whenever possible! I think the 'who's who" in this case is very plain in & of itself. I have a great difficulty with professed Christians [lets say, "challenging the accuracy""] of the Bible to begin with, so I think i will excuse myself for a bit & just read along.

[Sean, I am a bit physically challenged & can only sit & type for a limited amount of time each day, some days not at all. My illness kind of makes me focus on only the core few posters in a thread, & if i feel they are kind of ignoring my ?'s in favor of restating their own point, i often put them on ignore, particularly if the thread seems to be going in several directions at once, but only for the duration of that thread im partaking in.

Heck, im guilty of doing this same thing myself on more than one occasion, probably even in this same thread!, & have made several peoples "ignore" lists myself, oh well huh?
I meant nothing personal, & usually don't even mention it, but Jamie referenced several things you had asked, so i mentioned it in this case.]

Edit added:BTW, I attempted to point out this "son/grandson & daughter/grandaughter" analogy in a previous post quoted below, but i was apparently much less articulate than G/B...

"This paragraph, if read carefully, should allow anyone to plainly see we are speaking of Two seperate men, both related, both named Ahaziah.

The first Ahaziah was the son of Ahab, see his death above in 2 Kings 1:2-17.

The second Ahaziah was...

Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Chronicles 22)

1 The people of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, Jehoram's youngest son, (who's youngest son?) king in his place, since the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the older sons. So Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.

2 Ahaziah was twenty-two [1] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His *mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

3 He too walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his *mother encouraged him in doing wrong. 4 He did evil in the eyes of the Lord , as the house of *Ahab(*remember who this Ahaziah's father was, not *Ahab, but Jehoram! see vs 1 above!) had done, for after his father's death they became his advisers, to his undoing. 5 He also followed their counsel when he went with Joram [2] son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Aram at Ramoth Gilead."

Thank you for your time,

RapturiteSean

May 22nd, 2002, 07:07 PM

I bear no hard feelings.

I do appreciate your posts on a range of subjects and generally agree with your comments.

I would, though, rather you didn't think I am denigrating the bible by debating what I and others see as small errors. If we can identify errors then we can see how the whole of scripture corrects those errors itself

You are obviously an intelligent and Godly person and I do appreciate you...even if we don't agree on this particular subject.

God Bless

Theophilus

May 22nd, 2002, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by RapturiteSean
I bear no hard feelings.

I do appreciate your posts on a range of subjects and generally agree with your comments.

I would, though, rather you didn't think I am denigrating the bible by debating what I and others see as small errors. If we can identify errors then we can see how the whole of scripture corrects those errors itself

You are obviously an intelligent and Godly person and I do appreciate you...even if we don't agree on this particular subject.

God Bless

Man your fast!!! I just posted that ["denigrate"], then thought better of it & changed it, & your reply was already up! Call it 'paranoia' from being involved with a certain 'questionable sect' for many years, im working on it.

Thank you for your kind words.

In blessings be blessed,

RapturiteSean

May 22nd, 2002, 07:37 PM

For the benefit of anyone following this thread, there is NO DOUBT that there were two Ahaziah's.

But the Ahaziah in 2kings 8: 25-26 is Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and Athaliah.

This is the SAME Ahaziah in 2 Chron 22:1-2

In both those verses it speaks of Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and Athaliah

If readers check their bibles this will be confirmed.

Grace Believer

May 22nd, 2002, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by NetHog
Ah, that's simple...The Hebrew for son here also means grandson, so there's no conflict. (H1121, From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc.)

But is it that simple? ;-)

As you have pointed out correctly, the word "son" in the Bible does not always mean literal, biological son. Another example reference: I Samuel 24:16.

Now go back and look at II Chron 22:1 in the same manner. H1121 again!

Also, H1121 is also used in I Samuel 24:16. Even more interesting is that H1121 is used I Samuel 16:19-20 in a literaly manner.

So going to the Hebrew has not shed any additional light on who is Ahaziah's biological father....

Naldacon

May 23rd, 2002, 12:02 AM

I must say the histories in 2 Kin and 2 Chron look to be all twisted together. But one thing seems clear as RapturiteSean says: the Ahaziah, king of Judah, in 2 Kin 8:25-26 is the same as the Ahaziah , king of Judah, in 2 Chron 22:2, Both were the son of Joram/Jehoram king of Judah and Athaliah, daughter of Omri (there was a Joram/Jehoram, king of Israel, about the same time as well as another Ahaziah and another Jehoshaphat - so I can see why it's easy to get confused.). As further evidence, the Ahaziahs spoken of in both 2 Kin 8 and 2 Chron 22 were killed by Jehu.

So, how is the fact that Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign in 2 Kin and 42 in 2 Chron not an error of some kind?

Naldacon

May 23rd, 2002, 12:07 AM

I suspect that Ozias in Matt 1 is the same as Azariah of 2 Kin 8 and 2 Chron 22.

"And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;" Matt 1:8

Grace Believer

May 23rd, 2002, 11:17 PM

This is all carry over from the prior forum, so let's stay on the first two topics (Ahaziah's father, and this one) until we finish at least one of them. It will keep all of us focused, instead of jumping all over the map to new ones and not finishing the prior one. We can reach an agreement before moving on.

This is a "reckoning" problem. Notice the difference in two words: "of" and "for."

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."

I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

You bring up that THE Septuagint (first Greek translation from the Hebrew bible) says 4,000 in Kings, but the footnote in my NIV says SOME. It should also be noted that the Hebrew bible says 40,000.

Now the solution to the "contradiction."

Chronicles is saying that Solomon had 4,000 stalls "FOR" his horses "AND" chariots. It doesn't say how many horses and chariots, just 4,000 stalls.

Kings is saying that Solomon has 40,000 stalls "OF HORSES FOR" his chariots It means that there were 10 horses in each stall.

So, is there agreement that the Hebrew bible and KJV rendition are correct? I'll also accept agreement that "it could be." :)

RapturiteSean

May 24th, 2002, 07:09 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grace Believer
[B]This is all carry over from the prior forum, so let's stay on the first two topics (Ahaziah's father, and this one) until we finish at least one of them. It will keep all of us focused, instead of jumping all over the map to new ones and not finishing the prior one. We can reach an agreement before moving on.
=================================

The issue is NOT about Ahaziah's father.
You have already stated that we are talking about the same Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8:25-26 and in 2 Chronicles 22:1-2.
Both those verses give different ages for him. That is the issue of contradiction.

RapturiteSean

May 24th, 2002, 07:15 AM

This is a "reckoning" problem. Notice the difference in two words: "of" and "for."

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."

I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

You bring up that THE Septuagint (first Greek translation from the Hebrew bible) says 4,000 in Kings, but the footnote in my NIV says SOME. It should also be noted that the Hebrew bible says 40,000.

Now the solution to the "contradiction."

Chronicles is saying that Solomon had 4,000 stalls "FOR" his horses "AND" chariots. It doesn't say how many horses and chariots, just 4,000 stalls.

Kings is saying that Solomon has 40,000 stalls "OF HORSES FOR" his chariots It means that there were 10 horses in each stall.

So, is there agreement that the Hebrew bible and KJV rendition are correct? I'll also accept agreement that "it could be." :) [/B][/QUOTE]
====================================

I don't agree with your interpretation for a number of reasons. but I think we should deal only with the Ahaziah issue until that debate is finished.
.

Please state your case why the contradiction about Ahaziah's age given in 2 Kings 8:25-26 and 2 Chronicles 22:1 -2 is not, in your opinion, a contradiction.

Be Soon

May 24th, 2002, 11:42 AM

Re: Who was Ahaziah's Father?

Sounds just like something off the TV. Thankfully parenting tests are available today. :D

Seriously

I am so enjoying this, I have a tape on the subject and have been listening to that as well. There IS an explanation but I find it hard to grasp and I am also in danger of overdosing on Paracetemol. :sigh

(The New King James is the same btw) Has anyone checked the original Hebrew?

Well done everyone.

Grace Believer

May 24th, 2002, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by RapturiteSean The issue is NOT about Ahaziah's father. You have already stated that we are talking about the same Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8:25-26 and in 2 Chronicles 22:1-2. Both those verses give different ages for him. That is the issue of contradiction.

RapturiteSean, just a reminder, as you may have forgotten....

Originally posted by NetHog Also note that according to 2 Ch 22:2, Ahaziah was supposedly 42 years old. This cannot be the case as his father died at the age of 40 and Ahaziah immediately succeeded. So although this particular record disagrees, the "Word" comes forth - that Ahaziah must have been 22, not 42.

Note that there are two separate issues.

1 - Is looking at II Chroniciles just by itself. How could Ahaziah die before his father?
2 - Is looking at the contradiction between II Kings and II Chronicles.

We've only been discussing the first, I'll get to your question after the first one is agreed to, so please be patient.

Back to #1, so how could Ahaziah die before his father?

1 - It has been shown that the scriptural use of the word "son" is not always an indiciation of direct biological descent (a literal son).

2 - We have no scriptural proof that Ahaziah is the literal biological son of Jehoram.

Therefore, (keep in mind that we are ignoring II Kings for the moment), it is plausible on this basis to conclude that the II Chronicles 22 in the Hebrew, KJV, etc. could be correct. Furthermore, it is a further indication that Ahaziah is not the literal, biological son of Jehoram. Again, we are talking about II Chronicles only!! If this agreeable, then we can move to #2.

RapturiteSean

May 24th, 2002, 02:11 PM

Therefore, (keep in mind that we are ignoring II Kings for the moment), it is plausible on this basis to conclude that the II Chronicles 22 in the Hebrew, KJV, etc. could be correct. Furthermore, it is a further indication that Ahaziah is not the literal, biological son of Jehoram. Again, we are talking about II Chronicles only!! If this agreeable, then we can move to #2. [/B][/QUOTE]
===================================

I see no indication that Jehoram is NOT the biological father.
How many husbands did his mother, Athaliah have sons called Ahaziah to?

How many men was his mother bearing children to?

We know he was not Jehoshaphats son because Jehoram murdered all his brothers.

Jehoshaphat was succeeded by his son ( only remaining son after he murdered his brothers ).

In other words the direct lineage to the throne could at this point ONLY be through Jehoram.

Ahaziah would not have been in direct lineage UNLESS he was Jehorams biological son!

Seems there is plenty of scripture to deduce Jehoram was indeed his father.........

Your H1121 means son or grandson as far as lineage to the throne is concerned in this instance. Ahaziah cannot possibly be Jehoshaphats son.......stands to reason he was Jehorams son and the throne passed directly to him as all his older brothers were dead.

Now, can we deal with the contradiction between:

2 Kings 8:25-26

and

2 Chronicles 22:1-2 ??

We are told in both cases that he succeeded his father Jehoram after Jehoram had died.

So no, he didn't die before his father.

Grace Believer

May 24th, 2002, 11:32 PM

Back in a few days, holiday weekend here in the states...

<edit> that's probably where NetHog (Jamie) is.

Theophilus

May 26th, 2002, 03:52 PM

G/B said...Chronicles is saying that Solomon had 4,000 stalls "FOR" his horses "AND" chariots. It doesn't say how many horses and chariots, just 4,000 stalls.

agreed.

I think maybe developing two lists, each pertaining to one Ahaziah might clarify it a bit...?

Have a great holiday!

NetHog

May 27th, 2002, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Grace Believer
Back in a few days, holiday weekend here in the states...

<edit> that's probably where NetHog (Jamie) is. You caught me! Actually, aside from taking our trailer out (first time) we've got to get house ready for my sis's visit, so I may be quiet for a while.

Theophilus - I will be working on that list!

Jamie

brandplucked

May 28th, 2002, 05:59 AM

Hello saints, I am new here so I hope I am not intruding where I don't belong. I have read the posts in this discussion so far and would like to contribute. Up front I will tell you I am a strong King James Bible onlyist. I believe God's promises to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away are true and He has done this for our times in the English language of the KJB. I came to this conviction about 5 years ago after much prayer and study and have only had it confirmed to me again and again since that time.

Here are my comments on the age of Ahaziah. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion. It there are other numerical contradictions in the KJB, could you please post them for further examination? Thank you, In His grace, Will

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.

There is a Biblical way to answer this “contradiction” and it is not that hard to find if you just read carefully and believe the King James Bible.

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

Yet the NAS and NIV change this number 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, so I don't know where they get the information that some LXX copies read 22.

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 rather easy 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." The very next verse tells us "when Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab, and found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah...he slew them."

Thus we see that the judgment upon the house of Ahab included all those in Judah who were related to Ahab, king of Israel, by marriage or by blood. This included Ahaziah and his extended family. The mention of Jehu being appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab is significant. Jehu is mentioned only in 2 Chronicles where we are told Ahaziah's age is 42 rather than 22. In the 2 Kings 8 section, where the age of Ahaziah is given as 22, there is no mention of Jehu or his mission to cut off the house of Ahab.

Ahaziah was son in law to 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 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 or son in law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself.

So, if you count how long each king that is related to Ahab reigned, you come up with exactly the 42nd year as a son of Ahab (related by marriage) when Ahaziah began to reign, though physically he was only 22.

Ahab reigned 22 years (1 Kings 16: 29), Jehoram, his son, king of Israel reigned 12 years (2 Kings 3:1), and Jehoram of Judah, Ahaziah's father who married the daughter of Ahab, reigned for 8 years (2 Chr. 21:5). Thus 22 + 12 + 8 =42, the age of Ahaziah AS A SON OF AHAB, when he began to reign.

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

willjkinney@earthlink.net

Becky

May 28th, 2002, 07:13 AM

Welcome to Rapture Ready, Brandplucked. And thank you for that great commentary. :)

brandplucked

May 28th, 2002, 07:52 AM

Thank you Becky for your words of welcome. I read through all 17 pages of the previous series about the Bible versions. Whew! It took me a good while but I learned quite a bit about the different points of view represented here.

I appreciate Grace Believer's study on the love of money and got some good things from that. I wanted to post another very possible explanation ( the one I currently hold) to 1 Timothy 6:10. Thank you all. In His grace, Will

I Timothy 6:10

A verse that is frequently criticized in the King James Bible is I Timothy 6:10. "For the love of money is the root of all evil."

James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy, on pages 139 - 140 compares the KJB reading with the NASB (niv, nkjv) "For the love of money is A root of all SORTS OF evil". Then he comments: "First, is the love of money THE root of evil, or A root of evil? Secondly, is it a root of ALL evil, or ALL KINDS OF evil? Once again we enounter a situation in which something can be said for each translation."

"The word for 'root' in the Greek does not have the article before it, hence the more literal translation in this case would be 'a root', not the definite 'the root'. The text is not saying that the love of money is the only origin or source of evil, but that it is one of great importance."

"And is it ALL evil, or ALL KINDS OF evil? Literally the Greek reads, ' of all the evils', the terms being plural. The modern translations see this as referring to all KINDS of evils, while the KJV takes all evil as a whole concept. The KJV translation is a possibility grammatically speaking, but it seems to miss Paul's point."

" The love of money gives rise to all sorts of evil things, but there are, obviously, evils in the world that have nothing to do with the love of money. A minister friend of mine pointed out with reference to this passage that it is difficult to see how rape, for example, can be blamed on 'the love of money'. Such is surely a good question for a person who would insist upon the KJV rendering."

These are James White's comments and they are frequently brought up by those who criticize the KJB.

In the first place ALL Bible translations frequently place a definite article 'the' when it is not in the Greek text and omit it when it is there in the Greek. Even the Holy Ghost does the same thing when we compare the sayings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, the definite article being found in one and not in the other . This is not uncommon nor inaccurate in the least. There are several examples of both in all versions right here in I Timothy. A very small sampling of examples are found in I Timothy 3:16. There is no definite article before the flesh, the Spirit and the world, yet all versions put them in the English text.

Likewise the definite articles are not translated in the NASB in I Tim. 6: 1 in 'the' masters, 'the' God and 'the' doctrine. I can make a very long list of such examples in just this little epistle of I Timothy.

Secondly, at least Mr. White admitted that the KJB reading is grammatically possible. Mr. W. Robertson Niccoll, in his well known book The Expositor's Greek Testament, explicitly says on page 144 of Volume Four, regarding the root of all evil that the reading of the Revised Version 'a root of all kinds of evil' (which is the same as found in the NASB, NIV, and NKJV) quote: "is not satisfactory. The position of riza (root) in the sentence shows that it is emphatic." End of quote.

Thus this other "scholar" is saying that the phrase in question should have the definite article 'the' before 'the root'. Mr. Niccoll is by no means a KJB only; he frequently corrects the Bible text according to his own understanding, just as Mr. White does, yet here his opinion is opposite to that of Mr. White.

Thirdly it should be noted that the readings of the NASB, NIV and NKJV all add the words KINDS or SORTS to the text, which is not found in the Greek either, and omit the definite article THE before the word evil.

Fourthly, not only does the KJB render this phrase as "the love of money is the root of all evil" but so also do Tyndale's New Testament translation of 1534, the Geneva Bible of 1599, The Great Bible, Darby's translation, the Revised Standard Version, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay 1950 version, the New American Bible of 1970, the Living Oracles New Testament, Goodspeed's American Translation, the Spanish Reina Valera versions of 1569 and 1602, the Italian Diodati version, the KJV 21st Century, the International Standard Version and the Third Millenium Bible.

Finally and most importantly James White is the one who is missing the meaning of the text and not the King James Bible. Mr. White sits in judgment upon the true words of God thinking that his own understanding is the only correct one to hold. I agree with him that the love of money is not the root of every form of evil out there like rape and the original fall of Adam, or pride, hatred or lust. But I believe Mr. White is ignoring the context and missing the true meaning of the verse in question.

ALL EVIL is not referring to every kind of evil but rather to a state of evil without mixture of any good. The word Evil can denote sin and / or the consequences of sin, like unrest of the soul, a quilty conscience, lack of contentment and other calamities both internal and external.

Notice the context beginning with verse 9 and continuing on through verse 10. "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

This person falls into a state of 'all evil' with no mixture of anything good in his life. He is drowned in destruction and perdition by many foolish and hurtful lusts. He is pierced through with many sorrows. There is no consciousness of anything good in this persons life and all he feels and experiences is a state of evil.

Compare the following verses to see that the phrase 'all evil' does not refer to every imaginable form of evil or sin, but rather to a state of being which consists of unmixed evil.

In Joshua 23:15 Joshua tells the children of Israel: "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you ALL EVIL THINGS, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."

Likewise in Proverbs 5:14 "I was almost in ALL EVIL in the midst of the congregation and assembly." And in Genesis 48:16 Jacob testifies: "The Angel which redeemed me from ALL EVIL, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them."

The experience of most Christians is living in a state of blessings of good along with the presence of evil or difficulties in our lives. But the Christian who goes after the love of money will soon find himself in a state of only evil, sorrows and hurtful lusts and will lose the sense of anything good in his life. I believe this is the true sense of the passage as is found in the King James Bible.

Will

RapturiteSean

May 28th, 2002, 10:09 AM

.

So, if you count how long each king that is related to Ahab reigned, you come up with exactly the 42nd year as a son of Ahab (related by marriage) when Ahaziah began to reign, though physically he was only 22.

Ahab reigned 22 years (1 Kings 16: 29), Jehoram, his son, king of Israel reigned 12 years (2 Kings 3:1), and Jehoram of Judah, Ahaziah's father who married the daughter of Ahab, reigned for 8 years (2 Chr. 21:5). Thus 22 + 12 + 8 =42, the age of Ahaziah AS A SON OF AHAB, when he began to reign.
===============================

Actually there is only a total of 35 years.
Jehoram of Judah became king in the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel.This would take 7 tears off your total making the total 35 consecutive years and not 42 years.

Nevertheless and even without that;

Which ever way you juggle figures about, Ahaziah was nobodys son until he was born. He was only 22 years old.
We are talking about how many years OLD he was.

Both verses state his age....not the age of the throne.... at 22 YEARS OLD or 42 YEARS old.

Your commentary was interesting, but does not explain the contradiction in age.

Before he was born he was nobodys son.

All you have done is state how long Ahab or his relatives/in-laws reigned and this total of years is only 35 years until Ahaziah.

There were only 35 years from the start of Ahab's reign to the start of Ahaziah's reign.

The differing ages are clearly a contradiction in the KJV.

RapturiteSean

May 28th, 2002, 10:10 AM

1 Timothy 6:10

The love of money is not the root of all evil no matter how many commentaries are made on the subject.

NetHog

May 28th, 2002, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by brandplucked
Thus we see that the judgment upon the house of Ahab included all those in Judah who were related to Ahab, king of Israel, by marriage or by blood. This included Ahaziah and his extended family. The mention of Jehu being appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab is significant. Jehu is mentioned only in 2 Chronicles where we are told Ahaziah's age is 42 rather than 22. In the 2 Kings 8 section, where the age of Ahaziah is given as 22, there is no mention of Jehu or his mission to cut off the house of Ahab.I haven't finished reading your post, but I'd like to make an initial comment on this part of the argument. Your comment is that Jehu is mentioned only in 2 Chronicles. This is incorrect. Jehu is also mentioned in Ahaziah's account in 2 Ki 8-9. In particular 2 Ki 9:16 parallels 2 Ch 22:9. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, 2 Ch 22:10 is picked up in 2 Ki 11:1.

BTW, Welcome!

Jamie

RapturiteSean

May 28th, 2002, 12:46 PM

In Joshua 23:15 Joshua tells the children of Israel: "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you ALL EVIL THINGS, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."
=========================
This is in context of the opposite of what God has promised.
NIV states ' all the evil He has THREATENED'. Not simply ALL evil.

Likewise in Proverbs 5:14 "I was almost in ALL EVIL in the midst of the congregation and assembly."
==============================
NIV correctly translate this in the context of the assembly ' I have come to the brink of UTTER RUIN ( not 'all evil' ) in the midst of the assembly.

The KJV statement that the love of money is THE root of ALL evil is obviously wrong.

Showing other incorrect KJV comparisions doesn't nullify that fact.

Everyone KNOWS that the love of money is not the root of all evil.

brandplucked

May 28th, 2002, 04:30 PM

>>>"Actually there is only a total of 35 years.
Jehoram of Judah became king in the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel.This would take 7 tears off your total making the total 35 consecutive years and not 42 years.<<<

Not true. The 42 years old refers to the total years of each family line of Ahab combined. The term "son" or daughter is used in Scripture to include grandchildren, great, great, great grandchildren, nephews, and sons in law or daughters in law. Naomi called Ruth her daughter. Saul called David his son.

The masoretic scribes did not make all the errors modern version proponents accuse them of. They were very careful. Nothing was copied from memory. Each word was consulted before copying. One mistake and it was done over. Each letter and word was numbered.

There are many examples in the modern versions where they have abandoned the Hebrew readings and followed the LXX, Vulgate, Samaritan or Syriac. The NIV has over 80 such examples I have found so far. Most of them are noted in the NIV footnotes. The NASB departs from the Hebrew at least 40 times but they don't tell you this. The NKJV has about 10 times I have found so far and the NKJV does NOT always follow the same Greek text underlying the King James Bible.

Sorry you don't have any Bible you really believe is the perfect, preserved, inerrant words of God.

Here is an excellent article written to Dave Hunt.

Blessings, Will

http://members.citynet.net/morton/huntlttr.htm

brandplucked

May 28th, 2002, 04:40 PM

>>> Jehu is also mentioned in Ahaziah's account in 2 Ki 8-9. In particular 2 Ki 9:16 parallels 2 Ch 22:9. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, 2 Ch 22:10 is picked up in 2 Ki 11:1. <<<

You are correct Jamie, Jehu is mentioned. Perhaps I should have phrased it a bit differently. The fact that Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab is mentioned only in the Chronicles section where it lists his age as 42. Ahaziah was a son of the house of Ahab through marriage. As a son of Ahab he was 42, though physically only 22. That is why Jehu's mission from God to cut off the house of Ahab is significant in the Chronicles section.

Will

NetHog

May 28th, 2002, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by brandplucked
Sorry you don't have any Bible you really believe is the perfect, preserved, inerrant words of God. I don't believe water is 100% pure, but it's still good (and important) to drink. I believe that the words and resulting promises of God are refined in a fire, but I do believe there are minor impurities that have got into the record of God's words. As I don't treat the bible as a god, and since God has provided His Holy Spirit as teacher, it doesn't concern me that there are minor impurities in the written record of God's word in the same way as minor impurities in the water I drink don't concern me.

Will, quick side question, what does the Hebrew of 2 Sa 21:19 say about who was slain, Goliath, or the brother of Goliath? The Hebrew transliterated is "ayth [pertaining to self] gol-yath' [Goliath]" cf 1Ch 20:5 "awkh [brother] gol-yath' [Goliath]"

God Bless

Jamie

NetHog

May 28th, 2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by brandplucked
>>> Jehu is also mentioned in Ahaziah's account in 2 Ki 8-9. In particular 2 Ki 9:16 parallels 2 Ch 22:9. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, 2 Ch 22:10 is picked up in 2 Ki 11:1. <<<

You are correct Jamie, Jehu is mentioned. Perhaps I should have phrased it a bit differently. The fact that Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab is mentioned only in the Chronicles section where it lists his age as 42. Ahaziah was a son of the house of Ahab through marriage. As a son of Ahab he was 42, though physically only 22. That is why Jehu's mission from God to cut off the house of Ahab is significant in the Chronicles section.

Will Hmmm, so what does 2 Ki 9:7-8 say?
Summarising 2 Ki 9:1-6 account from KJV, Elisha appointed one of the children of the prophets to annoint Jehu as King over Israel. 2 Ki 9:6-8 "... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I have anointed thee king over the people of the LORD, even over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab... For the whole house of Ahab shall perish..."

Sounds like 2 Ki 9:6-8 also mentions (in detail) that Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab.

God Bless

Jamie

RapturiteSean

May 28th, 2002, 06:05 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by brandplucked
[B]>>>"Actually there is only a total of 35 years.
Jehoram of Judah became king in the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel.This would take 7 tears off your total making the total 35 consecutive years and not 42 years.<<

Not true. The 42 years old refers to the total years of each family line of Ahab combined.
===================================
Nope, it was only 35 consecutive years although even then this is a very convoluted way of excusing anything. Seven of the years were concurrent= 35 consecutive years.
There is no precedent for using this kind of convolution to deny someones true age. Neither scriptural nor otherwise.
No matter how we juggle the numbers.
Even if the above criteria was correct ( which it definitely isn't ) you would have to add the AGES, not REIGNS, of all the family lines and you would come to a much greater number than 42!
Even linking him to Ahab through his father doesn't add up to 42 since his father died at 40 when Ahaziah was already 22.
Even with all the convolution the contradiction in Ahaziah's age remains.

Anyway, as stated we are talking about Ahaziah being ....years old.

The verses are talking about Ahaziah......not the reigning years of everyone.
Much less 'as a son of Ahab'.
There is clearly a contradiction in the KJV with or without the convolutions.

Your explanation doesn't come even close to denying the contradiction. He cannot be 22 years old and 42 years old at the same time.

Sorry you don't have any Bible you really believe is the perfect, preserved, inerrant words of God.
====================
Regardless of the above comment, the KJV is still wrong in this contradiction.
I face reality. I compare versions to get the correct translation.
The KJV is the least accurate when compared to the modern versions.

brandplucked

May 29th, 2002, 06:28 AM

>>>Hmmm, so what does 2 Ki 9:7-8 say?
Summarising 2 Ki 9:1-6 account from KJV, Elisha appointed one of the children of the prophets to annoint Jehu as King over Israel. 2 Ki 9:6-8 "... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I have anointed thee king over the people of the LORD, even over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab... For the whole house of Ahab shall perish..."

Sounds like 2 Ki 9:6-8 also mentions (in detail) that Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab. <<<

Hi Jamie, you got me. You are right. I noticed the part in 2 Chronicles where it says Ahaziah was 42 years old and is then followed in the same chapter with the part about how "the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram..he went out against Jehu whom the LORD had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab". This particular bit of information is found in 2 Kings in the next chapter after mentioning his age as 22. I missed that and I appreciate your pointing that out to me. I will have to revise my little article then.

I still stand by the basic explanation however. This is a view shared by others who are not even KJB onlies. Bullinger, who certainly was not KJB only, notes regarding 2 Chron. 22:2 where is says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign". He says " = a son of 42 years: i.e. of the house of Omri, on account of his connection with it through his mother."

He does not try to correct the Hebrew text but rather explains it as I have.

brandplucked

May 29th, 2002, 07:00 AM

Sean writes: "Even if the above criteria was correct ( which it definitely isn't ) you would have to add the AGES, not REIGNS, of all the family lines and you would come to a much greater number than 42!
Even linking him to Ahab through his father doesn't add up to 42 since his father died at 40 when Ahaziah was already 22.
Even with all the convolution the contradiction in Ahaziah's age remains."

Sean, I'm sorry you don't see this as a very possible explanation. The Hebrew text is not in error. 2 Chron. 22:2 says Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. It refers to his age as a son of Ahab when he begins to reign. The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab. The number 42 is referring to the reigning house of Ahab and all his sons either by birth or related by marriage and considered as his sons. Thus the total amount of time that Ahab and his sons reigned was 43 years altogether. Ahaziah was 42 years old as a son of Ahab in the house of Ahab when he began to reign, though physically he himself was only 22 years old. He reigned for only 1 year and was cut off by Jehu who was appointed to cut off the house of Ahab. It is very clear to me and to many others.

Ahab reigned 22 years (1 Kings 16: 29), Jehoram, his son, king of Israel reigned 12 years (2 Kings 3:1), and Jehoram of Judah, Ahaziah's father who married the daughter of Ahab, reigned for 8 years (2 Chr. 21:5). Thus 22 + 12 + 8 =42, the age of Ahaziah AS A SON OF AHAB, when he began to reign.

I know you don't see this but others do and that is OK. As we continue to discuss other verses and examples it will become very clear to some that the KJB is in fact always right and the NIV is very frequently wrong. I have many examples we haven't even begun to discuss yet.

Maybe when this thread of Ahaziah has been exhausted, we will take up another numerical "contradiction".

RapturiteSean

May 29th, 2002, 09:03 AM

As stated above the total number of consecutive years is only 35, and not 42.

Also the verse tells us he was 42 years OLD. ie; 42 years from the time of HIS BIRTH.

Clearly wrong.

The verse says nothing about 42 being the time of reigns since Ahab and nothing about being 42 years as a son of Ahab.
It doesn't say Ahabs throne/reign was 42 years old.......it says Ahaziah was 42 years old.

No matter what way anyone convolutes it the verse says he was 42 years OLD. He wasn't.

I guess I must be 6000 years old since I was descended from Adam.

Further, in your chronology you omitted Ahab's successor Ahaziah #1.

Correct chronology

Ahab 22 years
Ahaziah of Israel = 2 years This was Ahabs successor Ahaziah #1
Jehoram of Israel =12 Years
Jehoram of Judah = 8 years

Total = 44 Years and not 42 years.

You left out Ahabs successor, Ahaziah # 1 who ruled for two years before Jehoram!

RapturiteSean

May 29th, 2002, 09:07 AM

I know you don't see this but others do and that is OK. As we continue to discuss other verses and examples it will become very clear to some that the KJB is in fact always right and the NIV is very frequently wrong. I have many examples we haven't even begun to discuss yet.
===========================
Only to the KJVonlyism adherents.

All the modern versions have been proven more accurate the the KJV.

We'll exhaust Ahaziah's contradiction in the KJV and then prove the modern versions are more correct.

Why did the Apocrypha get removed from the KJV?
And why the need for alternative translations in the KJV footnotes if the translators were inspired?
What is all the italic printing about, apart from adding to the word of God in the actual inline text?
And were the kjv translators inspired when they said it was NOT perfect?

RapturiteSean

May 29th, 2002, 10:45 AM

This is the correct chronology from Ahab to Ahaziah

Ahab reigned for.....................................................22 years
Ahab succeeded by his son Ahaziah of Israel
Ahaziah reigned for two years..................................2 years
Ahaziah succeeded by Jehoram of Israel
Jehoram reigned for................................................12 Years

Plus Jehoram of Judah, reigned for...........................8 years

Total........................................................................44 years.

Even with convoluting the meaning of the verses the number 42 does not add up!

RapturiteSean

May 29th, 2002, 12:23 PM

Ahab reigned 22 years (1 Kings 16: 29), Jehoram, his son, king of Israel reigned 12 years (2 Kings 3:1), and Jehoram of Judah, Ahaziah's father who married the daughter of Ahab, reigned for 8 years (2 Chr. 21:5). Thus 22 + 12 + 8 =42, the age of Ahaziah AS A SON OF AHAB, when he began to reign.
============================
Above is where you omitted to add the reign oh Ahabs successor, Ahaziah of Israel, who reigned for two years before Jehoram of Israel, bringing the total to 44 years and not 42 years as you stated.

Even then seven of the years were concurrant, bringing the total consecutive years to 37.

Grace Believer

May 29th, 2002, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by NetHog
You caught me! Actually, aside from taking our trailer out (first time) we've got to get house ready for my sis's visit, so I may be quiet for a while....

With an extended weekend and weather like we've been having, computer time is not attractive! Lots of posts to catch up on....

Grace Believer

May 29th, 2002, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by RapturiteSean
The love of money is not the root of all evil no matter how many commentaries are made on the subject.

If the same method of interpretation is applied elsewhere in the Bible, we find that the Bible says "There is no God."

When hermeneutics are violated, the bible can be made to say just about anything.

Grace Believer

May 29th, 2002, 10:58 PM

...The term "son" or daughter is used in Scripture to include grandchildren, great, great, great grandchildren, nephews, and sons in law or daughters in law....

When I learned this on another website just now, I personally found this very interesting...there is no Hebrew word for grandchildren, etc. The KJV translators chose to translate the words "son" and "daughter" directly without altering it.

Grace Believer

May 30th, 2002, 02:18 AM

I'll catch up on the new Ahaziah posts tomorrow....I don't claim to be the smartest, but....

There is a base, fundamentally different method in the way the Bible is approached here, which should be noted. When a verse can't initially be explained, or passages that seem to contradict each other, there are two polar approaches that I see utlized here...

One method questions the accuracy/errancy of the written Bible, the accuracy/errancy of the translation, etc. The other method is take the verse to say what it says, and to look for an explanation by another verse, etc.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have found multiple Islamic and Athiest sites that contain "Biblical Contradictions." Some of the "contradictions" are quite laughable. Some are simply the result of reading "out of context." Others come from a failure to rightly divide scripture (i.e. God's dealings with man have changed over time; all scripture is for us, but not to us; etc). Several others, like Ahaziah, are quite challenging. When Biblical scholars have responded with no answer but a "scribal error," these unsaved folks boldly flaunt this on their sites that as proof that the Bible can't be trusted, and can't be the word of God.

I subscribe to the later method above, and have the faith of a mustard seed that eventually any verse or passage will work itself through. Why? Through right division, all of the doctrinal "contradictions" in the New Testament have a Biblical answer, and I have worked through these over the years.

...these recent questions posed on the KJV are more simple, and actually lead back to more problems with the NIV....

[i]Why did the Apocrypha get removed from the KJV?

As stated in the previous, the Apocrypha was included as a SEPARTE SECTION, between the Old and New Testament. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts that the NIV is translated from have the Apocrypha included as PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Now that's a sigificant difference.

[i]And why the need for alternative translations in the KJV footnotes if the translators were inspired?

The KJV translators were not inspired, the word of God is. The biblical/scriptural doctrine of inspiration concerns the words on the page, not what happens to the men.

The issue is about WHICH TEXT your Bible is translated from. The KJV translators went with the majority text and rejected the minority texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) for a reason.

The KJV Bible that I use has ZERO footnotes. As you have already stated on the previous discussion, the errors and omissions in the NIV CANNOT be explained WITHOUT the use of footnotes. Without the NIV footnotes, the inline text of the NIV is seriously flawed.

[i]What is all the italic printing about, apart from adding to the word of God in the actual inline text?

When translating languages, two or three words sometimes need to be used to translate single words and vice versa. The fundamental difference is that in the KJV, the INLINE text of italics provides an indication of which words were added by the translators. In the NIV, you have ZERO INDICATION of which words were added by the translators in the inline text. For example:

Psalm 23:1 KJV "The LORD i