how KJBOism rips the Body

Are we supposed to have Bishops in our church organization? And you don't have to redefine "bishop" either, just simply accept what it meant to the Church of England in 1611.

Is the Holy Spirit an "it"?

Did the men with Paul hear the voice or not?

 

But I am not;I say,if being a King James Bible beleiver causes a "tear",let 'er RIP!!! </font>[/QUOTE]It does.

It has. (me personally)

As have all false, extra-biblical doctrines used by Satan over the past 2000 years.

 

Are we supposed to have Bishops in our church organization? And you don't have to redefine "bishop" either, just simply accept what it meant to the Church of England in 1611.</font>[/QUOTE]a bishop is the leader of a church. we just don't tend to call them that, but it is perfectly fine to call your pastor a bishop.

here's your answer http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_33.asp

i doubt you'll read it though.

i would say this is pretty clear to anyone who can read. ch 22 says they heard not THE voice which indicates they didn't hear what was said. ch 9 says they heard A voice indicating they heard a voice, but didn't understand what it was saying.

got anymore gnats you want to strain out?

 

2 Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign......"

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

Given that his father was 40 when he died, that is a great feat to have a son that is 22 and 42 at the same time...Without explanation that is the plain English of the KJV text. Sorry, that is a mistake, and wasn't in the printing.

It was clearly a problem with the Hebrew numbering system if you are familiar with Hebrew numbers...easy to mistake a 22 for a 42..it is barely a mark.

There are many other such errors, but they don;t affect doctrine or understanding.

Cheers,

Jim

 

he swings! he misses! jim has struck out again.

i'm not going to type all of this out for 2 reasons.
1. it violates copyright
2. i don't feel like typing it all out

but your answer is on pages 248-252 of The "Errors" in the King James Bible by Ruckman.

Jim if you don't have this book, I will personally buy you one and mail it to you if you PM or email me your address.

I'm not doing this to be a sarcastic punk, I'm doing this because I truly believe the KJB and want others to believe it too.

I'm serious about that offer Jim.

 

Thanks for the offer, but I would rather read Cardinal Newman than this Ruckman bloke from what I have heard. I can't believe he would have an answer for anything that wasn't self-serving.

Again, thanks for the offer. I do prefer scholars.

Cheers,

Jim

PS, I was not born yesterday. I am quite familiar with most of the answers on the seeming contradictions in the KJV. They are definite errors from the source, corrected by a right understanding and reasonable explanations. The obvious answer to the scripture I gave is that Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. It is corrected in all other versions.

 

well that's too bad. the explanation of that "error" isn't what you just said. it's actually much more clear.

i wish you wouldn't ignore ruckman's material just because of what you have heard of him. i don't agree with a lot of his methods or language, but he knows that Book.

 

Yes that is correct,he was 22 when he was crowned King;but,he did not take the throne until he was 42;the same thing is true with David.That shows that the KJB is correct,and you are wrong..

 

this is the case with every so-called error i have ever seen anyone brilliantly come up with. i think God summed it up best when He said...

Rom 3:4 yea, let God be true, but every man a liar

 

a bishop is the leader of a church. we just don't tend to call them that, but it is perfectly fine to call your pastor a bishop.</font>[/QUOTE] No it isn't. You are "changing" the Bible by saying this. IF the KJV translators were enabled to choose the right words there can be no doubt they knew what those words meant... and "bishop" to an Anglican is not what we call a pastor.

here's your answer http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_33.asp

i doubt you'll read it though.</font>[/QUOTE] I did and it sounds remarkably like explainations that KJVO's reject out of hand when presented in defense of the any other version.

First he appeals to the Greek. Something "Bible correctors" are never allowed to do without being called names and having their spirituality questioned.

Second, he claims that those critical of the translation have no footing because they accept versions that make similar mistakes or have similar difficulties. He effectively lies by insenuating that "these same critics" have disdain for the KJV and would oppose someone using it profitably. The truth is that we stand with the likes of Rice, Spurgeon, Ryle, Burgon, etc. in saying that no translation is "perfect" in the sense that KJVO's claim. They are perfect in that they accurately represent the originals, not because they have God inspired words.

Third, he appeals to His own version of the "Christ Criterion" but completely fails in the connection by using a dissimilar passage of scripture.

i would say this is pretty clear to anyone who can read. ch 22 says they heard not THE voice which indicates they didn't hear what was said. ch 9 says they heard A voice indicating they heard a voice, but didn't understand what it was saying.</font>[/QUOTE] You are obviously reading something I don't see. "a voice" and "the voice" refer to the exact same voice. No where does the text of the KJV say what you said above. In one place it says they heard a voice in the other it says they did not hear the voice.

Your explaination is the reasoning the KJV translators should have followed and rendered "heard not" as 'understood not' or 'comprehended not'. This is a case where the KJV translators erred in not considering the context fully.

I could provide several more examples of difficulties in the KJV where a better translation would have avoided a difficulty while remaining true to the original language texts. However, the way you answered above offers little hope that you will be intellectually honest enough to say "the KJV translators could have done a better job with this passage."

Your explainations may be fine. We as Baptist have learned to preach and teach over or through some of the problems in the KJV such as those dealing with the title of a pastor. Countless times I have heard KJVO preachers read from the KJV then say "this means 'such and such'" when a strictly literal, contextual reading meant something different (Your responses above provide good examples). This seems to be the universal hypocrisy of KJVO's. They correct the KJV but cry foul when someone corrects the text and calls it a Bible.

[ October 07, 2003, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Yes that is correct,he was 22 when he was crowned King;but,he did not take the throne until he was 42;the same thing is true with David.That shows that the KJB is correct,and you are wrong.. </font>[/QUOTE]Where does the KJV say this?

But more importantly the KJV itself refutes this explaination in 2 Kings 8. It says specifically that he began to "reign" at 22 and reigned for one year in Jerusalem. It neither says nor implies that he was crowned at 22 but did not reign until he was 42.

Here are the full quotations. Perhaps you can point out what I am missing.

 

Scott,

If you would get ahold of that book I referenced to Jim about a page ago it would explain this "contradiction" to you. And it's not concerning when he began to reign. It's actually a much better explanation that I can't see how anyone would be able to refute.

BTW, the offer I made to Jim stands for you as well. I'll send you the book if you give me your address via email or PM.

 

I do not need Ruckman nor his book. I can read what the KJV says in context. His explaination may be perfectly reasonable and completely true with respect to the historical account. But it will not change what the KJV says in context. These two parallel passages give the exact same information and use the same words in all matters of importance (BTW, the fact that they don't use the exact same words demonstrates that identical wording is not required for two things to be the Word of God).

I made the most critical words bold above. One passage says he began to "reign" at 22. The other passage says he began to "reign" at 42. It is there in black and white- the two statements do not agree. You must somehow say that "reign" does not mean the same thing in both places. However, the context provides absolutely no indication of this.

What you are saying is that the KJV translators could have and should have stated one of the passages differently... without actually saying those words or admitting to yourself that you are actually doing so.

 

obviously you do need Ruckman because you can't figure it out on your own. if something looks like a contradiction maybe what you ought to do is give God the benefit of the doubt and dig a little deeper to see if there is some other explanation. of course, studying the Bible is a foreign idea to you. because of your laziness and unwillingness to study you just take the chump's way out and blame the translators. you save yourself a lot of time that way, but you are calling God a liar. and of course you won't admit to that and it's probably the only thing in this post that you (and everyone else reading it) will pay any attention to.

2 Tim 2:15 says "Study to shew thyself approved" not "just blame the translators if you don't understand something and then get back to watching TV"

 

The Harvest, why are you calling me a rascist?

 

what in the world are you talking about?

 

You said, and I quote, "obviously you do need Ruckman".

Now, since words don't mean the same and it really depends on the individual to determine the meaning (especially anglicans), I want to know why you called me a rascist.

You see, once you destroy the idea that words have meaning, you open yourself up to all the foolishness of ruckman and his cronies.

 

you want to talk about foolishness? ok how about this then...

1. your logic is that since i was talking to scott about a "contradiction" in the King James Bible and mentioned the name Ruckman that I was calling you a racist.

2. you state that the meaning of words depends on the individual to determine the meaning. so according to your foolish logic if i decide the word "approximately" means tuna fish, then that is correct because it's my job to determine what a word means.

how about you come back to this conversation when you have something intelligent to add.

 

Harvest, how can you not get this.

One passage says he began to reign at 22 and another says he began to reign at 42.

Apparently the rest of the world is under the influence of darkness in thinking that 22 and 42 are different. Apparently only the KJVO crowd understands how 22 actually equals 42. Classic.