The KJV is sufficient for me

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:


You are getting your information from books and other resources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is vastly superior to getting your information from your emotions and predetermined conclusions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Who says that what you are reading is right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one. That is why we try to look at information open mindedly and from multiple sources then evaluate which evidence appears to be correct. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You are forming opinion and not fact just as you say we are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No many here including those who believe in the superiority of the KJV like Dr. Cassidy are forming opinions based on fact. What KJVO's believe has a lot to do with opinion and very little to do with fact. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No one has yet answered the question (WHICH BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. This question has been answered for you many times. The KJV translators themselves said it as well as can be when they said that "even the meanest (translation) is the Word of God." All translations that are faithful to reliable texts and accurately convey the Word of God are the Word of God.

What you really seem to want to know is which Bible is the words of God. The answer is no English Bible is nor can be

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I will persist as long as I believe the KJV is the Word of God and I have not seen evidence to change my mind so far.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I doubt you will find anyone here who says the KJV is not the Word of God. What you will find is those who disagree that it is the only English translation of the Word of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't understand how you can say that doctrine has not changed in the modern versions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because no sound doctrine is based on a single passage of scripture. The sound doctrines of faith are proved by the MVs as well as the KJV. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Several times I have shown you where scripture has changed from the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And more than likely it has been pointed out to you that the KJV is not the standard. The originals are. The objective is to get as close to the originals as possible then translate faithfully into English.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will take a stand. Will you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you insist on making a stand on a false, man made doctrine then my stand cannot be with you. It must be on what godly Christians have always believed about copies and translations of scripture.

 

Chris I agrre with your posts, I'm not saying we don't have witnesses and accounts that we can refer back to. I also have seen many many of my prayers answered in such a way that I know it was nothing less than God giving me my requests. But my point is as you seemed to grasp, is that faith is not something that we can reach out and touch, otherwise it is no more faith.
ie. I believe every account in the Bible to be true by my faith in God. That is blind faith, I can't show anyone anywhere that God had these preserved for us, but I believe it through faith.
As I said before, I wasn't trying to throw a stick in the wheel, just wanted to point out that faith is blind (in that sense).

God speed.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Chris I agrre with your posts, ...
As I said before, I wasn't trying to throw a stick in the wheel, just wanted to point out that faith is blind (in that sense).

God speed.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I agree to agree

Yet I still don't like the term blind, as I find it infers too much. The scriptures never teach blindness in faith, although the closest they come is 2 Corinthians 5:7 "For we walk by faith, not by sight."

 

toolman,

When you make a statement like this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My faith is in God through His Word the KJV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You move dangerously close to a Hyles type form of Legalism. My faith is in the Blood of Jesus Christ and him ALONE, not through any version of the Bible.

The truth of the Gospel could be revealed to me through the words of a drunken bum on the street, and I could be saved through the working of the Holy Spirit, KJV notwithstanding. It has nothing to do with my salvation or my Faith in God.

 

Alex,
If you were defending the KJV as the best and strongest translation that we have I would fight right there beside you all the way. But to say that the KJV has no errors is just not true. If it is true could you please explain the problem we have when we compare the age of Ahaziah when he began to reign in his fathers stead? In 2 Kings 8:26 we see the KJV says he was 22 years old, but then in 2 Chronicles 22:2 we see the KJV says that he was 42 years old. If you will read back in the verses in each account and a few verses after, you will plainly see that this is talking about the same account, yet there is an error in his age in one of the two passages. Could you please explain this to me?
Again I say, I believe the KJV to be the strongest translation available to us, but it is not without clerical error.

2 Kings 8:25,26
"25In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. 26Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem."

2 Chron. 22:1,2
"1And 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. 2Forty 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."

God speed.

 

&lt; It's me. I'm back. Sorry, had to be away for a few days on business. &gt;

I'm not. That makes it 1 to 1, so far.

&lt; ...race for the truth of the preserved word, found only in the KJB (AV1611 - and the four God-led revisions &gt;

I sure do wish Paul and the other writers had had the "truth of the preserved word," but they predated 1611 by a millenium and a half.

&lt; it is clear that men have been handling the word in a very deceitful manner, ever since the devil first taught Eve how to do it in the garden. &gt;

Did that happen in 1611, when we finally had a "perfect word?"

&lt; Sanity and common sense must prevail. &gt;

And how would you know that?

&lt; we can have faith that He has worked with Godly men, guided the hands of the printers and worked in the hearts and minds of the translators to fulfill His promise. &gt;

I sure wish somebody besides you had long ago mentioned He works with the hands of printers and the minds of translators. He didn't.

&lt; On the other hand, why would satan, working in the minds and hearts of some ungodly men, corrupting the word, weakening the message NOT wish to pervert the word? &gt;

Maybe he doesn't like to be reminded his efforts are a waste, so he wants us to quit saying "pisseth against the wall" (I Samuel 25:22, et al, KJV), while God wants us to keep saying it?

&lt; you believe that God desired for His followers to have the perfect word, free of all error, every word exactly where He wants it to be. Why is that so hard to believe? &gt;

Because He did not dictate it in English, and He did not make the translation between the biblical languages and English a strict one-to-one function.

&lt; To say that we do not have the perfect word in English today is a lie of satan himself. &gt;

I didn't know that was your name.

&lt; Furthermore, to say the text of the KJV is outdated, hard to read and archaic is another lie of satan. &gt;

Who you converse with in heaven, since that is where your "conversation" is (Philippians 3:20, KJV)? If you have no such communication, is it Satan's lie, or whose?

&lt; It has stood the test for 390 years. &gt;

You mentioned it has had 4 revisions. How does revising something supposedly perfect multiple times 'stand a test?'

&lt; To waste all this time (seven pages) in defense of this perfect word is exactly what satan wants. He has succeeded! &gt;

Are you waiting for him to pat you on the back, or what?

&lt; It has been purified, not rewritten or revised. &gt;

Something perfect needs purification? Are you Catholic?... (as Mary was 'free from original sin,' but still underwent purification (Luke 2:22).)

&lt; How can we say that we believe the Word of God to be inerrant, infallable and trustworthy and then proceed to say it contains mistakes? &gt;

YOU just said that... so tell us how you said it.

&lt; We can never know His plan for us by reading the easy books alone, books such as Psalms and Revelation. &gt;

What does a reader need?-- the pope? the reigning English monarch?

&lt; History has shown clearly which lineage God has favoured. It was not Egypt. It was Israel and the Jewish people. &gt;

Or was it the Syrian people? (supposing this refers to Antioch v. Alexandria).

&lt; Nowhere in scripture is God's attitude toward Egypt positive. &gt;

"In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance." (Isaiah 19:24-25, KJV)

&lt; Let's end the debate and get back to that pure word today. Surely you can see it much more clearly now &gt;

Interestingly, why were you not doing that when you were posting your message?

&lt; Use all the others, corrupted over the centuries by humanists, to help clarify certain passages, &gt;

USE CORRUPTED TRANSLATIONS TO CLARIFY PASSAGES?? LOLOLOLOL

&lt; God's one-and-only pure word the King James Bible. &gt;

Do you really think Jesus quoted from corrupt texts, since He did not quote from the "one-and-only pure word the King James Bible?" And, would He acknowledge the "Authorized Version" authorized by any other king besides Himself?

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>&lt; To say that we do not have the perfect word in English today is a lie of satan himself. &gt;

I didn't know that was your name.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on now, that's uncalled for.

 

&gt;&gt;History has shown clearly which lineage God has favoured. It was not Egypt. It was Israel and the Jewish people. &gt;&gt;

Hmmm. Then how did the Church of ENGLAND get into the equation? Are you Anglo-Iraeli as well as KJVO?


HankD

 

Have you seen a car with "Headlights" in the "sloped front end", just a "bulb" stuck in the
middle of a "reflector", right, WRONG!


The slope of the front end presented such a problem that no automotive manufacture in the
world could design the headlight to shine correctly.

The industry "pooled" their resources into a "research group" to solve this "one problem",
three years later, the problem persist, in desperation, the problem was given to the
universities of the "World" to see if anyone there could solve the problem. A "math
professor" in Italy finally gave them "data" that lead to the solution.


I find the KJV Bible to be much like the "headlight" problem, most look at it as if it's just a
"bulb" stuck in the middle of a "Reflector", few seem to realize the "Engineering" that went on
"behind the scene" to produce the Bible.

Even "serious Bible students" seems to be as much "in the dark" concerning the complexities
of the Bible as the Auto manufactures were to the sloped headlight.

Anyone can stick a bulb in a reflector and make a light, but "ONLY GOD" can engineer a
"BIBLE" and make it "SHINE CORRECTLY".


If you don't understand the "precise" engineering of the Bible, then you don't understand what
was required to construct the Bible.

Jesus said "MY WORDS" shall never pass away, his words were all "TRUTH", no mistakes,
yet today we have those who say former generations have "preverted" Jesus's words in
translation, they're no longer all "TRUTH", but contain some "leaven". (mistakes)


Are these words spoken as the "Holy Ghost moved upon men", or is it just a way that seemeth
right unto man???

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
In 2 Kings 8:26 we see the KJV says he was 22 years old, but then in 2 Chronicles 22:2 we see the KJV says that he was 42 years old. Could you please explain this to me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Joey, the "error" is in your understanding, not in the Bible. All the Hebrew texts read the same, just as the KJV reads. If you will carefully read 2 Kings 8 and 2 Chron 22 you will note they are talking about different things. 2 Kings 8 is talking about Ahaziah's chronological age, and 2 Chron 22 is talking about the dynasty of Omri, which Ahaziah was linked to through his mother. If you would do the math you would see that 832-790=42, the age of the dynasty at the time of Ahaziah's ascension to the throne.

 

Thomas,
I would like nothing more than to believe you on that because that would stregnthen my case as to why the KJV is better than the MV's, but fact of the matter is, and you have said so yourself that we need to defend the KJV with truth.
2 Kings 8:26 "26Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;"

2 chron. 22:2 "2Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

either they erred in the age or if it is as you say it is, then they erred in saying that he was 42 years old, seeing that it directly said he (Ahaziah) was 42.

God speed.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

Alex, toolman, s. baptist:

You say that God promised to preserve His Word perfectly. Which to you implies that He would preserve certain words.

I would like to ask some questions: Why didn't God cause all mss to be perfectly uniform with the originals? The mss we have were used by early Christians to learn the Word of God. They accepted them as the Word yet none of them is a perfect match with another. Was God's promise to preserve His Word not good for them...even if they happened to reside in Egypt?

Which ms is a perfect match to the KJV? If there are none and the KJV is perfect then did God just restore His perfect Word for those who lived after 1611?

If your understanding of preservation is correct then God did indeed lie to millions of Christians who were cursed to be born before the invention of the printing press. None of them had perfect copies and none of them had perfect matches to the KJV.

 

Joey,

You understanding of the discrepancy in 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 is absolutely correct. John Haley in his 1874 masterpiece Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (which lists out over 300 years of Bible scholarship towards hard passages) shows how the error probably was entered into the manuscripts by copyist error. The symbols used to express 22 and 42 are virtually identical. Remember eyeglasses weren't invented until the 1300s.

Gleason Archer points out in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties that fortunately we know from 2 Kings 8:17 that 22 is the correct age.

Another example of copyist error is 2 Chronicles 36:9-10 and 2 Kings 24:8. According to Walter Kaiser the Hebrew manuscripts for 2 Chronicles are in the worst shape and contain the most copyist errors of all the books of the Bible.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
2 Kings 8:26 "26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah (dating from the time of his birth) when he began to reign;"

2 chron. 22:2 "2Forty and two years old was Ahaziah (dating from the beginning of his dynasty) when he began to reign..."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No contradiction. No need to invent a copyist error. No need to invent anything. Just read what it says. "A son of 42 years." Son of woman or son of the Omri dynasty? No error. All we have to do is study to show ourselves approved unto God.

 

Joey,

See we don't need to create copyist errors, just added opinionated comments in parentheses.

 

For information on translations vs KJV go here: http://logosresourcepages.org/logsdon.html

Ernie

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> No contradiction. No need to invent a copyist error. No need to invent anything. Just read what it says. "A son of 42 years." Son of woman or son of the Omri dynasty? No error. All we have to do is study to show ourselves approved unto God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying that from the reign of Omri to the reign of Ahaziah was 42 years?


God speed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Joey, the "error" is in your understanding, not in the Bible.

If you would do the math you would see that 832-790=42, the age of the dynasty at the time of Ahaziah's ascension to the throne. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


2Ch 21:20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years,

40 years of age when he died.


If his "son" was 42 years of age when he began to reign, that would make him 2 years "OLDER" than his Father.


Like you said, "Do the MATH".

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
Like you said, "Do the MATH".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, please, DO THE MATH! I will make it real simple for you.

6+22+2+12=42

Just look at the house of Omri, from whom Ahaziah was descended through his mother. We find that Omri reigned 6 years (1King 16:23), Ahab his son 22 years (1Kings 16:29), Ahaziah his son 2 years (1Kings 22:51), and Joram his son 12 years (2Kings 3:1), for a total of 42 years (6+22+2+12). So a ‘son of 42 years’ could easily mean ‘a son of the dynasty 42 years old’, i.e. Omri, which he proves in verse three where Ahaziah ‘walked in the ways of the house of Ahab’ (the son of Omri). A clue to this is that his mother is called ‘the daughter of Omri’ in 22:2, though given the fact that Omri is dead almost 40 years, she is probably his granddaughter. Ahaziah, then, is called a true son of Omri, not only in descent but in morality, and the forty-two years here belong to that house, not his own life (for another description of how dynasty years can be used in place of personal years, see note on 2Chron 16:1).

Got it now? It is all there in the bible. All we have to do is actually READ the bible now and then!

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]