God can do whatever He wants...except deny Himself (Heb 6, Num 23, 1 Tim 2, 1 Sam 15).The more I consider it, the more I believe that the kjv is inspired and inerrant.
He has magnified His word (the kjv) above all His name (Psalms 138:2).
If God wanted to portray a truth of biblical numerology by having the Bible authors pen differences in numbers, as concerning things like numbers of horses in a stall, then of course He would not be lying in that portrayal of biblical numerology; since He would be indicating a truth through that numerology. Even if there were a discrepancy between verses, God would be considering the truth that can be learned numerologically to be more important than the factual relation of how many horses were in the stall. As a matter of fact, one number may relate to the fact of the number while the other number may relate what we are to learn from the numerology of what is in the passage.
I'm not going to argue (right now) whether that is an accurate translation of the verse, other than to say I don't believe it is. However, your "quotation" of it must be addressed, because it is a complete corruption. Here's why:He has magnified His word (the kjv) above all His name (Psalms 138:2).
That's speculative hogwash. It allows people to come up with ridiculous justifications of plain contradictions instead of treating them as the contradictions they are. Ahaziah was actually 22 years old when he began to reign; he was not 42 years old, regardless of what happened 42 years before his reign began.If God wanted to portray a truth of biblical numerology by having the Bible authors pen differences in numbers, as concerning things like numbers of horses in a stall, then of course He would not be lying in that portrayal of biblical numerology; since He would be indicating a truth through that numerology. Even if there were a discrepancy between verses, God would be considering the truth that can be learned numerologically to be more important than the factual relation of how many horses were in the stall. As a matter of fact, one number may relate to the fact of the number while the other number may relate what we are to learn from the numerology of what is in the passage.
No doubt He has magnified it above His name in every language and therefore there will be an equivalent of the kjv in every language.If God has magnified His word above His Name, He has done so in every language into which His word has been translated.
Ahaziah was actually 22 years old when he began to reign; he was not 42 years old, regardless of what happened 42 years before his reign began.
You can believe what you want, but the explanation that was provided does not account for the blatant contradiction. It only waffles around and makes mush of the plain text.I believe that someone has given an answer for this contention; but I do not remember what it is and so will not comment other than to say that there is an answer for this contention.
Smith Wigglesworth once said:I'm not going to argue (right now) whether that is an accurate translation of the verse, other than to say I don't believe it is. However, your "quotation" of it must be addressed, because it is a complete corruption. Here's why:
The word of God is the word of God in any language. The verse in question was written in ancient Hebrew, not 16th-century English. Most of the Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, not 16th-century English. The 'word' that God magnified above His Name is not 16th-century English. Rather, it is HIS WORD which was written in ancient Hebrew and translated into thousands of languages. If God has magnified His word above His Name, He has done so in every language into which His word has been translated.
That's speculative hogwash. It allows people to come up with ridiculous justifications of plain contradictions instead of treating them as the contradictions they are. Ahaziah was actually 22 years old when he began to reign; he was not 42 years old, regardless of what happened 42 years before his reign began.
Consider the following.
Heb 10:1, For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2, For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Now, considering that the word "perfect" actually means "mature" we need to understand that if anyone is mature, they will have no more conscience of sins.
Therefore, are they simply oblivious to what is in all reality there in their lives?
Consider.
1Jo 1:7, But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
If we are walking in the light, will not any sin that is present in our lives be exposed to the light and brought out into the open?
Even as it is written,
Jhn 3:20, For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Jhn 3:21, But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Therefore, if I am walking in the light, and am not sanctified in the sense of being set free from sin, my sin will be exposed; and I will continue to have a conscience of sins.
If I am mature, I do not any longer have any conscience of sins. Which indicates that perfect, in Hebrews 10:1 (and everywhere else in scripture) does indeed mean "perfect".
Consider also the following.
Col 1:21, And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
Col 1:22, In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Jde 1:24, Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
"holy", "unblameable", "unreproveable".
"faultless"
Are you going to come up with alternate meanings for these words also? Do these words also not mean "perfect"?
I suppose that we can cross off holy...for that has been re-defined as "set apart" (however in this re-definition, the word "holy" has been stripped of its meaning, impaho).
One might be able to cross off "unblameable" as referring to outward righteousness and holiness (except that God, in Hebrews 4:13, tells us that everything is open and naked to His sight; and this also refers to the inward parts of a man, which are either righteous or unrighteous (Matthew 23:25-28).
I don't think that anyone can cross off "unreprovaeable" or "faultless" however.
You're legally an adult when you're 18. The sense of mature that you mean is a condition of having a complete religious education.
Being mature means that you have no more consciousness of sins according to the passage in question.
It was the knowledge of good and evil that corrupted Adam and Eve in the beginning.That sounds good, in theory. However, I wonder about your practical values. Without the knowledge of good and evil, how are you going to have a valid criminal justice system? To me, your definition of maturity here just sounds like a Fredrick Nietzsche kind of statement. "Look mom, I'm beyond good and evil."
To me being mature means I use the wisdom of Gods word and in doing so I am more conscience of my sin and seek the changes He wants to make in me to be more like Him.Being mature means that you have no more consciousness of sins according to the passage in question.