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

  • 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.
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
You made an error here. Verses 16-18 identify Jehoram, not Ahaziah, as the son-in-law of Ahab. That shoots down your theory quite thoroughly.

16 And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign.

17 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.

18 And 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.
Your observation does bring an important detail to light, but it doesn’t necessarily invalidate the Three Ahaziah Kings Theory entirely. Here’s how the theory could still hold, given that 2 Kings 8:16-18 describes Jehoram, Ahaziah’s father, as the son-in-law of Ahab:

Key Points of Clarification
  1. Jehoram as the Son-in-Law of Ahab:
    • It’s correct that 2 Kings 8:16-18 identifies Jehoram, the father of Ahaziah, as Ahab’s son-in-law by marriage to Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter. This makes Ahaziah the grandson of Ahab, rather than a direct son-in-law.
  2. Ahaziah’s Relationship to Ahab’s House:
    • While Jehoram is the direct son-in-law, Ahaziah, his son, is part of Ahab’s family lineage through Athaliah. 2 Kings 8:27 says Ahaziah “walked in the way of the house of Ahab,” which could imply that he was still significantly influenced by his connection to Ahab’s house.
  3. Reconsidering the “Son-in-Law” Terminology:
    • Ancient texts sometimes use familial terms with broader meanings than we typically do today. In this context, “son-in-law of the house of Ahab” could be applied to Ahaziah due to his descent through his mother Athaliah, even though he was technically Ahab’s grandson.
  4. Why the Theory Can Still Hold:
    • The distinctions between Ahaziah’s age (22 in 2 Kings and 42 in 2 Chronicles), familial connections, and the unique death circumstances of each Ahaziah (and the reactions of his mother Athaliah) still point to the possibility of multiple Ahaziahs with separate historical contexts.
    • If “son-in-law of the house of Ahab” is viewed as a description of influence or family loyalty rather than a strict familial role, this can still support the idea of two or even three distinct individuals named Ahaziah in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.
In Summary

While 2 Kings 8:16-18 clarifies Jehoram’s direct connection as Ahab’s son-in-law, the language could still imply Ahaziah’s significant alignment with Ahab’s house through his mother. This allows the theory to remain plausible by interpreting “son-in-law” in a broader, family-loyalty sense. The age discrepancies, separate descriptions of reigns, and differences in death circumstances still support the case for multiple Ahaziahs without suggesting error in the text.


....
 
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
Textual Criticism doesn't teach anything. It is a set of practices, not a teacher, preacher, or professor. Personification doesn't work when you're laying blame.

It is more likely that a person who is discouraged from studying outside certain narrow parameters will lose trust. I encourage you and every reader to do their own homework, and not to limit themselves to any particular sources.


Given your error with regard to Ahaziah, you need to rethink this. As to "contributing to doubt", you and all KJV-only proponents do that by casting aspersions on other translations. Don't be a hypocrite!

Finding anomalies should lead to further study, not to doubt. If your trust is in the perfection of your translation, you have no hope. My trust is in the risen Lord Jesus, and I'm not shaken in the least when I find errors in a printed translation of Scripture. I know God is bigger than the Bible in my hands. I'm not sure that most KJV-onlyists can say that.

There is a valid, sound, and satisfying explanation for the difference between the two verses noting Ahaziah's age, but it is not any of the convoluted fantasies I've heard from KJV-onlyists. In fact, I have NEVER seen it cited by any KJV-only proponent. I suspect most of them don't even know it, because they use Bibles that have had the marginal notes deleted.
But believers have lost their faith in college when they learned of the false Science of Textual Criticism.


....
 
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
Here is one you are not going to find to understand in all your "searches."

Matthew 4:3....
"Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God,
command that these stones become bread.”
The word "if" is in the Greek in the first class condition. What that means is not what the typical English translation is indicating.
For Satan was not attempting to impugn Jesus by trying to get him to prove he is the Son of God by turning the stones into bread.

For the Greek is stating that Satan was admitting and knew that Jesus is the Son of God.

Mark 1:23-24


Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

Even evil spirits that Jesus cast out recognized hum, and Jesus had to command them to be silent. Mark 1:24-25


A more accurate translation with understanding could read...
"Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God - and you are -
command that these stones become bread.”


So then, why was Satan tempting the One whom Satan knew could turn stones into bread, to do so?

.....
Your saying God's Word has an error in it. You need to go back to the drawing board and start again. The Bible should correct you, and not the other way around. Otherwise, you are a Bible corrector. In fact, what is crazy is that Pastor Jonathan Burris just declared in a recent video on YouTube that if a KJV-only believer says to another believer that they are a Bible corrector, they are in sin. This is insane. What Bible verse even says that? In fact, what about when folks like you who are actually correcting the Bible? Does Mr. Burris believe all manuscripts reflect the originals? There can only be one Bible that reflects the originals and not many. This is what happens when folks reject the real Bible as their final Word of authority. Such a thing messes with their mind, and they cannot think clearly when it comes to the Bibliology topic.


....
 
Aug 3, 2023
539
233
43
Long Beach, CA
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.
Agreed
 
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
There are differences as I pointed out. No use arguing if you are bent on seeing errors in the Bible.
“Differences”? “Bent on seeing error”? I see you would rather diminish the issue and throw shade than admit either that you were wrong or that the KJV has errors.
 
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
Your saying God's Word has an error in it.
No.

He, and I, and others, are saying that the KJV translation of God’s word has errors in it. There is a massive difference.

You need to go back to the drawing board and start again. The Bible should correct you, and not the other way around. Otherwise, you are a Bible corrector.
Oooh … “Bible corrector”. Do you really think that name-calling has any place in a debate about the Bible? Do you think that throwing stones will convince anyone of the justice or rightness of your position? You need to go back to the drawing board and start again!

There can only be one Bible that reflects the originals and not many.
Wrong. KJV- only propaganda isn’t going to win you any points here.

This is what happens when folks reject the real Bible as their final Word of authority. Such a thing messes with their mind, and they cannot think clearly when it comes to the Bibliology topic.
Your assertion is based on the silly and fallacious premise that the KJV is “the real Bible”. Your medical assessment is ridiculous. Your tone is desperate.
 
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
Are you not proud? It's sin, you know.
I think you need to look in your own backyard. Modern Bibles sometimes distort Scripture by promoting pride and self-boasting, in contrast to the King James Bible (KJV), which consistently condemns such attitudes. The KJV emphasizes humility, instructing believers to rejoice in the achievements of others, not themselves (2 Corinthians 7:14; 8:24; 9:3-4), and condemns personal pride as folly (2 Corinthians 10:8-18). Verses like Galatians 6:4, James 1:9, and Philippians 1:26, which focus on rejoicing in the KJV, are changed in modern versions such as the NASB, NIV, and ESV to encourage pride or boasting. These translations also alter Proverbs 3:4, replacing "good understanding" with "high esteem" or "good reputation," appealing to human vanity. In other words, only the KJV preserves the true biblical message, calling believers to embrace humility as opposed to pride subtly pushed by Modern Translations (See here to learn more).

You said:
Who are you people, and what are you wanting to secure for your selves?
Actually, you guys are the new kids on the block. We had the Bible in many English-speaking countries and the good fruit thereof long before your Westcott and Hort movement showed up with their corrupted new Sham-Wow text.


....
 
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
Actually, you guys are the new kids on the block. We had the Bible in many English-speaking countries and the good fruit thereof long before your Westcott and Hort movement showed up with their corrupted new Sham-Wow
A foolish and ignorant argument. The KJV was the new kid on the block in 1611, as against the Geneva and Bishop’s Bibles (~50 years old then), and Tyndale (~90 years)… and the granddaddy Vulgate (~1400 years).

Stop using dumb, easily-refuted arguments and your position will seem less ridiculous.
 
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
Are you not proud? It's sin, you know.

Who are you people, and what are you wanting to secure for your selves?
I believe it is pride to have authority over God's Word by telling us small people what is and what is not God's Word in an error-ridden texts. This makes either you or some scholar the "guru" that we have to grovel to in order to get the words of God (Which was the problem with the Catholic Church providing the Scriptures only in Latin for 12 centuries that the layperson did not understand). Now, you want to bring us back under the heel of Rome. This makes sense because a Catholic (Carlo Maria Martini) has worked on the underlying Greek text in 1975 that is used by Modern Bibles today (i.e., the Nestle and Aland). Even Catholic ideas are promoted in your Modern Bibles, which began with Westcott and Hort's Revised Version. Such Catholic ideas have only grown in Modern Bibles over the years. This is just one of the many problems with the Westcott and Hort Movement or Modern Bible Movement that exists today that you follow or have been influenced by.


....
 
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
A foolish and ignorant argument. The KJV was the new kid on the block in 1611, as against the Geneva and Bishop’s Bibles (~50 years old then), and Tyndale (~90 years)… and the granddaddy Vulgate (~1400 years).

Stop using dumb, easily-refuted arguments and your position will seem less ridiculous.
None of these previous TR Bibles had any influence for hundreds of years like the KJV.
When Westcott and Hort came out with their Revised Version under the false lie that it was a KJV update when it wasn't one (Because it did not have the same underlying Greek text used for the KJV), it started the popular Modern Bible Movement we have today (Which is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - which are inferior manuscripts). The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is inferior because they have corrections all over them, and they teach obvious false. The KJV took off in popularity in the 1660s in England, and by 1700 in the United States. The Modern Bible Movement began in 1881 with Westcott and Hort, who were influenced by heretical German Rationalists.doctrines.


....
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,687
391
83
A foolish and ignorant argument. The KJV was the new kid on the block in 1611, as against the Geneva and Bishop’s Bibles (~50 years old then), and Tyndale (~90 years)… and the granddaddy Vulgate (~1400 years).

Stop using dumb, easily-refuted arguments and your position will seem less ridiculous.
He can't stop...
For the shoe fits feet that enter into one's own mouth. .
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,687
391
83
Did you take the time to examine the verses in Modern Bibles that promote pride? Or are you just solely bent on selling a narrative?i.
Unlike you.... I do not depend upon any translation for my edification in the Lord.

Only as a baby Christian, I did. I gave up on growing from studying a translation years ago.
Too much is lost in the translation....

We need much more than that before you can begin to read any translation with sound understanding.

And, I know.
Some are finding it.
 
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
He can't stop...
For the shoe fits feet that enter into one's own mouth. .
Please explain how his point is rational. The previous TR Bibles before the KJV were only around in the 1500s and not hundreds of years prior. They also did not have the same level of influence and or good fruit like the KJV, either. The Modern Bible Movement that came about today is more recent (1881), which began by heretics Westcott and Hort. What is your understanding of the origins of your own movement? How do you see it more blessed by God when it is associated with liberals, spiritualists, Catholics, and Unitarians? Are you even aware of this?


....
 
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
Unlike you.... I do not depend upon any translation for my edification in the Lord.

Only as a baby Christian, I did. I gave up on growing from studying a translation years ago.
Too much is lost in the translation....

We need much more than that before you can begin to read any translation with sound understanding.

And, I know.
Some are finding it.
Your missing the point. Like a murder case, we build our case on evidence. We look for patterns of evidence to build our case. What I am showing you here is just one of many evidences that makes things obvious to the simple man of faith.


...
 
Nov 28, 2023
1,995
332
83
Unlike you.... I do not depend upon any translation for my edification in the Lord.

Only as a baby Christian, I did. I gave up on growing from studying a translation years ago.
Too much is lost in the translation....

We need much more than that before you can begin to read any translation with sound understanding.

And, I know.
Some are finding it.
Also, by this statement you are for Revisionist history. The KJV is more than just some mere translation. It has had an impact unlike any other book for hundreds of years and led to three of the greatest revivals. Its idioms have become a part of English-speaking countries to both believers and unbelievers. It has helped to shape governments in a positive way. It was the standard in English-speaking countries for hundreds of years. Many have tried to make attempts to dethrone the KJV with their own Modern Bible in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s, and not only did the KJV endure, but their Modern Bible faded away out of use to the sands of time.


....
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,687
391
83
Please explain how his point is rational. The previous TR Bibles before the KJV were only around in the 1500s and not hundreds of years prior. They also did not have the same level of influence and or good fruit like the KJV, either. The Modern Bible Movement that came about today is more recent (1881), which began by heretics Westcott and Hort. What is your understanding of the origins of your own movement? How do you see it more blessed by God when it is associated with liberals, spiritualists, Catholics, and Unitarians? Are you even aware of this?

....
You are stuck in the wrong argument.

It's become an obsessive distraction away from discovering the needed truth to be known as to make one able to mature in Christ.

OK?
Finally...
Here is the best translation.
Now understand it!
Can you?
By yourself?????

Certain Christians were reaching full maturity in days when no printed Bibles existed.
How did they do it?