King James Bible

[John146]

SO nothing of importance, then - That the best you can do????

Who killed Goliath? David? See 2 Samuel 21:19…

KJV - And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

ESV - And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

 

[Dirtman]

Simple one...

There is truth to be known in Luke 10:1. Did the Lord appoint and send out 70 or 72?

KJV - After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

ESV - After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

NKJV also says 70

 

[John146]

NKJV also says 70

Yep, some places they side with the KJV, and sometimes they side with the new versions.

 

[John146]

NKJV also says 70

The updated NIV makes the change in 2 Samuel 21:19 to avoid a contradiction.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Yep, some places they side with the KJV, and sometimes they side with the new versions.

The NKJV is based on the textus receptus. When you say it "sides" with the new versions you're being misleading. If it "sides" with modern versions it's because the translation is actually better. There are numerous examples where the NKJV gives a more accurate translation than the KJV. If you're willing to sacrifice accuracy for a superstition, well, that's KJV onlyism for ya.

 

[Dino246]

I knew it. Truth doesn't matter as long as it’s not important truth. If one point is wrong, why should one trust the rest? Daniel 3:25…

KJV - He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

ESV - He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

I have addressed this error before, more than once.

Given that Nebuchadnezzar did not believe until later in the God of the Hebrews, and even then probably did not believe He is unique nor that He has a Son, it is extremely unlikely that he would say, "the Son of God", and highly likely that he would say, "a son of the gods". If the Bible records something untrue spoken by a pagan, then the record is true even when the statement is not. If Nebby did not say "the Son of God" then the KJV is actually lying to us, even though the assertion would be true.

Further, there is no proof in the text that the fourth 'man' was Jesus, and not merely an angel, which would again make the KJV incorrect.

 

[John146]

The NKJV is based on the textus receptus. When you say it "sides" with the new versions you're being misleading. If it "sides" with modern versions it's because the translation is actually better. There are numerous examples where the NKJV gives a more accurate translation than the KJV. If you're willing to sacrifice accuracy for a superstition, well, that's KJV onlyism for ya.

For instance....

 

[John146]

I have addressed this error before, more than once.

Given that Nebuchadnezzar did not believe until later in the God of the Hebrews, and even then probably did not believe He is unique nor that He has a Son, it is extremely unlikely that he would say, "the Son of God", and highly likely that he would say, "a son of the gods". If the Bible records something untrue spoken by a pagan, then the record is true even when the statement is not. If Nebby did not say "the Son of God" then the KJV is actually lying to us, even though the assertion would be true.

Further, there is no proof in the text that the fourth 'man' was Jesus, and not merely an angel, which would again make the KJV incorrect.

Did God write the Bible according to the belief systems of the people mentioned therein or did He write the Bible according to His own wisdom? Once we get into the text, we will see that the King James Bible has rendered the word properly as “God” and not “gods” as the modern versions do.

Notice verse 26 that Nebuchadnezzar came by the furnace and spoke into the furnace calling the three men servants of the most high God, not gods. Even the ESV translates it as “Most High God.” It is the very same word used in verse 25. We never translate the Scriptures according to how we believe someone may think, we translate according to the underlying text.

Notice the three Hebrew boys state that the God they serve can deliver them. So they told Nebuchadnezzar about the God they serve, which is in keeping with the context of the following verses of the furnace scene. There would have been no need on Nebuchadnezzar's part to change it to a plural "gods" since he was seeing a miracle and would have remembered they spoke of them serving only one God and not many. Now finally we look at two more verses in this chapter.

Four times in the closing verses of this chapter Nebuchadnezzar mentions God (same word as in verse 25) and in all four mentions, not one is made in the plural. Therefore, in verse 25, the word "God" stands as the correct rendering which fits the context of the entire narrative in this chapter.

 

[ResidentAlien]

For instance....

I'll give you a for instance if you give me an instance where the NKJV follows the critical Greek text over the textus receptus.

 

[John146]

I'll give you a for instance if you give me an instance where the NKJV follows the critical Greek text over the textus receptus.

Genesis 1:1

 

[ResidentAlien]

Genesis is Hebrew. The textus receptus is Greek. Sorry.

 

[fredoheaven]

Again, you misrepresent the facts.

Differences are not "deviations from the Received Text". To be so, we would have to be certain that the Received Text matches the text penned by the apostles. We cannot be certain of that.

Here's the difference I think, textual critics are uncertain as always but to the Bible believer "...have a more sure word of prophecy..."

2 Peter 1:19




19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

[fredoheaven]

As you know, the KJV is internally inconsistent regarding the age of Ahaziah at his accession to the throne. Therefore, to your question, the KJV is not trustworthy.

Care to try again with a real consequence that arises from differences between the KJV and other translations? That is your core assertion, after all.

The link may just help. Thank you.

https://www.kjvtoday.com/forty-and-two-years-old-or-twenty-two-years-old-in-2-chronicles-222/

 

[ResidentAlien]

Here's the difference I think, textual critics are uncertain as always but to the Bible believer "...have a more sure word of prophecy..."

2 Peter 1:19
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

This passage isn't talking about the KJV. It's this kind of dishonesty that casts a shadow on you whole program.

 

[Dino246]

Did God write the Bible according to the belief systems of the people mentioned therein or did He write the Bible according to His own wisdom? Once we get into the text, we will see that the King James Bible has rendered the word properly as “God” and not “gods” as the modern versions do.

Notice verse 26 that Nebuchadnezzar came by the furnace and spoke into the furnace calling the three men servants of the most high God, not gods. Even the ESV translates it as “Most High God.” It is the very same word used in verse 25. We never translate the Scriptures according to how we believe someone may think, we translate according to the underlying text.

Notice the three Hebrew boys state that the God they serve can deliver them. So they told Nebuchadnezzar about the God they serve, which is in keeping with the context of the following verses of the furnace scene. There would have been no need on Nebuchadnezzar's part to change it to a plural "gods" since he was seeing a miracle and would have remembered they spoke of them serving only one God and not many. Now finally we look at two more verses in this chapter.

Four times in the closing verses of this chapter Nebuchadnezzar mentions God (same word as in verse 25) and in all four mentions, not one is made in the plural. Therefore, in verse 25, the word "God" stands as the correct rendering which fits the context of the entire narrative in this chapter.

Daniel 3:12 KJV "they serve not thy gods"
Daniel 3:12 Hebrew palehin la lelahak (the last word is translated "your gods").

v. 14 KJV "do not ye serve my gods"
v. 14 Heb the word is lelahay, clearly similar;

v. 15 KJV "who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?"
v. 15 Heb elah, again the same root the previous terms;

v. 17 KJV "our God whom we serve"
v. 17 Heb elahana;

v. 25 KJV "the fourth is like the Son of God."
v. 25 Heb elahin ...

and so on. It's all the same root word. There's only one problem: in verse 25, the word is plural. Of course, if you only look at the KJV and presume it is correct, you won't see that.

Here is Daniel 2:11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.

The Hebrew word behind "the gods" is that same elahin.

Again in Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

We have the same word here: 'a God of gods' is elah elahin.

Again in Daniel 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.

The word "gods" is again elahin.

I have given you three cases where elahin is translated "gods" in the KJV.

The correct translation is not what comports with any particular theological position (necessarily), but what was originally said. Since we weren't there and don't have recordings, we have to accept what the text in Hebrew says, and translate it without prejudice.

 

[Dino246]

Here's the difference I think, textual critics are uncertain as always but to the Bible believer "...have a more sure word of prophecy..."

2 Peter 1:19

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

That's a gross misuse of the text and has nothing to do with the context.

 

[Dino246]

The link may just help. Thank you.

https://www.kjvtoday.com/forty-and-two-years-old-or-twenty-two-years-old-in-2-chronicles-222/

I'm not needing "help", but thanks for the effort.

I pointed out this contradiction again because it is so patently clear and completely undermines John146's argument. One day, he might even admit it.

 

[John146]

I'm not needing "help", but thanks for the effort.

I pointed out this contradiction again because it is so patently clear and completely undermines John146's argument. One day, he might even admit it.

Ive debunked it several times for you showing a clear reconciliation. You refuse to see it. That’s on you, not me.

 

[Dino246]

Ive debunked it several times for you showing a clear reconciliation. You refuse to see it. That’s on you, not me.

You haven't "debunked" it at all, ever. That's because it is impossible to "debunk" what is plainly evident:

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.

Despite it being so patently obvious, you refuse to admit that it's a contradiction, and instead hold to a convoluted non-explanation that satisfies your obsessive need for the KJV to be reliable.

 

[John146]

You haven't "debunked" it at all, ever. That's because it is impossible to "debunk" what is plainly evident:

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.

Despite it being so patently obvious, you refuse to admit that it's a contradiction, and instead hold to a convoluted non-explanation that satisfies your obsessive need for the KJV to be reliable.

Well then, the KJV is corrupt and cannot be trusted.