The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

[Dino246]

Second, we are living in the last days.

This is an opinion founded in poor scholarship and careless handling of Scripture, not indisputable fact.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You probably aren't aware of this nuance of English grammar (despite claiming to read the KJV, which has excellent grammar). The way you opened your post, you have identified yourself with the "democratic left". If you did not include the words, "I believe", you would not have done this. You have essentially said, "I, along with the democratic left, believe...."

Thank you for catching the grammar error. It happens sometimes when I write in a tired state.

For clarity, I meant to say: "Just as the democratic left tends to ignore certain facts, those who favor Modern Scholarship over simply taking the Bible at face value in what it says about itself are doing the same."

They have chosen to simply see a narrative they desire to be true for their own preferred reasons.

You have done exactly the same thing, only in favour of the KJV.

But we both cannot be right. In fact, I have 150 Reasons for the King James Bible being the perfect and inerrant words of God for today.
Keep in mind that I tried to be as critical as I could against my own points, or reasons, as well. Some points I even removed. This shows I am not tripping over myself to defend the KJV, but I am trying to be fair to the opposition. Some arguments like Luke 4:4, I will not make because it is a 50/50 split teaching in the New Testament (with one mention in the OT). In my view, there has to be more of a pattern of removal or with the verse being in read in such a way that can lead to false teaching.

If people cannot see the truth that the Bible teaches that His Word is perfect and it will be preserved forever after my showing them the verses straight out of the Bible many times, I cannot force them to see it. Will my efforts in showing them the Bible help them? Only God knows.

When you use verses that don't say what you claim they say, your integrity and reliability are questioned, and people rightly ignore your claims.

I understand you see things differently, but I believe the verses I’ve shared genuinely convey that God’s Word is perfect and preserved forever. My intention is not to misrepresent Scripture but to reflect its clear message as I understand it. I recognize that people may choose not to see it this way, but my role is simply to point to what I believe Scripture plainly teaches. If there’s a specific part of these verses you interpret differently, I’m open to hearing that, but I stand by my understanding based on careful reading and study.

That said, you also don't listen to people who claim, as you do, to believe in the perfection and preservation of God's word, though in a different form than you hold.

Actually, I do listen to believers who uphold the perfection and preservation of God's Word, even if their position differs from mine. In fact, just recently, I listened to a fellow KJV advocate here in this thread discussing Psalms 12:6-7, and it helped me return to my grassroots position on the matter. I value any perspective rooted in Scripture and have, in fact, been corrected before by believers who aren’t KJV-only when they supported their case with the Word of God, such as in a discussion on a passage in Hebrews. I’m open to genuine biblical dialogue and willing to learn from anyone who uses Scripture faithfully, as my commitment is ultimately to God's truth, not just a man-made opinion or viewpoint.

Will my efforts in correcting you help you? God only knows. For now, I doubt it; you haven't demonstrated yourself to be teachable at all.

Of course, I could say the same for you.

Nevertheless, I continue to hope that any future Scriptural discussions may bear fruit. In any event, if there’s a specific concern about my responses, I’d be glad to address it, as I am here to grow and learn through biblically grounded dialogue. However, that said, if you promote an idea that is anti-biblical like your odd view on holiness, and Daniel 3, I am afraid there is not going to be much of a discourse. I say this not to wound you, but I say this in love with the hope you may one day see where I am coming from.


....


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This is an opinion founded in poor scholarship and careless handling of Scripture, not indisputable fact.

So, you don't believe we are living in the last days? I am not saying we are living in the times of Revelation or anything, but I am referring to the times spoken by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-9, and by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:3.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Blah blah blah. Answer his question first.

Actually, I did answer his question at the bottom of my post #728.


....

 

[Dino246]

Thank you for catching the grammar error. It happens sometimes when I write in a tired state.

You're welcome.

I have 150 Reasons for the King James Bible being the perfect and inerrant words of God for today.

I have many reasons for it not being perfect, and I only need one to refute that claim.

Have you considered these two verses? A man cannot be two different ages at the same time. The KJV-only crowd offers a rather convoluted justification for this contradiction, but they are playing games to sidestep an obvious error so they can maintain their claim of perfection.

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.

In fact, just recently, I listened to a fellow KJV advocate here in this thread discussing Psalms 12:6-7

I don't recall that; I'll have to look. I am fully convinced that verse 7 does not refer to "God's words", based on careful reading and study of the text.

 

[Dino246]

So, you don't believe we are living in the last days? I am not saying we are living in the times of Revelation or anything, but I am referring to the times spoken by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-9, and by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:3.

In a word, no. I believe that the "last days" that Peter spoke of took place around AD 70. Paul's words can be applied to that time and also to any age since.

 

[Dino246]

Actually, I did answer his question at the bottom of my post #728.

I stand corrected. My apologies.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'd say they were, in fact, successful, as there are users of the latter two.

Christians who are truly KJV-only or Core KJV like myself would not use the NKJV, or the MEV.
Only Christians who do not have a problem with error-ridden Bibles would trust them.
The NKJV is a trojan horse Bible and so I do not even like the idea of using it for fleshing out the 1600s English in the KJV.

I haven't heard of the KJVER.

I initially gave this a somewhat positive review on another forum a few years back when I initially bought it, but I have now changed my view on this after I have learned even more of the bad things that have transpired over the years in the Modern Bible Movement.

Many are unqualified because they are secretly for the Critical Text and not the Textus Receptus, which simply shows that the Critical Text movement is not trustworthy.

It does no such thing.

Morpheus: You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

(Neo reaches out to take the red pill.)

Morpheus: "Remember: all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more."

Well, as the KJV is demonstrably not the perfect words of God for today, your entire premise is faulty.

Bible believer's survey says,

But critical text advocates cannot be trusted. Take for example, Westcott and Hort. They lied by saying that the Revised Version was the version set forth in A.D. 1611, when it clearly wasn't (Seeing they snuck in their own Greek text based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Then there is 1 John 5:7. Instead of Modern scholars being honest that verse 7 should be blank, they try to deceive people by moving certain words from a nearby verse to fill in the gap in verse 7. There are many other deceptions like this, of course. Most in your camp cannot see them.

Your arrogance is unbecoming and your broad-brushing is inappropriate. You are welcome to level specific criticisms at specific people (and support them with evidence), but generalizing puts you in the camp with the Accuser, aka Satan.

Not at all. What I said here is actually really easy to verify with an internet connection and by knowing the right key words to fly at warp speed upon the super information highway.

...

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I stand corrected. My apologies.

It's all good.
May the Lord bless you.

....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Have you considered these two verses? A man cannot be two different ages at the same time. The KJV-only crowd offers a rather convoluted justification for this contradiction, but they are playing games to sidestep an obvious error so they can maintain their claim of perfection.

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.

Actually, I have resolved this a long time ago.
If you are interested, here is..

The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles:

In the Bible, there appears to be a complex narrative involving three distinct kings named Ahaziah. This theory—The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory—suggests that the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles describe three separate individuals named Ahaziah who ruled at different times and under different circumstances. By examining each reference, we see clear differences in their backgrounds, relationships, and the events surrounding their reigns and deaths. Here’s the breakdown of each Ahaziah.

1. Ahaziah in 2 Kings 1
The first Ahaziah appears in 2 Kings 1 as the son of Ahab and the king of Israel:

• Description: This Ahaziah inherits the throne of Israel from his father, Ahab.
• Actions: While ruling, he suffers a serious injury after falling through a lattice. Instead of seeking guidance from the God of Israel, he sends messengers to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, about his recovery.
• Death Event: Due to his injury and his idolatrous actions, he receives a prophecy from Elijah that he will not recover. He dies as predicted, ending his reign.

This Ahaziah is significant as the king of Israel who dies due to disobedience and idolatry, well before the other two Ahaziahs begin their reigns.


2. Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8:26-29
The second Ahaziah mentioned in 2 Kings 8 is distinct from the first and is a king of Judah with a unique familial relationship to Ahab’s house:

• Description: This Ahaziah begins his reign at 22 years old. He is connected to the house of Ahab as a son-in-law through marriage, rather than by direct descent.
• Actions: Aligning with the house of Ahab, he participates in a battle alongside Joram, king of Israel, against Hazael, king of Syria.
• Death Event: After witnessing Joram’s death, Ahaziah attempts to flee but is pursued and killed by Jehu. He is buried in Jerusalem. Notably, there is no response from his mother, Athaliah, mentioned following his death.

This Ahaziah’s distinct age, role as a son-in-law to Ahab’s house, and context of his death set him apart from the Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22.


3. Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22:1-10
The third Ahaziah appears in 2 Chronicles 22, also as a king of Judah but under different circumstances:

• Description: This Ahaziah is 42 years old when he begins to reign and is noted as the youngest son of Jehoram. Unlike the Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8, he has a direct maternal connection to Ahab’s lineage through his mother, Athaliah, the daughter (or granddaughter) of Omri.
• Actions: Under the influence of Athaliah and her counselors, he follows in the idolatrous ways of Ahab’s family. Like the 22-year-old Ahaziah, he also joins forces with Joram against Hazael, showing a similar battle alliance but with different motivations and influences.
• Death Event: He is killed by Jehu, but his death prompts a unique response: his mother, Athaliah, seizes control of the throne by executing potential heirs to the kingdom.

This Ahaziah’s older age, biological connection to Jehoram, and Athaliah’s takeover following his death differentiate him from the 22-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Kings.


Why the Three Ahaziah Kings Theory Works:

1. Distinct Ages: Each Ahaziah’s age at the start of his reign is different:
   • The first Ahaziah’s age is unspecified but he dies early in 2 Kings 1.
   • The second Ahaziah is 22 years old when he begins to rule in 2 Kings 8.
   • The third Ahaziah is 42 years old in 2 Chronicles 22, starting his rule later than the others.
2. Unique Family Relationships:
   • Ahaziah of Israel in 2 Kings 1 is the son of Ahab.
   • Ahaziah of Judah in 2 Kings 8 is described as a son-in-law to the house of Ahab, with connections by marriage.
   • Ahaziah of Judah in 2 Chronicles 22 is noted as the youngest son of Jehoram, with a maternal link to Ahab’s lineage through Athaliah.
3. Separate Death Events and Responses:
   • Each Ahaziah meets a different fate, with distinct circumstances around each death:
     • The first Ahaziah dies from injuries and a divine judgment due to idolatry.
     • The second Ahaziah dies at Jehu’s hand after attempting to flee, with no response from his mother.
     • The third Ahaziah’s death triggers Athaliah’s violent response, seizing the throne of Judah.
4. Shared Battles, Distinct Motivations:
   • Both the 22-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8 and the 42-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22 join Joram of Israel in a battle against Hazael, king of Syria. Despite this shared action, the two Ahaziahs have distinct motivations: the younger Ahaziah acts in alignment with his marital connection to Ahab’s family, while the older Ahaziah is heavily influenced by his mother, Athaliah, and her counselors.
5. Biblical Pattern of Shared Names with Separate Identities:
   • The Bible includes multiple individuals with the same name but unique roles, which further supports this theory. For example:
     • James: In the New Testament, we find James, son of Zebedee (an apostle), James, son of Alphaeus (another apostle), and James, the brother of Jesus (a leader in the early church).
     • Herod: Various Herods appear in the Gospels and Acts, including Herod the Great (who ordered the massacre of infants), Herod Antipas (who executed John the Baptist), and Herod Agrippa I and II (who played roles during early Christianity).
     • Simon: Multiple Simons are mentioned, such as Simon Peter (one of Jesus’ closest disciples), Simon the Zealot (another disciple), Simon of Cyrene (who carried Jesus’ cross), and Simon the Pharisee (who hosted Jesus).
6. These examples illustrate a pattern in Scripture where individuals with shared names hold distinct roles and stories. This precedent supports the plausibility of three separate Ahaziahs in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.

Conclusion

The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory provides a coherent solution to the supposed contradictions in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. By identifying these as three separate individuals, the differences in ages, family relations, shared battles with distinct motivations, and events surrounding their reigns and deaths are harmonized without assuming any error in the text. This theory not only respects the integrity of Scripture but also aligns with other instances of shared names in the Bible, presenting a plausible and logical explanation for the Ahaziah narratives across these books.



.....

 

[Genez]

Actually, I have resolved this a long time ago.
If you are interested, here is..

The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles:

In the Bible, there appears to be a complex narrative involving three distinct kings named Ahaziah. This theory—The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory—suggests that the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles describe three separate individuals named Ahaziah who ruled at different times and under different circumstances. By examining each reference, we see clear differences in their backgrounds, relationships, and the events surrounding their reigns and deaths. Here’s the breakdown of each Ahaziah.

1. Ahaziah in 2 Kings 1
The first Ahaziah appears in 2 Kings 1 as the son of Ahab and the king of Israel:

• Description: This Ahaziah inherits the throne of Israel from his father, Ahab.
• Actions: While ruling, he suffers a serious injury after falling through a lattice. Instead of seeking guidance from the God of Israel, he sends messengers to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, about his recovery.
• Death Event: Due to his injury and his idolatrous actions, he receives a prophecy from Elijah that he will not recover. He dies as predicted, ending his reign.

This Ahaziah is significant as the king of Israel who dies due to disobedience and idolatry, well before the other two Ahaziahs begin their reigns.


2. Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8:26-29
The second Ahaziah mentioned in 2 Kings 8 is distinct from the first and is a king of Judah with a unique familial relationship to Ahab’s house:

• Description: This Ahaziah begins his reign at 22 years old. He is connected to the house of Ahab as a son-in-law through marriage, rather than by direct descent.
• Actions: Aligning with the house of Ahab, he participates in a battle alongside Joram, king of Israel, against Hazael, king of Syria.
• Death Event: After witnessing Joram’s death, Ahaziah attempts to flee but is pursued and killed by Jehu. He is buried in Jerusalem. Notably, there is no response from his mother, Athaliah, mentioned following his death.

This Ahaziah’s distinct age, role as a son-in-law to Ahab’s house, and context of his death set him apart from the Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22.


3. Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22:1-10
The third Ahaziah appears in 2 Chronicles 22, also as a king of Judah but under different circumstances:

• Description: This Ahaziah is 42 years old when he begins to reign and is noted as the youngest son of Jehoram. Unlike the Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8, he has a direct maternal connection to Ahab’s lineage through his mother, Athaliah, the daughter (or granddaughter) of Omri.
• Actions: Under the influence of Athaliah and her counselors, he follows in the idolatrous ways of Ahab’s family. Like the 22-year-old Ahaziah, he also joins forces with Joram against Hazael, showing a similar battle alliance but with different motivations and influences.
• Death Event: He is killed by Jehu, but his death prompts a unique response: his mother, Athaliah, seizes control of the throne by executing potential heirs to the kingdom.

This Ahaziah’s older age, biological connection to Jehoram, and Athaliah’s takeover following his death differentiate him from the 22-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Kings.


Why the Three Ahaziah Kings Theory Works:

1. Distinct Ages: Each Ahaziah’s age at the start of his reign is different:
   • The first Ahaziah’s age is unspecified but he dies early in 2 Kings 1.
   • The second Ahaziah is 22 years old when he begins to rule in 2 Kings 8.
   • The third Ahaziah is 42 years old in 2 Chronicles 22, starting his rule later than the others.
2. Unique Family Relationships:
   • Ahaziah of Israel in 2 Kings 1 is the son of Ahab.
   • Ahaziah of Judah in 2 Kings 8 is described as a son-in-law to the house of Ahab, with connections by marriage.
   • Ahaziah of Judah in 2 Chronicles 22 is noted as the youngest son of Jehoram, with a maternal link to Ahab’s lineage through Athaliah.
3. Separate Death Events and Responses:
   • Each Ahaziah meets a different fate, with distinct circumstances around each death:
     • The first Ahaziah dies from injuries and a divine judgment due to idolatry.
     • The second Ahaziah dies at Jehu’s hand after attempting to flee, with no response from his mother.
     • The third Ahaziah’s death triggers Athaliah’s violent response, seizing the throne of Judah.
4. Shared Battles, Distinct Motivations:
   • Both the 22-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8 and the 42-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22 join Joram of Israel in a battle against Hazael, king of Syria. Despite this shared action, the two Ahaziahs have distinct motivations: the younger Ahaziah acts in alignment with his marital connection to Ahab’s family, while the older Ahaziah is heavily influenced by his mother, Athaliah, and her counselors.
5. Biblical Pattern of Shared Names with Separate Identities:
   • The Bible includes multiple individuals with the same name but unique roles, which further supports this theory. For example:
     • James: In the New Testament, we find James, son of Zebedee (an apostle), James, son of Alphaeus (another apostle), and James, the brother of Jesus (a leader in the early church).
     • Herod: Various Herods appear in the Gospels and Acts, including Herod the Great (who ordered the massacre of infants), Herod Antipas (who executed John the Baptist), and Herod Agrippa I and II (who played roles during early Christianity).
     • Simon: Multiple Simons are mentioned, such as Simon Peter (one of Jesus’ closest disciples), Simon the Zealot (another disciple), Simon of Cyrene (who carried Jesus’ cross), and Simon the Pharisee (who hosted Jesus).
6. These examples illustrate a pattern in Scripture where individuals with shared names hold distinct roles and stories. This precedent supports the plausibility of three separate Ahaziahs in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.

Conclusion

The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory provides a coherent solution to the supposed contradictions in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. By identifying these as three separate individuals, the differences in ages, family relations, shared battles with distinct motivations, and events surrounding their reigns and deaths are harmonized without assuming any error in the text. This theory not only respects the integrity of Scripture but also aligns with other instances of shared names in the Bible, presenting a plausible and logical explanation for the Ahaziah narratives across these books.



.....

How does that effect your salvation walk?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

How does that effect your salvation walk?

Firstly, a person's salvation walk can be affected if they lose trust in God's Word, especially if they come across the flawed approach of Textual Criticism, which falsely teaches that all Bibles contain errors, contrary to what Scripture says about the communicated Word of God. For example, if someone believes there is an error in the Bible, as some mistakenly assert regarding the three Ahaziahs in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, it can contribute to doubt. However, the falling away at Bible colleges is primarily due to believing the false science of Textual Criticism, which claims all Bibles contain errors, making it difficult to trust Scripture.

Secondly, your approach to Scripture seems to rely on following a "guru" with unique, unprecedented interpretations that seem more like "sham-wow" revelations, a hallmark of cult behavior. You don't believe what any English Bible says in Matthew 4:3 and instead depend on someone else's oddball Greek interpretation. However, at the judgment, you won’t be answering to that individual; you'll be held accountable to what Jesus actually said (See: John 12:48). God’s Word is meant for everyone (Matthew 28:19), not just a small, insular group.

This is why I believe your perspective is flawed, much like the current Democratic Party, which often operates on deception and against common sense. But, of course, you are free to believe as you wish.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

How does that effect your salvation walk?

Also, if you are aware of Scripture, you would know that Scripture speaks of Christ (John 5:39), and that is profitable for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). Salvation is a doctrine or teaching last time I checked. The Holy Scriptures make can make us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness, and that we should walk righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12). The doctrine of Christ includes core teachings of the faith, with salvation, repentance, and faith being foundational (See: Hebrews 6:1-2). Not every believer agrees on the topic of salvation in the Bible. So having the right Word of God is only going to help you to understand that doctrine better. But will the plain verses in English I gave you truly help you? Or will you let your Greek guru whisper in your ear to take those very words of God out of your heart?

The choice is yours.

Choose wisely.


...

 

[fredoheaven]

Actually, I have resolved this a long time ago.
If you are interested, here is..

The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles:

In the Bible, there appears to be a complex narrative involving three distinct kings named Ahaziah. This theory—The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory—suggests that the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles describe three separate individuals named Ahaziah who ruled at different times and under different circumstances. By examining each reference, we see clear differences in their backgrounds, relationships, and the events surrounding their reigns and deaths. Here’s the breakdown of each Ahaziah.

1. Ahaziah in 2 Kings 1
The first Ahaziah appears in 2 Kings 1 as the son of Ahab and the king of Israel:

• Description: This Ahaziah inherits the throne of Israel from his father, Ahab.
• Actions: While ruling, he suffers a serious injury after falling through a lattice. Instead of seeking guidance from the God of Israel, he sends messengers to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, about his recovery.
• Death Event: Due to his injury and his idolatrous actions, he receives a prophecy from Elijah that he will not recover. He dies as predicted, ending his reign.

This Ahaziah is significant as the king of Israel who dies due to disobedience and idolatry, well before the other two Ahaziahs begin their reigns.


2. Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8:26-29
The second Ahaziah mentioned in 2 Kings 8 is distinct from the first and is a king of Judah with a unique familial relationship to Ahab’s house:

• Description: This Ahaziah begins his reign at 22 years old. He is connected to the house of Ahab as a son-in-law through marriage, rather than by direct descent.
• Actions: Aligning with the house of Ahab, he participates in a battle alongside Joram, king of Israel, against Hazael, king of Syria.
• Death Event: After witnessing Joram’s death, Ahaziah attempts to flee but is pursued and killed by Jehu. He is buried in Jerusalem. Notably, there is no response from his mother, Athaliah, mentioned following his death.

This Ahaziah’s distinct age, role as a son-in-law to Ahab’s house, and context of his death set him apart from the Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22.


3. Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22:1-10
The third Ahaziah appears in 2 Chronicles 22, also as a king of Judah but under different circumstances:

• Description: This Ahaziah is 42 years old when he begins to reign and is noted as the youngest son of Jehoram. Unlike the Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8, he has a direct maternal connection to Ahab’s lineage through his mother, Athaliah, the daughter (or granddaughter) of Omri.
• Actions: Under the influence of Athaliah and her counselors, he follows in the idolatrous ways of Ahab’s family. Like the 22-year-old Ahaziah, he also joins forces with Joram against Hazael, showing a similar battle alliance but with different motivations and influences.
• Death Event: He is killed by Jehu, but his death prompts a unique response: his mother, Athaliah, seizes control of the throne by executing potential heirs to the kingdom.

This Ahaziah’s older age, biological connection to Jehoram, and Athaliah’s takeover following his death differentiate him from the 22-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Kings.


Why the Three Ahaziah Kings Theory Works:

1. Distinct Ages: Each Ahaziah’s age at the start of his reign is different:
   • The first Ahaziah’s age is unspecified but he dies early in 2 Kings 1.
   • The second Ahaziah is 22 years old when he begins to rule in 2 Kings 8.
   • The third Ahaziah is 42 years old in 2 Chronicles 22, starting his rule later than the others.
2. Unique Family Relationships:
   • Ahaziah of Israel in 2 Kings 1 is the son of Ahab.
   • Ahaziah of Judah in 2 Kings 8 is described as a son-in-law to the house of Ahab, with connections by marriage.
   • Ahaziah of Judah in 2 Chronicles 22 is noted as the youngest son of Jehoram, with a maternal link to Ahab’s lineage through Athaliah.
3. Separate Death Events and Responses:
   • Each Ahaziah meets a different fate, with distinct circumstances around each death:
     • The first Ahaziah dies from injuries and a divine judgment due to idolatry.
     • The second Ahaziah dies at Jehu’s hand after attempting to flee, with no response from his mother.
     • The third Ahaziah’s death triggers Athaliah’s violent response, seizing the throne of Judah.
4. Shared Battles, Distinct Motivations:
   • Both the 22-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8 and the 42-year-old Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22 join Joram of Israel in a battle against Hazael, king of Syria. Despite this shared action, the two Ahaziahs have distinct motivations: the younger Ahaziah acts in alignment with his marital connection to Ahab’s family, while the older Ahaziah is heavily influenced by his mother, Athaliah, and her counselors.
5. Biblical Pattern of Shared Names with Separate Identities:
   • The Bible includes multiple individuals with the same name but unique roles, which further supports this theory. For example:
     • James: In the New Testament, we find James, son of Zebedee (an apostle), James, son of Alphaeus (another apostle), and James, the brother of Jesus (a leader in the early church).
     • Herod: Various Herods appear in the Gospels and Acts, including Herod the Great (who ordered the massacre of infants), Herod Antipas (who executed John the Baptist), and Herod Agrippa I and II (who played roles during early Christianity).
     • Simon: Multiple Simons are mentioned, such as Simon Peter (one of Jesus’ closest disciples), Simon the Zealot (another disciple), Simon of Cyrene (who carried Jesus’ cross), and Simon the Pharisee (who hosted Jesus).
6. These examples illustrate a pattern in Scripture where individuals with shared names hold distinct roles and stories. This precedent supports the plausibility of three separate Ahaziahs in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.

Conclusion

The Three Ahaziah Kings Theory provides a coherent solution to the supposed contradictions in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. By identifying these as three separate individuals, the differences in ages, family relations, shared battles with distinct motivations, and events surrounding their reigns and deaths are harmonized without assuming any error in the text. This theory not only respects the integrity of Scripture but also aligns with other instances of shared names in the Bible, presenting a plausible and logical explanation for the Ahaziah narratives across these books.



.....

Good point here, the other interpretation woyld have been of the co- regency. The concept is that Ahaziah reigned wirh father Joram at the age of 22 and until the death of his father after 20 years that he began to reign being at 42 years old. Biblical examples ro this is David and Solomon as far as I know, but there seems the other one i think, just cant remember.

 

[Genez]

Firstly, a person's salvation walk can be affected if they lose trust in God's Word, especially if they come across the flawed approach of Textual Criticism, which falsely teaches that all Bibles contain errors, contrary to what Scripture says about the communicated Word of God. For example, if someone believes there is an error in the Bible, as some mistakenly assert regarding the three Ahaziahs in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, it can contribute to doubt. However, the falling away at Bible colleges is primarily due to believing the false science of Textual Criticism, which claims all Bibles contain errors, making it difficult to trust Scripture.

Secondly, your approach to Scripture seems to rely on following a "guru" with unique, unprecedented interpretations that seem more like "sham-wow" revelations, a hallmark of cult behavior. You don't believe what any English Bible says in Matthew 4:3 and instead depend on someone else's oddball Greek interpretation. However, at the judgment, you won’t be answering to that individual; you'll be held accountable to what Jesus actually said (See: John 12:48). God’s Word is meant for everyone (Matthew 28:19), not just a small, insular group.

This is why I believe your perspective is flawed, much like the current Democratic Party, which often operates on deception and against common sense. But, of course, you are free to believe as you wish.


....

Ding dang! Plain and simple. The KJV is obscure and abstruse for too many readers.
We don't talk that way, nor do we think in those terms.

How is being told you have a more accurate translation? But one that many can not comprehend, to make you more secure????

Textural criticism is dealing with flaws of copiest errors. They got fatigued at times and missed a detail. Not major changes!
Those with brains and skill that God raises up can work out these spots when comparing various texts to see what to correct.

What you profess almost sounds just like Satan standing on a street corner saying....

Hey kid. Take this more accurate translation that you will not be able to understand too well. And...
Don't read that modern one (that you can understand and absorb much more truth from) because it contains some possible errors.

We need BOTH! All translations.. Including the KJV (when proven to be more accurate in parts because of literal translation) but inaccurate in others!

A certain kind of Christian will concentrate on some pet detail surrounding Scripture, but never get into actuallly understanding the Scripture's true meaning! Its like filtering out a gnat and never seeing the camel.

My pastor would used the King James for introducing a passage.
Then... he would expound upon the Hebrew and Greek to render a much more SANE translation.

What you are doing is perfecting a closed system that has a criterion, that when met... leaves you not with better understanding.
Only feeling better that the criteria was met.

This is why we are in trouble!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Good point here, the other interpretation woyld have been of the co- regency. The concept is that Ahaziah reigned wirh father Joram at the age of 22 and until the death of his father after 20 years that he began to reign being at 42 years old. Biblical examples ro this is David and Solomon as far as I know, but there seems the other one i think, just cant remember.

Yes, the "Three Ahaziah Kings Theory" I mentioned includes two of the Ahaziah kings as being in a co-regency.
The differences between them are enough to justify that they are, in fact, different people, though they share the same name. As I pointed out, the New Testament also contains individuals with the same name (such as multiple Herods and different men named Judas and Simon, etc.).


....

 

[Iconoclast]

I do not belive the word of God is a secret code that has to be figured out, unlocked or decoded.
God is not a god of mystery, he is not a god of confusion.
He does not hide from us, but shows himself openly. He is like the morning star.
He's word is ment to be easy to understand.

I know Jesus talked in parables to people, but Jesus said this was done to fullfill prophecy.

I do not beleive you have to attend a University to learn the meaning behind God's word. I believe you just have to reach out and take the KJV, and read it.

Any biblical truth that comes from your study of scripture comes from the Spirit of God allowing you to get it.
0 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Ding dang! Plain and simple. The KJV is obscure and abstruse for too many readers.
We don't talk that way, nor do we think in those terms.

This is rich. Hebrew and Greek are far more difficult to grasp than 1600s English. So nice try. But no cigar.

How is being told you have a more accurate translation?

You act like I have never done any of my own homework by investigating to see if the KJV was perfect or not.
I assure you, I have done a deep dive study over the past two years, and I have only gained more reasons to believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God for today and not less reasons.

But one that many can not comprehend, to make you more secure????

This is like one of those Democratic Left Media lies. Perhaps if you say something long enough and hard enough, it will become true, right? No, sorry. People from all walks of life through history have understood the KJV just fine (Despite your false worldview).

Textural criticism is dealing with flaws of copiest errors. They got fatigued at times and missed a detail. Not major changes!

Again, if you repeat something long enough and hard enough, it will become true, right?
There is no evidence in the Bible that teaches that God's Word contains errors. Only man has taught you such nonsense.

Those with brains and skill that God raises up can work out these spots when comparing various texts to see what to correct.

Actually, those with the real brains just know how to trust God's Word by faith in what it says plainly instead of trying to do backflip twists through hoops of fire to deny what it says plainly in English.

What you profess almost sounds just like Satan standing on a street corner saying....

Hey kid. Take this more accurate translation that you will not be able to understand too well. And...
Don't read that modern one (that you can understand and absorb much more truth from) because it contains some possible errors.

Archaic and correct beats Modern and incorrect any day of the week. You don't appear to be aware that I have catelogued over 50 plus changed doctrines in Modern Bibles that are very serious.

So in the real scenario, it would be Satan standing in the corner saying,

Hey kid. Take this 'easier-to-understand' Modern Translation that comes from a line of Unitarians, liberals, and Catholics. You’ll be okay. No doctrines are affected (which is a lie). That good ol' King James Bible is too hard to understand because you're too 'stupid' to learn new words (which is yet another lie)."

Note: Again, I have catalogued over 50 significant doctrinal changes in Modern Bibles, many of which are very serious. I have encountered Christians who believe false doctrines because they are feeding from the pig trough of Modern Translations as their #1 trusted source of nutrients.

We need BOTH! All translations.. Including the KJV (when proven to be more accurate in parts because of literal translation) but inaccurate in others!

I believe there is more than ample evidence to show that God has preserved His words perfectly in the KJV. So if that is the case (Which I believe it is), who are you to demand to God what we need?

A certain kind of Christian will concentrate on some pet detail surrounding Scripture, but never get into actuallly understanding the Scripture's true meaning!

Ah, you mean that guru you go to in order to gain access to the Bible.
What if you never met him, and or you lived long before he was born?
What then? You would be out of luck and just clueless, right?
This is the problem with cult like leaders.

My pastor would used the King James for introducing a passage.
Then... he would expound upon the Hebrew and Greek to render a much more SANE translation.

You mean a translation based off an underlying text chosen by two men who started your movement based on deception (lies), and Spiritism? Sorry, I would rather go with the King James Bible and stick with it.

What you are doing is perfecting a closed system that has a criterion, that when met... leaves you not with better understanding.
Only feeling better that the criteria was met.

This is why we are in trouble!

All I can do to encourage you here is to be a truth seeker instead of just believing your Pastor or the guru you learn oddball Greek from. Look at Westcott and Hort with a critical eye instead of thinking these two heretics were good men. Personally, the more I look into these two men and their movement that followed, the more I want to puke. But most such as yourselves like the idea of taking your Bible down to the meat market church to get it butchered by their pastor. Just know Revelation 22:18-19 warns us not to add or take away from God's words. How is that even remotely possible in your universe? It isn't and that should greatly concern you. But I am sure your guru Pastor will comfort you and tell you the Greek in Revelation 22:18-19 is talking about some odd thing like german shepherds with rocket launchers attached to their sides or something silly.


...

 

[fredoheaven]

Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses,
but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.
​

If He were functioning in the power of His own Deity? Hebrews 4:15 could not exist!

Here is when He stopped functioning in His power to be God.

Philippians 2:6-8

who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death –
even death on a cross!

Now for a better detailed translation given by a pastor who taught from the Greek text.
He presented Philippians 2:6-8 with an emphasis on including details from the Greek
that typical mainstream translations avoid giving with the everyday reader in mind.


6~~Who {Christ}, though He eternally existed in the essence of God,
He did not think equalities {plural} with God
a gain to be seized {means to violently take}
and held {so that the Father's plan would not be neutralized}.

{Note: There is no 'robbery' here. He did not have to get equality with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, because He already HAD it! Christ as deity in eternity immediately accepted God the Father's plan for him to leave heaven and become human in hypostatic union. He did not consider this a loss because he still was/is 100% deity also.

7~~But He Himself {Christ}
deprived Himself of the proper function of deity
when He had received the 'inner essence'/form of a servant/slave
although He had been born in the outward likeness/image of mankind.

{Note: Outwardly Christ's humanity looked the same . . . inside He was different in that He was not born with an Old Sin Nature and He never created one by sinning}.

{Note: Verse 6 - He has the essence of deity - always has always will. Verse 7 - He took on the essence of humanity, except for the imputation of the 'Sin of the Father (Adam)' - The Old Sin Nature - i.e. the reason for the necessity of the virgin birth. Pure deity and pure humanity . . . this makes Him the uniquely born person of the universe - no one like Him - Jesus Christ - 100% deity, 100% humanity - in hypostatic union.}

8~~In fact, although having been discovered
in outward appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself
by becoming obedient to the point of {spiritual} death . . .
that is, the death of the cross.

Now...

Direct contact with our sins caused him a spiritual death. That is why he cried out,
".......... My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me?"

Our sins for the time he needed to endure bearing all of them, caused Him to be cut off from fellowship with God!
He was forsaken as we should have been.

Sorry, but I don't think you are translating but rather you are paraphrasing often with additional opinion. This is categorized as illumination not a transalation.

 

[Genez]

Also, if you are aware of Scripture, you would know that Scripture speaks of Christ (John 5:39), and that is profitable for doctrine, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). Salvation is a doctrine or teaching last time I checked. The Holy Scriptures make can make us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness, and that we should walk righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12). The doctrine of Christ includes core teachings of the faith, with salvation, repentance, and faith being foundational (See: Hebrews 6:1-2). Not every believer agrees on the topic of salvation in the Bible. So having the right Word of God is only going to help you to understand that doctrine better. But will the plain verses in English I gave you truly help you? Or will you let your Greek guru whisper in your ear to take those very words of God out of your heart?

The choice is yours.

Choose wisely.


...

It can make you wise unto yourself... if you have enough to play with, and feel free to speculate as to what something means.
The King James with its archaic English and anachronisms is a speculation feast for subjective thinkers who want authority over
others.

If an angel appeared to you today?
He would speak just like you do.
You might not know he is not a man. (Hebrews 13:2)
He would not be sounding like he just came from some Shakespearean festival.

Here is one of your cited verses...

God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness, and that we should walk righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12).

One can easily assume too much from over simplified English translations.

The Greek word we read translated "teaches" means to allow someone to learn a their lesson a hard way. To let someone get burned and hurt, thus causing that person to learn to say "No!" to unrighteousness. It does not mean simply teaching moral mandates as to tell others to be good little boys and girls.

You won't see that, what I just showed you. Not from typical translations, including the King James.
You need to find a real teacher for that. Not by teaching ourselves by reading Scripture as if it were written in prose.

In Christ.....