Textual/version stance

[Guest Guest]

Sorry, I meant to say...PR, instead. :ooops

[Guest Guest]

[quote="candlelight"]Sorry, I meant to say...PR, instead. :ooops[/quote]

There's a way to edit your posts. :smile Just click on the "edit" button on the upper right corner of the post. :cool

[Guest Guest]

Gee, thanks...KJB_Princess. :thumb :cooldude:

[Annie]

I just wanted to bump this topic back up. Annie finally posted one of the "contradictions" she was talking about. Now is anyone going to respond to her post?

Annie, just to let you know... I'm looking into this one. :smile

Thanks, KJB_Princess. I appreciate the interaction...although I don't know what there is to "look into." If the KJB is perfect, standing on its own merits, then how could any other source could be of any value in determining the answer to this dilemma? I think I've heard you say something like this yourself: Those who seek clarification and/or definitions outside the KJB instead of letting it speak for itself are not KJVO. (Or was that someone else? I don't want to put words in your mouth. If I remember right, I think I tended to agree with you on that point.) I think it was also you who encouraged me not to "rely" on anything but the KJB, because it speaks for itself. If you are, right now, searching through materials (from Ruckman, PCC, or any other KJVO source), then you are not following your own advice, and are in danger of hypocrisy in your stand.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks, KJB_Princess. I appreciate the interaction...although I don't know what there is to "look into." If the KJB is perfect, standing on its own merits, then how could any other source could be of any value in determining the answer to this dilemma? I think I've heard you say something like this yourself: Those who seek clarification and/or definitions outside the KJB instead of letting it speak for itself are not KJVO. (Or was that someone else? I don't want to put words in your mouth.) I think it was also you who encouraged me not to "rely" on anything but the KJB, because it speaks for itself. If you are, right now, searching through materials (from Ruckman, PCC, or any other KJVO source), then you are not following your own advice, and are in danger of hypocrisy in your stand.

I never said I was going to look at another source for an answer. In fact, my favorite way to answer a Bible question is by studying it out, in the Bible. I just didn't have time tonight because I was at church. I'll have to work on it when I get some time. :smile

[Annie]

I never said I was going to look at another source for an answer. In fact, my favorite way to answer a Bible question is by studying it out, in the Bible. I just didn't have time tonight because I was at church. I'll have to work on it when I get some time. :smile

Great! I look forward to hearing what you've found out. (In the meantime, everyone else, feel free to chime in as well!)

[Annie]

I wanted to add something else I found interesting about the passages in question.

Look at the progression in the options:

I Chron. 21: three years of famine, three months of pursuit by enemies, three days of pestilence

II Sam. 24: seven years of famine, three months of pursuit by enemies, three days of pestilence

I thought it was interesting to note the pattern of the "time words" in both of the passages...years-->months-->days. This strengthens the truth that both passages are indeed accounts of the same historical event, and that both stories are exactly the same as far as the events that happened (dialogue between God and Gad, and then the immediately following dialogue between Gad and David). The content of the dialogue is exactly the same as well...worded a teensy bit differently, but obviously the same general content.

The number three is used for all of the options in both accounts, except for the years of famine in the Sam. account. Everything in these two verses is rigidly consistent except for the odd-seven-out in the Sam. passage.

(For those of you who missed it, the meat of this idea, as well as the specific references, are found in my post on the previous page.)

[Bakershalfdozen]

One explanation I've read is that back in II Samuel 21, we find out that there had already been 3 years of continual famine. David inquires of the Lord. God tells him why. David takes cares of the problem. It doesn't tell us how long that took. Then David orders the census which takes over 9 months. There's approximately 4 years right there. So when God is offering 7 years of famine, it can be taken as a total of 7 instead of 7 additional years.

II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21 are not identical in the wording. The entire books aren't identical. They don't offer the exact same information. For instance, II Samuel 24 tells us how long the census took and some of the places they visited but I Chron. 21 doesn't. II Samuel tells us of the famine; I Chron. doesn't. We see the same kinds of things happening in the Gospel records. It been said that II Samuel 21 is a contemporary account while I Chronicles 21 is an historical account. Depending on who writes the account, you could very well get two differing but equally accurate stories.

Also, notice the wording regarding the famine in each book. Samuel - shall 7 years of famine come unto thee in thy land? I can take that to mean, "Do you want a 7 years of famine to come to you in your land?" He'd already had 4 years of it.

Chronicles - Choose thee either 3 years famine or...

[Annie]

One explanation I've read is that back in II Samuel 21' date=' we find out that there had already been 3 years of continual famine. David inquires of the Lord. God tells him why. David takes cares of the problem. It doesn't tell us how long that took. Then David orders the census which takes over 9 months. There's approximately 4 years right there. So when God is offering 7 years of famine, it can be taken as a total of 7 instead of 7 additional years.[/quote']

:hmm Interesting...I would find this explanation more plausible if the two stories were connected in some way, but they aren't. In fact, they are separated by the scouring of Saul's house and an entirely separate war with the Philistines. The textual evidence indicates that the numbering of Israel did not happen right after the three years of famine. Also, the famine would not have continued after David took care of the problem, which he seems to have done immediately. II Sam. 21 says it lasted for three, not four, years. Even if the two stories are connected, loosely speaking, the famine would not have lasted during the war with the Philistines and then through the nine months of the census, since both of these events took place after David's repentance. As much as we can tell, the famine lasted for three years, maybe a little more while David took care of the problem. He then...did what? He at least won a war with the Philistines, during which there was no famine. Even if the nine month long census immediately followed this war, that would make a pretty long time during which there was no famine continuing. So, "seven years of famine" would not make any sense at all, if it meant that it was a continuation of the previous famine, which was just 3+ years long, and stopped before the war with the Philistines.

Also, the "seven years of famine" are presented as an option for the consequence of numbering the people. Gad basically said, Here are the three options for punishment for your sin in numbering Israel; which will you take? Seven years of famine? three months of pursuit? or three days of pestilence?



Yes, I understand that there can be "differences" without "contraditions." But this one looks to be both. Anyone reading these two accounts, side by side, would notice the rigid parallel structure of the dialogue, with the one glaring exception. It is interesting that the II Sam. passage did have the words, "three years of famine" in earlier translations.

And there's still the matter of the numbers of the "men who drew the sword."

[Guest Guest]

Annie, I was talking to my husband last night about this thread, and he told me that no matter what answer you were given, you weren't going to accept it because you have pre-conceived ideas about the King James Bible having "contradictions". Bakershalfdozen beat me to posting an answer, and you just proved my husband right. We've talked to people with your attitude before... you don't want the King James Bible to be right.

I learned something a long time ago. When there seems to be an "error" or "contradiction" in the King James Bible, it's because of my lack of understanding that it doesn't make sense. God doesn't make mistakes.

[Salyan]

KJBPrincess, that seems a bit rude to assume that Annie will categorically ignore any information she is given, and to thus refrain from giving any answer because 'she won't accept it anyways.' You are right to say that it is our lack of understanding that perceives 'errors' in the Bible, rather than the actual presence of errors. However, such a statement cannot be used as an response for queriers. We have to be ready to give an answer to every person, not to simply tell them that 'the Bible is the answer.'
If someone used this particular question to challenge the Bible's accuracy, I could not (as it stands) refute them. What sort of a witness would that be? Rather than dismiss the issue, I now need to search it out and find out the answer! I can't just say, "Well, the KJV is never wrong, so there really isn't a contradiction. It just looks like one." What sort of answer is that? I'm curious to see what others will share as an answer, as well. Thanks for the pertinent question, Annie!

[Annie]

Annie, I was talking to my husband last night about this thread, and he told me that no matter what answer you were given, you weren't going to accept it because you have pre-conceived ideas about the King James Bible having "contradictions". Bakershalfdozen beat me to posting an answer, and you just proved my husband right. We've talked to people with your attitude before... you don't want the King James Bible to be right.

KJB_Princess, if you are honest with yourself, you'd have to admit that you approach this issue with a preconceived idea of your own. And that no matter what answer you are given, you aren't going to accept it, because you have the preconceived idea that the King James Bible is the one place where God's words are all perfectly preserved. (I can say that because of what you have affirmed throughout this discussion.) You start with this belief, and interpret all other information in light of it.

I disagree that I hold to the preconceived idea you mentioned (that the KJV has contradictions). Here are my beliefs: Scripture says that God will preserve His Word. Scripture does not specify how or in what form(s) He will do that. Not once does He promise to preserve all of His words perfectly in one volume, and only in that volume. So, really, unlike you, I have no preconceived notions about this issue. I don't put words in God's mouth. You are the one with the preconceived notion: that the KJV is the only source of God's infallible, perfectly preserved word. That notion is not found in Scripture at all, as demonstrated by the thread where we talked about the biblical basis for the KJVO position. (No KJVO advocate could come up with any verse/passage in which God promises to preserve all of His words perfectly in one publicly accessible volume, and only in that volume.)

You say that I "don't want the KJB to be right." On what basis do you make that claim? You must have missed all of my loving references to the KJV. It and the NKJV (which has the same contradictions) are the Bibles I use for devotions, teaching my children, etc. I "don't want it to be right"?? :puzzled:

I learned something a long time ago. When there seems to be an "error" or "contradiction" in the King James Bible, it's because of my lack of understanding that it doesn't make sense. God doesn't make mistakes.

You're right: God doesn't contradict Himself. Why, then, would He say "three" in one passage and "seven" in the parallel one? or say "800,000" in one passage and "100,000" in the parallel one? The only lack of understanding you seem to be demonstrating in this case is that "three" doesn't equal "seven," and "800,000" doesn't equal "100,000." You are willing to sacrifice obvious truth and abandon all reason on the unproven, extrabiblical basis that the KJB is the only source (and complete source) of all of God's perfectly preserved words. I, on the other hand, come to the issue with an open mind, not a preconceived notion that God HAS to have done something He did not promise to do. I look at the KJV, and notice contradictions. It has nothing to do with my "not wanting" the KJV to be right. The fact is that this is just one of several contradictions in the KJV that cannot be reconciled without consulting other sources where the translation is correct.

EDITED TO ADD: If you look back, you'll notice that I did not just dismiss Baker's explanation out of hand, because I'm determined to believe the KJV has errors. On the contrary, I went back and read all of the passages she referred to, all the way up to the ones we were discussing. I then detailed exactly what the Scripture said...and explained how, according to those Scriptures, it wouldn't work to attach the two famines together. The evidence for the reality of the contradictions is right there in II Sam. and I Chron., not in a preconceived notion.

[JerryNumbers]

One big difference Annie, you came to a KJ only sites and posted that you had no respect for anyone who made a big deal out of the KJ. I have already pointed out to you that this is a KJ site, that means the one who started this board, Bro. Matt, makes a big deal out of KJ Bible only, as well as many of us who post here. So I know you came here with a per-conceived idea, which was you do not respect people who make a big deal out of the KJ Bible.

By the same token KJB_Princess did not go to a modern version message board and start questioning what you believe about the versions of the Bible, but you did come here and start putting down KJ only.

So yes, you came here with a pre-conceived idea that you had no respect for those who make a big deal out of the KJ, so I think KJB_Princess statement is accurate and is truth.

Now deny this. I'm only calling it as it is, nothing more, just pointing out the truth.

Is your mission to try and convert people to your views? Must be, for surely your intelligent enough to have noticed this is a KJ Bible site plus its already been pointed out to you more than once.

I'm not trying to slander you, the truth only is important, so please, don't go that route.

salyan , lighten up on KJB_Princess, she is right on this one. I disagree with her on several issues, but when she is right I will stand up for her 100%, she made their right call this time.

[Annie]

One big difference Annie' date=' you came to a KJ only sites and posted that you had no respect for anyone who made a big deal out of the KJ. I have already pointed out to you that this is a KJ site, that means the one who started this board, Bro. Matt, makes a big deal out of KJ Bible only, as well as many of us who post here. So I know you came here with a per-conceived idea, which was you do not respect people who make a big deal out of the KJ Bible.[/quote']

You misquote me, Jerry#s. I didn't say I have no respect for people who believe wholeheartedly in the KJVO position. My statement (which you have taken out of context) was on another thread--totally different topic--and was a response to someone who was asking about losing friends b/c of the KJVO stance. I--someone who has several KJVO friends--merely said that I don't have respect for ones who make "a big issue" out of it, IOW, those who can't get along with believers who are not KJVO. KJB_Princess has said she has friends who are not KJVO; so have Jerry and others on here. So, they would not fall into the group of people I don't respect. I was actually encouraged to find out that most on here do NOT make a big issue out of being KJVO, as evidenced in the "Interaction" thread.



Both you and the other Jerry have said that I have "put down" the KJVO position...Please show me where I have done so. If you look, I think you'll find that I merely asked questions, and posted an example of a contradiction only when pressed to do so. I didn't have an "agenda" in coming to this board; you'll notice that in the time I've been around here (since last year, I think), the majority of my attention has been on threads that don't have anything to do with textual issues. I came across this poll and voted...which entered me into this discussion.



I have no such mission, Jerry. (I am laughing as I think about this..."Housewife Seeks to Convert People to Her Views Via Computer.") If you want to know why I post on boards like this, I'll tell you: It gives me the chance to interact with people about scriptural/spiritual things without leaving my home. It gives me a chance to have great discussions about topics that I couldn't otherwise have (with my five small children :smile ).



No, Jerry, I don't think you're slandering me. It seems, however, that you are determined to view me as someone I'm really not.

[Bakershalfdozen]

Everybody back up and calm yourselves. :Green *Breathe, breathe*. :Green

We've said it many times before but I guess it bears repeating...threads get locked the fastest around here when they turn ugly and members start attacking one another. Rarely is it the subject matter that gets a thread locked.

Speaking of attitudes, some of you don't have much room to talk. :saint

Anyhoo, no one in this thread "came here with the intention of putting the KJB down". Everyone who is actively participating in this thread has been a member here a long time before this thread even started.

We do have and have had members who are not KJVO, some are not IFB. All are welcome as long as they keep the attitude out.

If we cannot sufficiently, intelligently answer any questions or allegations that come our way, we should back down and re-think, not resort to name-calling.

Capiche?