KJV translators weren't KJV only!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
nitpickers abound on forums I suppose

KJV has been revised multiple times, there actually are REVISED versions, New revised standard version, New King James Versions, King James Bible 2000 versions, all based on the 1611 translation but updated.

Its like when you reprint the oxford dictionary or update the telephone directory, or have a new OS update for Mac.

Surely the new revised updates are ongoing.

the argument just seems to be like people quibbling over Windows or Mac. Stripped down to basics, serious Bible students are probably always going to gun for the original code. If they can decipher it.
Wescott and Hort and company made it in 1881 and this the actual revision made but not according to the standard rules as set forth by the Kjb translators.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,724
113
The Sinaiticus is corrupt. The KJV does not use it.

I believe the KJV is the exact English words I need. I speak English. I believer God has perfectly preserved His words in the English language through the KJV. You don't. That's fine. Just don't bash me for believing I hold God's word in my hands.

But you keep calling my Bible corrupt. You're bashing my Bible.

 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,411
13,754
113
Wescott and Hort and company made it in 1881 and this the actual revision made but not according to the standard rules as set forth by the Kjb translators.
Who gave the KJV translators any authority to "set forth rules" such that said "rules" should be binding on anyone?
 
Apr 15, 2017
2,867
653
113
Why do you find it necessary to belittle others? Are you something special? Did I "act like I'm something special" in advising Rayzor to check his spelling? No.
I apologize Dino246 but all the fighting and improper behavior that goes on it gets ridiculous and I took it out on you and took it wrong.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,773
113
They tell how it is their belief that all translations must of necessity have "imperfections and blemishes," but this doesn't disqualify them from being the word of God:
They were NOT addressing the present situation in which we find ourselves. No one at that time was trying to deliberately make use of corrupt manuscripts in order to undermine the existing bibles. In fact the Complutensian Polyglott and the text of Erasmus were not too dissimilar. So before you go further with this misleading idea, do some research on the origin of the corrupt manuscripts and the critical texts.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,274
3,606
113
They were NOT addressing the present situation in which we find ourselves. No one at that time was trying to deliberately make use of corrupt manuscripts in order to undermine the existing bibles. In fact the Complutensian Polyglott and the text of Erasmus were not too dissimilar. So before you go further with this misleading idea, do some research on the origin of the corrupt manuscripts and the critical texts.
Whatever.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
You simply aren't cognizant of the way in which you have rejected the word of God, translated in the KJV.

Deuteronomy 25:13, Proverbs 20:10, Proverbs 20:23. ONE set of measures, not two. You use a different set of measures with the KJV than you do with other translations.


Not even remotely. In one post you claim that only one verse is needed; in the other, you claim that the whole word of God is needed. Apples to apples.
Nice try again. One verse can set a doctrine, but of course all we need all scripture.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

But according to you and others, we don’t have every word in order to live for God.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
The ONE WORD you are obsessing over is: καταγινώσκω (kataginōskō) to determine against, condemn, blame, reprehend .
It occurs 2 more times in the NT. 1 John 3:20 & 1 John 3:21. In both of those the KJV translators chose to use 'condemn'

It seems the ESV translators were being more consistent.
That would indicate that John 5:24 is null and void as a promise that we can cling to.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
Here are the two passages for those unfamiliar with the issue:

2 Kings 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.

2 Chronicles 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.

It's plain from the other details that these are talking about the same person.

The second text says plainly, "Forty and two years old". It does not say, "Forty and two years since (some other event)". Nowhere else in Scripture is the phrase, "x years old" used to mean something other than the number of years since a person's birth. Nobody reading the text would interpret it as anything other than a passage of time from the person's birth. If someone did say something like, "I was born in 1960; in 1970 I was 25 years old since the end of World War II", people would wonder at that person's intelligence and sanity.

While you can account for the numbers from a study of other passages, you cannot account for the wording without this convoluted and ridiculous explanation. You have to reject the plain text, and insert a comically nonsensical explanation, in order to defend your belief in the "perfection" of the KJV text.

Just admit defeat... the KJV is not perfect. Your life won't end, and since you lean on the faith of Christ and not your own, your relationship with God won't suffer.
You asked...

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 who "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.

Likewise in 2 Kings 8:16-18 we read of Jehoram, the father of Ahaziah, that "he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, AS DID THE HOUSE OF AHAB: FOR THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB WAS HIS WIFE: and he did evil in the sight of the LORD."
And of his son Ahaziah, just a few verses later in 2 Kings 8:26-27 we read: "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 (father of Ahab) 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 SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Here we clearly see that Ahaziah is considered by God to be related to the house of Ahab and he walked in the way of the house of Ahab.

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."

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

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

When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab. Ahaziah could not have been 42 years old biologically, because his father was only 40 years old when Ahaziah became king (See 2 Chron. 21:20 - 2 Chron. 22:2 ). "Jehoram (the father of Ahaziah) was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired...and the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead...Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign". For a man to become a father at the age of 18 is very likely, but for a son to be born two years earlier than his father is not.

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

When we look at the house of Ahab on the king's of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah's father. 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.
22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a the youngest and most recent member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab over both Israel and Judah.

Ahab's other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram, does not come into consideration because his two year reign was overlapped on both sides by that of his father and of his brother. So the actual number of years the house of Ahab is in power is not affected or changed by his two year reign - his first year as co-regent to his father Ahab, and the second by his brother Jehoram, kings of Israel. The actual number of years the house of Ahab is in power is 42 years when we finally get to Ahaziah king of Judah, who himself was son in law of the house of Ahab and walked in the evil ways of the house of Ahab.

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

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

The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab's 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle. So Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign in Samaria. However this same Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him.(See 2 Kings 1:2)
2 Kings 3:1 tells us: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years." Notice that Ahaziah (Ahab's son) began to reign in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat's 18th year.

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

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

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

The central issue in all this is simply - How long was the combined reign of "the house of Ahab" over the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah? The answer is 42 years when Ahaziah began to reign. There is no error in either the Hebrew texts nor in all the Reformation bibles and many others even in modern times that tell us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

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

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
Not in the context of the chapter. You are sacrificing reading comprehension over worry about some doctrine or other.
The context does not change the meaning of the word "condemned".

And I agree that if you comprehend the context, you will not go with the ESV on this one.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
Who gave the KJV translators any authority to "set forth rules" such that said "rules" should be binding on anyone?
Yes, Dino, I'm taking the difference. Actually, the WH rooted belief to overthrow the Greek-based of KJB, so they made another. This is the beginning of the critical edition of the Greek text which births many of today like Nestle-Aland. WH hated the TR, having called it "villainous". This historical fact is undeniable and the nature of the doubt became a delusion in what we have it today in the modern versions which you believe all have their errors. The like attitude spring from WH and many of today's modern scholars accepted that as their standard rule.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,411
13,754
113
I apologize Dino246 but all the fighting and improper behavior that goes on it gets ridiculous and I took it out on you and took it wrong.
Apology accepted; I forgive you.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,411
13,754
113
Nice try again. One verse can set a doctrine, but of course all we need all scripture.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

But according to you and others, we don’t have every word in order to live for God.
It is slanderous to state that I have made a claim which I have not made.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,411
13,754
113
No, I didn't.

Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram.
This is ridiculous, nonsensical blather. No amount of wiggling and Scripture-twisting is going to make Ahaziah 42 years old when he came to the throne. He was 22 years old; end of story. Like I said, you can make sense of the numbers, but you can't make sense of the text. The KJV is wrong.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,411
13,754
113
Yes, Dino, I'm taking the difference. Actually, the WH rooted belief to overthrow the Greek-based of KJB, so they made another. This is the beginning of the critical edition of the Greek text which births many of today like Nestle-Aland. WH hated the TR, having called it "villainous". This historical fact is undeniable and the nature of the doubt became a delusion in what we have it today in the modern versions which you believe all have their errors. The like attitude spring from WH and many of today's modern scholars accepted that as their standard rule.
You didn't answer my question.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
No, I didn't.


This is ridiculous, nonsensical blather. No amount of wiggling and Scripture-twisting is going to make Ahaziah 42 years old when he came to the throne. He was 22 years old; end of story. Like I said, you can make sense of the numbers, but you can't make sense of the text. The KJV is wrong.
It‘s all therefor those with eyes to see.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
No, I didn't.


This is ridiculous, nonsensical blather. No amount of wiggling and Scripture-twisting is going to make Ahaziah 42 years old when he came to the throne. He was 22 years old; end of story. Like I said, you can make sense of the numbers, but you can't make sense of the text. The KJV is wrong.
Never as concerning doctrine.