Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

I just don't get hoodwinked by double talk. Any witness that does not give the TRUTH is called a FALSE witness.

If it's in error, why not change it to tell the truth? Seems simply to me.

Truth? Whose truth? Yours? King James? The english church? The roman church? The baptist Church?

Again, Thats why God left us the origional language copies. Which are numerous. So we can find these so called errors. If we take the time, and everything is satisfied.

I do not blindly follow any english text. Because I know the english anguage flaws. If I want a deeper understanding (no matter what bible I use) that is where I go.

If the bible you read has Elhanan killing Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19, it lies. It cannot be trusted. Facts are facts. David killed Goliath.

Double standard.

Go and get some integrity. You are lacking in it.

To any reader who things I'm being too harsh: read the whole thread.

So do you call the KJV a false witness in regard to the age of Ahaziah? Or, do you share the double standard that John146 holds?

I don't know what John believes about it but I am admitting that I don't understand it. I've asked God about it and I'm sure he'll let me know the truth when he's ready. Just because you and I can't figure it out doesn't mean it's an error.

I gave the whole explanation in post #726. Most of the time comparing Scripture to Scripture helps solve apparent contradictions. I know a guy who has wrote extensively on these apparent contradictions from bible skeptics. It certainly is not all my work, but my eyes have been opened.

Yet you have no yet given an adequate explanation on how words, which are in error can be solved. Apart from going to the origional text.

You are stuck, the same arguments you use to defend your bible can be used against your bible.

I hope God doesn't hold us accountable to His word, since He didn't preserve it for us.

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...

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…

And I gave a truthful reconciliation of the age of Ahaziah but you fail to believe it.

Can you reconcile the false witness of new versions in 2 Samuel 21:19? Please say scribal error.

A faithful witness will not lie.

The word translated "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15 of the KJV is better rendered "be diligent" in today's terms. This is a good reason not to rely blindly on the KJV.


"Nubians", "maxiums", "offal", "pinions" and "goiim" are not in the most recent NIV. "Cors" is a transliteration, not an English word. All the rest are in current usage, though perhaps less common. Porphyry, for example, is red marble stone, an ibex is an Arabian antelope, and "cooing" is still used for the sound doves make.

This whole paragraph is irrelevant on two counts: one; this is a thread about the KJV, not other translations; and two: it's a fallacy called "tu quoque", which means essentially, "They're doing it too!" It's invalid as a defense.



Consider yourself barraged. Be diligent to understand these matters.

Are you still bleating? Go and get some integrity.

I'm still trying to figure out why Ahaziah's mother was killing the royal seed including Ahaziah's own son, and her grandson, to avenge Ahaziah.... any ideas?

The answer is right there. Athaliah was the wicked daughter of two very evil and wicked people -- Ahab and Jezebel, and the wife of another wicked man -- Jehoram.

So when someone is steeped in evil and wickedness (possibly even demon possession) what do you expect?

I studied Bible history and translation.
Folks opinion and feelings and thought and arguments don't matter to me. I just find it entertaining that so many people are willing to go to the mat over such silliness.

The bible does not lie but all bibles have errors. And you expect us to believe that's TRUTH.

The original texts are infallible. Translations are done by fallible men. To reduce errors committees do the translation so all have a say in the meaning of the original texts. The second issue is which manuscripts are used. Errors of copying creep in but most of those are easily dealt with by comparing original language texts.

and yet..........here you are..........AND commenting!