The Inerrancy of the Bible

And other translations agree with you that it is definitely not a beetle in the original Hebrew, so this represents yet another error in the KJV.--Percy

When did Ahaziah son of Jehoram begin his reign in Judah?
The 11th year (2Kings 9:29)
The 12th year (2Kings 8:25)How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
8 (2Chronicles 36:9)
18 (2Kings 24:8)How long did Jotham reign in Jerusalem?
16 years (2Kings15:33)
At least 20 years (2Kings 15:30)How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
22 (2Kings 8:26)
42 (2Chronicles 22:2)How much gold was brought to Solomon from Ophir?
420 talents (1Kings 9:28)
450 talents (2Chronicles 8:18)How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?
4,000 (2Chronicles 9:25)
40,000 (1Kings 4:26)How long did God tell David he was to suffer famine?
3 years (1Chronicles 21:11-12)
7 years (2Samuel 24:13)How many horsemen did David take with him from Hadadezer?
700 (2Samuel 8:4)
7,000 (1Chronicles 18:4)According to Genesis, Noah was 500 years old when he begat Shem (5:32). Noah was 600 years old when the Floodwaters were on the earth (7:6). Therefore, Shem was at least 100 years old when the Floodwaters were on the earth (600-500=100). But Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the Flood (11:10) This is a mistake, if Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood, then he should have been at least 102 years old.

---

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.- Philip K. Dick

Percy, This is why you should use the strongs concordance when running into conflicts with the word choices of the translators of the authorized KJV, you should never cut the textus receptus to make it agree with the minority texts. This is what is called taking away from Gods Word.The problem is that all the other English bible versions that are suppose to be easier to read uses the corrupted minority texts. The Textus receptus is the only New Testament texts that disagrees with the other bible versions, because its the only English bible version based on the textus receptus.Gail Riplinger apparently is not to keen on the Strongs Concordance, so I just downloaded the Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions as it wasn't on Gails partial list of corrupted resources. This Hebrew concordance agrees the Hebrew word is refering to a kind of locust as we had already ciphered. I consider Gail more an authority on the inerrancy of the King James Bible Version having researched the problem's within the Corrupt Manuscripts which are the basis of the other compromised bible versions.H2728

cha^rgo^l
BDB Definition:
1) a kind of locust, a leaping creature
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H2727
Same Word by TWOT Number: 734aAVPublications - Thank you for visiting!Partial List of Corrupt Manuscripts, Critical Editions, Lexicons, Sigla and Foreign Versions, etc.Aleph (Sinaiticus)B (Vaticanus)Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Hebrew O.T.)Gesenius (Brown, Driver & Briggs) Lexicon of the Old TestamentLeningrad manuscript B19a (Lenningrad Codex)Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon'M' Sigla (seen in the NKJV and the two following Critical texts)
Hodge-Farstad Majority Text;Pierpoint/Robinson Majority TextNestle Greek Text (Editions 1 - 27)Samaritan PentateuchSeptuagintStrong's Concordance (his Greek & Hebrew Dictionary)Thayers Greek LexiconThe so-called "literal" English translations in Green's Interlinear N.T. & O.T. and Berry's Textus ReceptusTheological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard KittelUnited Bible Society (UBS) Greek Text (Editions 1-4)Vines Expository DictionaryWescott and Hort Greek textZodhiates Word Study or "Key" Study Bibles & DictionariesTo learn "how" to study the Bible without the use of corrupt reference materials see appendix C of New Age Bible Versions

36Christians Regardless the book is in error.Acts was wriiten long after by the physician Luke so he cannot have known what was said.He could only deal with what was,to him,history,since the earliest year for acts has been argued to be A.D 61.You must need s revise your original statement here as expressed in your OP It is not completely perfect or this error could not have occured.

It appears to be a generalization of the age Noah was when he had his three sons. Ham is the youngest son, but Shem was born when Noah was 502 years old. kjv Genesis 11:10 He had 4,000 large stalls however each of these were divided into 10 stalls. This means he had both 4,000 stalls and 40,000 stalls. Jotham reigned for 16 years and started his reign when he became 25 years old. When Jotham was 20 years old Remaliah reigned in Jotham's place (stead) for 5 years. 2 kings 15:30 Ahaziah was the King of Judah for 2 years and the King of Israel in Jorams place (stead) for 1 year. Ahaziah was 22 years when he began his reign of Judah, which he Ahaziah represented the 42nd year of the house of Ahab. The house of Ahab ended after these 42 years plus his two years of reigning as king of Judah. Some sources say it was a misprint 42 years should be 22 years? I'm having a hard time making sense of the House of Ahab being 42 years old. The Kiel and Dilitzsch old testament commentary suggests is a misprint. I'm still up in the air but it appears not an intentional error but possibly an orthographical error?2Ch_22:2
The number 42 is an orthographical error for 22 ( having been changed into ),Ahaziah began his reign of Judah when he was 22 years old, he took reign of Judah as King Ahaziah when the house of Ahab was 42 years old kjv 2 chronicles 22:2. He took reign of Judah in the 11th year of Joram reign as King of Israel, then reigned as king of Israel along with Judah for 1 year in Jerusalem, it say he reigned in Joram stead kjv 2 kings 8:24. It says he went to see Joram who was healing in Jezrel and then both he and Joram were killed by Jehu ending the house of Ahab after 42 years plus his two years reigning as the King of Judah and as the king of Israel in Joram place while joram was in Jezreel healing. Ahaziah died when he was 24 years old, and representing the house of Ahab which ended after 44 years when Jehu killed both Joram and Ahaziah in 2 kings chapter 9.2 Chronicles 22:2. In Chronicles its refering to the age of the house of ahab when Ahaziah began his reign. Jehu then fullfilled another prophecy ending the house of Ahab.Ahaziah
'ăchazya^h / 'ăchazya^hu^
BDB Definition:
Ahaziah = Jehovah (Yahu) holds (possesses)
1) ruler of Israel, son of Ahab
2) ruler of Judah, son of Jehoram (Joram)
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H270 and H3050This message has been edited by Tom, 01-13-2005 01:55 AM

Independent of whether I agree, this isn't the position advocated by this thread's originator. This is from the opening post (Message 1) which set the context for this topic: So when the KJV says beetle when it should have said cricket (according to NIV), that's an error.--Percy

quote:

---

The answer to this is that they were simply using a different classification system.

---

Hopefully you realize that the manuals on bloodletting were considered true when written, but now we know the procedure does not provide a cure.When the Hebrews classified bats with birds, the statement would have been true or accepted in their time. Today we know that bats are not birds.Do you contend that if a statement is considered true when it was written that it should be considered true for eternity?Oddly enough you could have maintained your Bible inerrancy argument concerning this statement if you hadn't said that KJV is perfect.According to Strong's concordance the word "owph" has a meaning of flying creature, bird, fowl.If you look at the classification system used in Leviticus 11 you find general groupings. Since the word "owph" has a possible meaning of "flying creatures" and we do know today that bats are not birds, logically the translation should have been "flying creatures" instead of birds or fowl which have a more specific meaning to us today.The Complete Jewish Bible renders it: Granted when the KJV "translation" was started in 1607 and completed in 1611, they still didn't know that bats weren't birds, but today we do.IMO, since translations are made to be understood by the reader, it is incorrect for any Bible translation to use the words bird or fowl (since they have specific meanings today) if "flying creatures" is available.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 01-13-2005 16:52 AM

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Per the Chicago Statement on Bible InerrancyHere are some translation problems you can address: The words in bold: Areopagus and Mars' hill are the same word, why the difference in translation? In other translations both verses use Areopagus.The italicized word: superstitious is rendered religious in other translations. Why did KJV choose the negative translation as opposed to the positive translation?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

purpledawn, The Authorized KJV is still the only uncut bible version of Gods Words. All other bible versions have cut from the Words of God, because they are based on the older corrupted manuscripts.The Church preserved the New Testament, and the Catholic Church preserved the book of Revelations. The majority of the texts agree with the KJV, and not with your NIV bible.We all know the majority of the bible versions agree with the Catholic minority texts. This makes the Authorized KJV the only version that stands out in contrast. The reason given for the Waldenses not accepting the Catholic Jerome bible was they said the Catholic Church cut from the writtings of the New testament. The Catholic Church apparently didn't cut from the book of revelations because of the warning contained within this book. What Erasamus did was give us an uncut version of Gods Words. The other versions use the corrupted cut minority manuscripts from which the Jerome bible is based upon. When you read from the NIV version its a man made version of Gods Words cutting words, for example words like Holy. If you cut Holy apostles, then they don't need to live Holy lives. God said to not cut from his Word, and I see no instance that the KJV has been cut. Its for this reason the the KJV is the Word that has been preserved for all generations. Its a Holy Bible, not a bible version thats offended by including references to live holy lives.http://www.avpublications.com/...ue/nabv/nabv_html_tract.htmNIV, NASB Citation KJVmen 2 Pet. 1:21 holy men
angels Matt. 25:31 holy angels
brethren I Thess. 5:27 holy brethren
prophets Rev. 22:6 holy prophets
apostles and prophets Rev. 18:20 holy apostles and prophets
Spirit John 7:39 Holy Ghost
Spirit I Cor. 2:13 Holy Ghost
Spirit Matt.12:31 Holy Ghost
Spirit Acts 6:3 Holy Ghost
Spirit Acts 8:18 Holy Ghost"Satan cometh immediately and
taketh away the word . . ."Mark 4:15

As usual you don't answer the questions asked. Hopefully 36Christians will.I find it interesting that my King James Version printed in 1875 is very different than the one I have that was printed in 1989. No Apocrypha in the newer one. Do you truly believe that the author of Acts meant Easter when he wrote "Pascha"?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

It's funny that this misconception still inflects our vocabulary for different moods; we still use the words "sanguine", "melancholy", "phlegmatic", and er, well, "choleric", which isn't really a mood.I found this wiki article very interesting, especially in regards to the association of the four humours with four totemic spirits: Humorism - Wikipedia

I think 36 has left the building. It seems "they" are good at throwing out a challenge but don't like how difficult it is when the gauntlet is actually picked up. The jumped in without checking things out first and decided that the lions and tigers look a bit too hungry.

I think that's a bit premature. 36 was late answering the first responses but made 4 posts yesterday. Give it a few more days.

You are right, my apologies to 36C. I would like to know what the class thinks of the age of the earth. If they think it is different from a few billion years are they prepared to defend that too?

I'm assuming 36C is a group, which would cause them to answer a bit slower. I wasn't rushing them. Just wanted 36C to know that I didn't get my answer from Tom.