Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

  • 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.

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
13,256
1,258
113
Your refutation is convoluted hogwash. You ignore the plain text which clearly says two contradictory things. There is no possible sound refutation.

2 Chronicles 22:2 King James Version (KJV)
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.

2 Kings 8:26 King James Version (KJV)
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 clearly states that Ahaziah was 42 year old when he began to reign.
2 Kings clearly states that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign.

Neither says "it was 'X' years since event 'Y'. If either did, your explanation would be valid.

They don't.

It isn't.

Case closed.

I think the two can be reconciled.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,820
6,903
113
I think that's the KJV.
The NIV says "unique horn".
Tell me which is more accurate. lol
"Unicorn" causes modern readers much consternation, but the term is related to the Latin name for a certain large beast "Rhinoceros unicornis" - the Indian rhino, which may have existed in the Middle East in former times, and which certainly fits the context in several verses where "unicorn" appears.

"Cockatrice" is a mystery still though.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
5,837
2,208
113
What's funny is "this dead horse" has been beaten, drug through the mud and beaten again. But guess what, the word of the Lord endures forever.

If we had the "originals", would Chinese people need to learn Hebrew or Greek to be saved?
Haha am Chinese and I read the KJV. Only because I cant read chinese.
Yea. One day I will learn but if anyone has an audio Bible in cantonese I am all ears.

Why KJV well..the other bible translations didn't make sense, not that I read ALL of them, but so far KJV hasnt let me down, so there you go. Just pray and ask God. I dont bother with the other translations. Doesnt mean you cant read them, but please dont knock the KJV. Also its FREE.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
8,963
1,216
113
As more and more truth is shown to john146 he scurries off into more darkness and lies to defend the same.
Truth? Ya'll offer only opinions and then turn to insults when I oppose your opinions.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
8,963
1,216
113
Your refutation is convoluted hogwash. You ignore the plain text which clearly says two contradictory things. There is no possible sound refutation.

2 Chronicles 22:2 King James Version (KJV)
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.

2 Kings 8:26 King James Version (KJV)
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 clearly states that Ahaziah was 42 year old when he began to reign.
2 Kings clearly states that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign.

Neither says "it was 'X' years since event 'Y'. If either did, your explanation would be valid.

They don't.

It isn't.

Case closed.
Here you go, again...will you seriously read it and see the truth? I doubt it.

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.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,820
6,903
113
Here you go, again...will you seriously read it and see the truth? I doubt it.

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.
I've read your explanation and still consider it hogwash.

Either he was 22 years old, or he was 42 years old. He can't be both. Nowhere else in Scripture is such a convoluted reasoning used. The phrase has a specific meaning in English: years since birth. It has the same meaning in all Scripture. Your convolutions are inadequate.

It's an error. The KJV contradicts itself and is therefore imperfect. In your terminology, it's a lie.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,820
6,903
113
Here you go, again...will you seriously read it and see the truth? I doubt it.
....
The other reason I consider your explanation inadequate is that you reject out of hand any similar explanations of things you find questionable in other translations. You are completely biased on these matters. When you demonstrate the integrity to consider both sides of the discussion equally, then your convoluted hogwash might have some meaning to me.

It's an error in the KJV; your convolutions notwithstanding.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
8,963
1,216
113
I've read your explanation and still consider it hogwash.

Either he was 22 years old, or he was 42 years old. He can't be both. Nowhere else in Scripture is such a convoluted reasoning used. The phrase has a specific meaning in English: years since birth. It has the same meaning in all Scripture. Your convolutions are inadequate.

It's an error. The KJV contradicts itself and is therefore imperfect. In your terminology, it's a lie.
Actually, these apparent contradictions are throughout Scripture. I believe God put them there for the bible skeptic to believe a lie. To the honest, bible believer, these apparent contradictions are a confirmation that God's word can always be trusted.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,820
6,903
113
Actually, these apparent contradictions are throughout Scripture. I believe God put them there for the bible skeptic to believe a lie. To the honest, bible believer, these apparent contradictions are a confirmation that God's word can always be trusted.
If you used this same standard of judgment when you consider other translations, it would be fine. You don't; instead you call similar apparent contradictions in other translations "lies".

You have a double standard. That is a lack of integrity. It doesn't reflect well on you personally, and makes your KJV-only position look ridiculous.
 

NayborBear

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
Here you go, again...will you seriously read it and see the truth? I doubt it.

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.

In all the myriads of threads concerning "which version/s er translation/s are TRULY the INSPIRED, IRREFUTABLE" Words of God?

It has become quite apparent, how you see the KJV! As for me? I have NO issue with you concerning the KJV!

What ALSO seems quite apparent in your defending "Using EVERY MEANS POSSIBLE?" In this defense? Is you have, and you are not alone, are worshipping the INK!

The "turth, the whole truth and nothing BUT, the TRUTH?" Is NOT "The INK!"

Knowing the Bible, (KJV, in this case) "INSIDE OUT, AND SIDEWAYS DOWN", nowise gets you, or anyone else.....here, I think the group "Casting Crowns", said it best: "They know "chapter and verse", but they don't KNOW YOU!".....In most cases, this refers to Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and the Great Commission. In the cases involving already believing Christians? Which, in these eyes, also includes you John146. It's not Jesus Christ of Nazareth. It's the Father, in and by being confessed by Christ! As well, as the Father, IN, and BY, His Holy Spirit!

What is seen, is you are EXALTING ink, AS God! And, in so doing causing your spirit to STRIVE with God's Spirit, which is "THE WHY", ink HAD to be put to paper, IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Doncha, can'tcha see that man?

 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
10,552
4,039
113
Haha am Chinese and I read the KJV.
Hey Lanolin, your username says it all. You are pouring oil on troubled waters, and letting the *barbarians* know the truth. Very good post, and just kidding about the Gwai Loh.
 
S

Sherril

Guest
:)Just a question? i was in CC chat the other day we were talking about versions and the purity of diff. ones...One fellow told me he likes and reads the Hexapla...do you folks know if this is a good one to read ? it has 6 versions in it like older writings...love in Christ Sherril...:)
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,650
532
113
You ignore the simple fact that language changes over years. In the KJV and NIV the translation of a commandment differ because of this.
KJV Thou shalt not kill.
NIV You shall not murder.

In 1611 the word kill meant premeditated murder. Thus today that meaning is lost because the definition of kill has changed. Today when driving a brake failure can cause an accident where a person is killed. This in no way is premeditated murder. Live with the fact that 400 years of language changes and scientific knowledge of nature causes errors in the KJV translation. Today we know there are no satyrs and a few other animals used in the KJV. I keep the following for the KJV only crowd.
__________
Why do you keep using the now flawed KJV translation. The language and understanding of nature has changed over the 400 years since then. There are words that are no longer used. Do you know what a gold ouches is?


KJV Issues
Here is a list of problems with the KJV because of the 400 years of language and science understanding the things of nature.

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples
etc.

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Isa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers:

Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
(looked up ouches and today we put br in front of it and change the u to o. Brooches.)

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(looked this up, it means the person is a man, NIV uses the word man)


KJV Issues sites

https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-language-of-the-king-james-version/

https://newrepublic.com/article/107222/making-it-new

http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/kjv.htm

http://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/

http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/kjva1.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/different-gospel.html

The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible: An Interview with Mark Ward
Jonathan Petersen
March 13, 2018

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2...pJobID=1362532267&spReportId=MTM2MjUzMjI2NwS2
Endoscopy,

No, I didn’t ignore the “fact” that there are Archaic words in the KJV and biblical words such as Thee and Thou etc. but it is you that ignores the FACT to “study” and understand how to treat/deal with ‘Archaic “words. Do we really need to alter the text? God gave us in His words to follow on how to treat them. A case in point where “seer” is said to be “aged-old” word whereas “prophet” is a new word, nevertheless God retain the word “seer” and define it rather than change it. The point is we do not intend to change it, we need to study it! Perhaps, your Bible does not encourage you “study” as does my Bible.

The premonition that the KJV has the only age-old “Archaic” words is FALSE. You seem to be unaware to the FACT that even the NIV uses such! You didn’t even come up a real deal as to what is the language of the 17th Ce. to a language of today. As a proof of the NIV uses such Archaic words for you to consider. The NIV uses porphyry, offal, Nubians, maxiums, goiim, glistcning, aghast, cooing, cors, horde, ibex, pinions, rawboned etc. Oh well, even the word endoscopy seems not in everyday common language and was first used around 1860. That is too old for me.

Now to satisfy your thirst on the Archaic con job, I’ll try to dissect the word “satyr’ and tell your common errors in dealing with this subject.
  • Satyr as used in the KJV is not alone of using the word. Singling out the KJV is too unfair. The Geneva Bible 1587, The Bill Bible 1621, Calvin's Latin translation, the English Revised Version 1885, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841 "the SATYR shall cry to his fellow", the Brenton Translation 1851, the The Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Calvin Bible 1855, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Noyes Translation 1869, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Modern Readers Bible 1907, The Improved Bible 1913, the Revised Standard Version 1946-1971, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, Moffatt's New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the Modern Reader's Bible by Richard Moulton 1907, the Jerusalem Bible 1968, the New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Greek Septuagint, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century version 1994 - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003 - "there shall rest SATYRS", The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Apostolic Bible 2006, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New American Bible 2010, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "and shall meet with demons SATYRS" (Isa. 34:14), The New Brenton Translation 2012 - "there SATYRS shall rest", the Katapi New Standard Bible 2010 - "and SATYRS shall dance there", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013 - "and SATRYS shall dance there". All of these and even the NASB Has it. Excerpts from Will Kinney

  • You just don’t want to study them. That’s a kind of laziness.
Now you just gave me some barrage words that need some further study but I do not intend to discuss them here, it’s a schoolboy pedantry and perhaps God want you study them. It will be your assignments not mine.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God…
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
10,552
4,039
113
:)Just a question? i was in CC chat the other day we were talking about versions and the purity of diff. ones...One fellow told me he likes and reads the Hexapla...do you folks know if this is a good one to read ? it has 6 versions in it like older writings...love in Christ Sherril...:)
Since heretical Origen put together the corrupted Hexapla, I would avoid it like plague.
 
S

Sherril

Guest
Since heretical Origen put together the corrupted Hexapla, I would avoid it like plague.
Yiks now i dont know what to think, then what is the very best version, i enjoy the KJV yet if im missing something like a version that is even more true to Gods heart..i think it would be nice to check it out..ty love in Christ Sherril..:)
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
11,271
737
113
Yiks now i dont know what to think, then what is the very best version, i enjoy the KJV yet if im missing something like a version that is even more true to Gods heart..i think it would be nice to check it out..ty love in Christ Sherril..:)
Keep this in mind Sherril.
The word of God that's the most true to God's heart is going to be just like his son The Word of God - a stumbling stone and rock of offence. :)
 

Sketch

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2018
1,278
299
83
Since heretical Origen put together the corrupted Hexapla, I would avoid it like plague.
Martin Luther was a heretic as well. Should we avoid him too?
I think being a heretic is WAY under-rated. lol
(I'm not recommending Origen, just sayin'...)
As in most cases, eat the meat and spit out the bones.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,820
6,903
113
Keep this in mind Sherril.
The word of God that's the most true to God's heart is going to be just like his son The Word of God - a stumbling stone and rock of offence. :)
That's fear-mongering and baseless suggestion.