The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
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.
Your confidence is misplaced.
The age of Ahaziah when he became king:
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.
The KJV only crowd pushes that the KJV is the inspired word of God......So God made this mistake.
Rational people know that translators made it, and with a little study and the Holy Spirit it will get worked out.
The KJV only people have all kinds of false doctrines amongst themselves and some heretical ones at that. But they stand toe to toe with each other.
They give each other a pass on heretical beliefs as long as they are KJV only. SAD.
Buddy, you should read Kings before assuming that is a contradiction.
See this is apparent that you found this refutation from Google or Youtube, or was given it by some ignoramous... And you NEVER fact checked it.
Have you never read 2 kings?
Surely a man who has read 2 Kings would have stumbled across Chapter 9 where it says:
2 Kings 9:29
2 Kings 8:25
Surely a man as astute as yourself to notice that there is a difference between 2 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 22 would have noticed that 2 Kings 8 and 9 have differences!
And bud, this ain't just God's word that has this difference, all your modern perversions have it too! Go check what ever perversion you fancy, NKJV, ESV, NLT, NIV, etc... They all say the 12th year in Chapter 8 and the 11th year in Chapter 9.
Why is it, you guys found a supposed "contradiction" that is 68 chapters separated, but never saw the explanation that is 1 chapter separated?
See the issue here is by CHANGING both ahaziahs to the same age, you make a contradiction in Scripture. There are TWO ahaziahs. Just as in the NT, there are TWO Herod's... Tell me does Herod die in Matthew 2? YET! In Matthew 14 Herod is alive and kills John the Baptist!!!!
CONTRADICTION!!!!! As you modern perversion users would say.. But to us who actually read the word of God, we know there are TWO Herod's just as there are two Ahaziahs because we actually read 2 Kings 9...
I find it ironic, every time I ask an anti-KJV to tell me where the errors in the KJV are... They expose they haven't read the Scriptures.
If you Change 2 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 22 to fit each other you have made and ERROR in 2 Kings 8 and 9 because now the same king has two different starting years. That is equivalent of saying the Herod in Matthew 2 is the same Herod of Acts 12.
Next time I suggest you actually read Scripture before opening your mouth.
The KJV is God's perfect word without one error.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
1. The KJV is not Middle English, it's Early Modern English.
2. Every book, every single book, has language within it that is FIXED, and UNCHANGING... once it is finalized and published.
a. Language constantly changes, but the language in ANY particular book is unchanging, and becomes "affixed" to the language
and grammar of it's own particular time.
b. This is not some magical property of the KJV - every book "fixes" language to it's own particular time and place once it's completed.
Conclusion:
I love reading the KJV.
But no matter how much I love the majesty and meter of the KJV...
that's not enough to turn bad arguments into good arguments.
Have a great weekend.
.
And you should read Galatians 5:16-25 before responding with such a despicably carnal attitude... which is sadly very common among KJV-only proponents.
Yes, I have noticed there is a second contradiction in the KJV. I only need one to prove you wrong.
This discussion isn't about any other translations; it's about the KJV and your claim that it has no contradictions.
Actually, there were five kings named "Herod". Do your homework.
Like you said yourself, read Scripture before opening your mouth. All of it.
1 Chronicles 3
10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,
11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,
12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,
13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,
14 Amon his son, Josiah his son.
Hmmm... how odd. There's only one Ahaziah, not two.
So, either the KJV has two contradictions here, between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 and between 2 Kings 8:25 and 9:29, or it has a contradiction between 2 Kings and 1 Chronicles in the number of kings between Joram and Joash.
Take your pick. I'll wait.
@Dino246
Let's see.
1 Chronicles 3 says Ahaziah is Jorams son by blood.
2 Kings 8:27
Well wait, this Ahaziah is NOT the blood of Joram!!!
You see that? He is the SON IN LAW. How can this ahaziah be listed in a BLOOD genealogy when he ain't blood?
The Ahaziah that reigns in 2 Kings 8 is NOT Jorams seed. (Someone who actually studied genealogies would have noticed that, thanks for exposing AGAIN you have not studied this but are desperately trying to uphold the lie you swallowed)
Afterall you said I should have read ALL of scripture, how is it I caught this, and you didn't? One of us has not studied... My bet is on you because you keep missing key details.
First mention of son in law in the Bible is Genesis 19:12
NOTICE
YET the Other ahaziah is the BLOOD son of Joram.
Let's recap the MOUNTAIN of issues you now have to overcome.
1.) If you have 1 Ahaziah, you have to explain how that Ahaziah is both a son-in-law and a blood son.
2.) If you have 1 Ahaziah, you have to explain how he has two different starting years for his reign.
3.) If you have 1 Ahaziah, you have to explain how he dies in 2 kings 9 by the sword's of Jehu's army.... YET! Ahaziah starts to reign 1 year after his death...
4.) If you have 1 Ahaziah, you have to explain why there is a blood war in 2 Kings 10-11 and both Jehu and Athaliah are killing the seed's of Ahaziah but trying to get different goals...
And so no one is confused... I will give the proper answers to all 4 challenges.
1.) There are two Ahaziahs, one is a brother in law, but also son of Athaliah, the other is blood son of Joram and also son of Athaliah.
2.) There are TWO Ahaziahs, so there are two years to start their reign. They are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE with the same first name... Just like there are two Jorams, two Herods, two Judas, two Simon....
3.) Again, there are TWO Ahaziahs, one dies, then the other starts to reign.
4.) Jehu is killing the seed of Joram because it is evil. Athaliah is killing the seed of Joram because her son (the son in law of Joram) was killed and she doesn't want Ahab to reign. To let you know she is destroying the blood of Joram this is why Scripture says ROYAL SEED in 2 Kings 11.
There is NO contradiction in 2 Kings 8 and 9.
Your issue is all your "scholars" were to stupid to realize that 2 Kings 8 and 9 give TWO starting years for Ahaziah.
It proves there are TWO guys named Ahaziah just as there are two named Joram that lived at the same time (ironically just read the chapters before and you will see the two Jorams).
You decided the KJV was wrong, and searched on google for a "contradiction" and didn't fact check it. Now you are stuck trying to prove you did not talk out of your butt to save face.
This is the prime example that you anti-KJV people do not care about TRUTH. Anyone honest would have to admit that their modern "translations" say that Ahaziah began to reign in the 12th year in 2 Kings 8 yet says 11th year in 2 kings 9.
Anyone honest would be forced to admit that either their translation forgot to correct 2 kings 9, OR that their scholars WRONGLY changed 2 Chronicles 22.
You are arguing off your pride and trying to prove you are educated. I am not educated, I am an idiot who loves God. And look at this, an idiot such as myself is exposing the folly of someone educated such as you.
Should we go onto external evidence since all the internal proves me correct? Give me 1 Hebrew Manuscript that says 2 Chornicles 22 is supposed to be twenty two years old instead of forty two. I wait.
GIVE 1 MANSUCRIPT
Who cares about all this internal evidence that has shown you are wrong... WHERE IS YOUR MANUSCRIPT??? Surely someone as smart as you would not be calling God a liar without even 1 manuscript saying you are right...
Where is it?
Give me the Hebrew Manuscript that says in 2 Chronicles 22, that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old. I wait.
Let's see.
1 Chronicles 3 says Ahaziah is Jorams son by blood.
2 Kings 8:27
Well wait, this Ahaziah is NOT the blood of Joram!!!
You see that? He is the SON IN LAW. How can this ahaziah be listed in a BLOOD genealogy when he ain't blood?
The Ahaziah that reigns in 2 Kings 8 is NOT Jorams seed. (Someone who actually studied genealogies would have noticed that, thanks for exposing AGAIN you have not studied this but are desperately trying to uphold the lie you swallowed)
Afterall you said I should have read ALL of scripture, how is it I caught this, and you didn't? One of us has not studied... My bet is on you because you keep missing key details.
First mention of son in law in the Bible is Genesis 19:12
NOTICE
Notice that? Son in law and son are not the same thing!
YET the Other ahaziah is the BLOOD son of Joram.
Let's recap the MOUNTAIN of issues you now have to overcome.
1.) If you have 1 Ahaziah, you have to explain how that Ahaziah is both a son-in-law and a blood son.
2.) If you have 1 Ahaziah, you have to explain how he has two different starting years for his reign.
3.) If you have 1 Ahaziah, you have to explain how he dies in 2 kings 9 by the sword's of Jehu's army.... YET! Ahaziah starts to reign 1 year after his death...
4.) If you have 1 Ahaziah, you have to explain why there is a blood war in 2 Kings 10-11 and both Jehu and Athaliah are killing the seed's of Ahaziah but trying to get different goals...
And so no one is confused... I will give the proper answers to all 4 challenges.
1.) There are two Ahaziahs, one is a brother in law, but also son of Athaliah, the other is blood son of Joram and also son of Athaliah.
2.) There are TWO Ahaziahs, so there are two years to start their reign. They are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE with the same first name... Just like there are two Jorams, two Herods, two Judas, two Simon....
3.) Again, there are TWO Ahaziahs, one dies, then the other starts to reign.
4.) Jehu is killing the seed of Joram because it is evil. Athaliah is killing the seed of Joram because her son (the son in law of Joram) was killed and she doesn't want Ahab to reign. To let you know she is destroying the blood of Joram this is why Scripture says ROYAL SEED in 2 Kings 11.
There is NO contradiction in 2 Kings 8 and 9.
Your issue is all your "scholars" were to stupid to realize that 2 Kings 8 and 9 give TWO starting years for Ahaziah.
It proves there are TWO guys named Ahaziah just as there are two named Joram that lived at the same time (ironically just read the chapters before and you will see the two Jorams).
You decided the KJV was wrong, and searched on google for a "contradiction" and didn't fact check it. Now you are stuck trying to prove you did not talk out of your butt to save face.
This is the prime example that you anti-KJV people do not care about TRUTH. Anyone honest would have to admit that their modern "translations" say that Ahaziah began to reign in the 12th year in 2 Kings 8 yet says 11th year in 2 kings 9.
Anyone honest would be forced to admit that either their translation forgot to correct 2 kings 9, OR that their scholars WRONGLY changed 2 Chronicles 22.
You are arguing off your pride and trying to prove you are educated. I am not educated, I am an idiot who loves God. And look at this, an idiot such as myself is exposing the folly of someone educated such as you.
Should we go onto external evidence since all the internal proves me correct? Give me 1 Hebrew Manuscript that says 2 Chornicles 22 is supposed to be twenty two years old instead of forty two. I wait.
GIVE 1 MANSUCRIPT
Who cares about all this internal evidence that has shown you are wrong... WHERE IS YOUR MANUSCRIPT??? Surely someone as smart as you would not be calling God a liar without even 1 manuscript saying you are right...
Where is it?
Give me the Hebrew Manuscript that says in 2 Chronicles 22, that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old. I wait.
Do people have Hebrew manuscripts just lying about. Maybe I need to update my Christmas list.
I am challenging him on this because SPOILER ALERT.
There is not one Hebrew manuscript to EVER have his satanic version of 2 Chronicles 22.
I like to say the quiet parts out loud.... So even if we ignore all the internal evidence that shows there are two Ahaziahs, the issue he now runs into after ignoring what Scripture says... Is that not one hebrew manuscript agrees with him.
No, it does not. "Blood" is not mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3 anywhere. It's not mentioned in the preceding chapters. It's not mentioned until chapter 11.
If you follow the account from 2 Kings 8:25 through to 9:29, you will see that there is no room for a "second" Ahaziah (aside from the pertinent contradiction). The one who started his reign in the 12th year of Joram in 8:25 is the same one who later died and was remembered in 9:29. The story gives no indication that Ahaziah of 8:25 replaced Ahaziah of 9:29.
In 8:28-29, Ahaziah went with Joram to Ramoth Gilead. Joram was wounded by the Syrians and returned to Jezreel, and Ahaziah visited him there.
In 9:14, Joram was wounded by the Syrians at Ramoth Gilead and returned to Jezreel. Ahaziah had come down to see him.
The wording in 9:14-15 is very similar to that in 8:28-29 and clearly describes the same event. There's one Joram, and one Ahaziah, the one introduced in 8:25.
Jehu met both at Jezreel, killed Joram, and Ahaziah fled. He was caught and shot at Gur, and died at Megiddo (9:27). His body was brought to Jerusalem in verse 28, and a summary statement is made about him in verse 29.
In order for your position to be the truth, Ahaziah "the second" (who started his reign in the 12th year) was killed BEFORE Ahaziah "the first" began his reign (in chapter 9). Either that, or Ahaziah "the second" visited Joram (in chapter 8) after Joram was already dead.
I don't need to explain that; you do. You're the one claiming that the KJV is without contradictions. Your answer is insufficient.
Again, I don't need to explain that; you do. You're the one claiming that the KJV is without contradictions. Your answer is insufficient.
Already addressed above.
In 10:13, Jehu kills the brothers of Ahaziah. In 11:1, Athaliah kills (most of) the royal heirs. The son of Ahaziah (a royal heir but not a brother of Ahaziah) was spared. No issue here.
There were indeed two men named Joram (aka Jehoram; both names are used for both). One was the king of Judah (8:16) while the other was the king of Israel (8:25). There is still only one Ahaziah here.
You mean the exact KJV wording? That "satanic" version?
2 Chronicles 22 King James Version
22 And 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.
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.
So after reading your posts all you said was the following:
1.) 1 Chronicles 3 is not talking about blood relatives DESPITE the fact 1 Chronicles 3 is all about sons that were BORN unto their fathers, or how I put it, through BLOOD.
2.) You have no explination as to why 2 kings 9 gives another start year than 2 kings 8.
3.) With the one Joram you didnt realize I was mocking your modern perversions reversing Joram and Jehoram for example NIV. And instead you are now trying to use that as proof that there is one Ahaziah... Ignorance is bliss for you.
4.) YOU HAVE NO ANSWER EXCEPT "NO YOUR WRONG".
What you never explained but pretended you did.
You never explained why there are two starting dates, I did.
You never explained why there are two ages given for their reigns... I DID.
You never explained why Athaliah goes and kills the royal seed... I did.
You never explained why 1 Chronicles 3 says Ahaziah is born of Joram yet 2 Kings 8 says that Ahaziah is a son in law... I did.
You never explained why not ONE Hebrew manuscript says what you wish the Bible said... I did, (its because you changed Scripture and ignore what God says).
You hope that your shotgun of saying "well no your wrong" 20 times instead of answering any of the challenges will confuse anyone reading.
And remember this is YOUR hand picked leading evidence why the KJV has errors... And basically you have resorted to a position of if your modern perversions are all wrong then even the KJV is wrong... LOL
Since you cannot deal with internal evidence and you will just keep on lying about the words of God.
Answer this:
WHAT HEBREW MANUSCRIPT HAS 2 Chronicles 22 AS IN YOUR MODERN PERVERSIONS.
Name it and I will hold my peace.
Weird how for HUNDREDS of years, no one ever had an issue with 2 Chronicles 22, no one changed it.
Weird how the Jews NEVER changed it, and left it as it is, and it never caused an issue...
But now we come to a time period where people google verses and dont read context, and everyone thinks it's an issue.
Maybe if you guys started reading the Bible BEFORE deciding your doctrine you wouldn't be so arrogant to say God is wrong.
Name the Hebrew manuscript and I will hold my peace.
1.) 1 Chronicles 3 is not talking about blood relatives DESPITE the fact 1 Chronicles 3 is all about sons that were BORN unto their fathers, or how I put it, through BLOOD.
2.) You have no explination as to why 2 kings 9 gives another start year than 2 kings 8.
3.) With the one Joram you didnt realize I was mocking your modern perversions reversing Joram and Jehoram for example NIV. And instead you are now trying to use that as proof that there is one Ahaziah... Ignorance is bliss for you.
4.) YOU HAVE NO ANSWER EXCEPT "NO YOUR WRONG".
What you never explained but pretended you did.
You never explained why there are two starting dates, I did.
You never explained why there are two ages given for their reigns... I DID.
You never explained why Athaliah goes and kills the royal seed... I did.
You never explained why 1 Chronicles 3 says Ahaziah is born of Joram yet 2 Kings 8 says that Ahaziah is a son in law... I did.
You never explained why not ONE Hebrew manuscript says what you wish the Bible said... I did, (its because you changed Scripture and ignore what God says).
You hope that your shotgun of saying "well no your wrong" 20 times instead of answering any of the challenges will confuse anyone reading.
And remember this is YOUR hand picked leading evidence why the KJV has errors... And basically you have resorted to a position of if your modern perversions are all wrong then even the KJV is wrong... LOL
Since you cannot deal with internal evidence and you will just keep on lying about the words of God.
Answer this:
WHAT HEBREW MANUSCRIPT HAS 2 Chronicles 22 AS IN YOUR MODERN PERVERSIONS.
Name it and I will hold my peace.
Weird how for HUNDREDS of years, no one ever had an issue with 2 Chronicles 22, no one changed it.
Weird how the Jews NEVER changed it, and left it as it is, and it never caused an issue...
But now we come to a time period where people google verses and dont read context, and everyone thinks it's an issue.
Maybe if you guys started reading the Bible BEFORE deciding your doctrine you wouldn't be so arrogant to say God is wrong.
Name the Hebrew manuscript and I will hold my peace.
I say,there appears to be some here who are very aggressive in their opinions about this topic.
Just a newbie tossing out that observation. Because, I wonder if those to whom I refer realize those who might want to throw in their two cents could feel a bit reticent given the reception our post might get from those aggressors.
Now,for something totally apart from that.
@Jeremiah33v3, I haven't read every page here so the answers may have been posted already. If so,please forgive my asking you to repeat yourself.
Your posts and bible knowledge are very impressive.
Where did you obtain your education in the Bible?
And, what version do you find closest to or the most reliable as far as being closest to the autographs?
Thank you , if you choose to answer, for indulging my questions.
Just a newbie tossing out that observation. Because, I wonder if those to whom I refer realize those who might want to throw in their two cents could feel a bit reticent given the reception our post might get from those aggressors.
Now,for something totally apart from that.
@Jeremiah33v3, I haven't read every page here so the answers may have been posted already. If so,please forgive my asking you to repeat yourself.
Your posts and bible knowledge are very impressive.
Where did you obtain your education in the Bible?
And, what version do you find closest to or the most reliable as far as being closest to the autographs?
Thank you , if you choose to answer, for indulging my questions.
I am not educated, I am an idiot saved by the grace of God by faith alone in what God did for me on that Cross by crucifying Himself and imputing His righteousness onto me.
I learned everything I have with my names sake: Jeremiah 33:3
As far as your other questions such as the autographs, give me a copy so I can read and I will tell you what "translation" fits them
And I am VERY aggressive on this topic, you will not see me in other places... I will not talk on politics or how to build a home or how to rebuild and engine of a car. The one and only thing I care about is God's word. Either you have it or you don't.
SO the question is, do you have God's word? Did God speak it? Is it breathed out by the mouth of God Himself?
What bible version do you use?I am not educated, I am an idiot saved by the grace of God by faith alone in what God did for me on that Cross by crucifying Himself and imputing His righteousness onto me.
I learned everything I have with my names sake: Jeremiah 33:3
As far as your other questions such as the autographs, give me a copy so I can read and I will tell you what "translation" fits them
And I am VERY aggressive on this topic, you will not see me in other places... I will not talk on politics or how to build a home or how to rebuild and engine of a car. The one and only thing I care about is God's word. Either you have it or you don't.
SO the question is, do you have God's word? Did God speak it? Is it breathed out by the mouth of God Himself?
KJV and ONLY the KJV.
For it is the word of God directly made by God's own mouth. Breathed out with the breath of Life.
My actual words are there for anyone to read... and see that your paraphrase of my words is quite inaccurate.
Again, I have no need to explain it, because I'm not the one claiming that the KJV has no contradictions. You don't understand the concept of "burden of proof", do you? You made the claim, and you bear the responsibility to defend it.
You can mock all you like, but this discussion is about the KJV, not about other translations.
No, I did not try to use it as proof that there is one Ahaziah. I was just proving that there being two men named "Joram" is irrelevant.
Again, the burden of proof is on you to defend your position, which you have failed to do. I have explained clearly how your interpretation is impossible, but instead of examining it carefully and changing your position (as an honest man would do), you have doubled down with your insults, yelling, misrepresentation and generally deplorable behaviour.
I don't need to explain any of them, and your explanations fail the test of basic reasoning.
That is simply irrelevant.
I showed you clearly what the KJV says. I haven't brought up evidence from other sources.
I have said repeatedly that this discussion is not about any other translation. You keep bringing it up.
Irrelevant. This discussion is about the KJV, not other translations, and not manuscripts.