Textual/version stance

[Guest Guest]

The problem is that this explanation doesn't fit the facts laid out in the biblical record; it doesn't make sense or fit all the facts present. I personally do not have a problem reconciling this contradiction' date=' because I have no problem looking in other places (other translations, other manuscripts, etc.) for God's preserved word. It's not a matter of a lack of faith; in fact, it is because I believe that God has been faithful to preserve His words that I can reconcile this contradiction in the KJV by looking at other sources. I do believe there is a solution; it's just not the same as your solution.[/quote']

Annie, it's so obvious by your posts that you're determined to find contradictions in the King James Bible. There's just one problem with that. The King James Bible IS perfect. It has NO contradictions or errors.

God is not the author of confusion. When He promised to preserve His word, He didn't say that it would be preserved into several different imperfect translations so His people would have to study the original languages to understand it.

[Guest Guest]

Well stated...KJB_Princess. :smile

[Annie]

Here are the seven times the words "was intreated" are used in the KJV. I think it's pretty obvious that these words mean that God "was persuaded," or that He answered the prayer in the affirmative.

Gen. 25:21: And Isaac intreated (active, not passive; means "prayed to") the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

2 Sam. 24:25: And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel. (Interesting that "was intreated" is found in 2 Samuel two out of just eight times in the whole KJ Bible.)

I Chron. 5:20: And they were helped against them, and the Hagarites were delivered into their hand, and all that were with them: for they cried to God in the battle, and he was intreated of them; because they put their trust in him.

2 Chron. 33:13: And prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God.

2 Chron. 33:19: His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sin, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold they are written among the sayings of the seers.

Ezra 8:23 So we fasted and besought our God for this: and he was intreated of us. (Ezra is describing how God answered his prayer by providing horsemen and soldiers for the trip back to Jerusalem.)

Last, the verse in question:
2 Sam. 21:14: And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son buried they in the country of Benjamin in Zelah, in the sepulchre of Kish his father: and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was intreated for the land. (Once David had accomplished what God had told him to do, the famine ended.)

[Annie]

Annie, it's so obvious by your posts that you're determined to find contradictions in the King James Bible. There's just one problem with that. The King James Bible IS perfect. It has NO contradictions or errors.

KJB_Princess, do you think that, just because I do not accept the fallacious arguments of others, "I am determined to find contradictions in the King James Bible"? The fact of the matter is that the explanation that has been given for the famine contradiction simply does not hold water when you really look at the passage in question. It might look good at first, but it is not true to the account given in Scripture.

On the other hand, the explanation that has been given for the "valiant men who drew the sword" is plausible. I agree that those verses do not contradict one another, since round numbers were given, and Seth and Jerry provided other Scriptural examples of armies being divided into "valiant" "not-so-valiant," etc. I promise I'm not being stubborn on this, and I promise that I am not determined to find errors in the KJV. But I also will not accept fallacious reasoning based on a disregarding of what is spelled out in the text.

God is not the author of confusion. When He promised to preserve His word, He didn't say that it would be preserved into several different imperfect translations so His people would have to study the original languages to understand it.

Did He say that it would all be perfectly preserved in one place, in one language, or in JUST one place?

Of course God is not the author of confusion. I don't understand what this quotation has to do with this issue. I'm not confused. Are you? :wink

[JerryNumbers]

I personally do not have much respect for people who make this a huge issue.

I understand you quote quite well. And I have tried to tell you, I make a big issue out of it. I think a few others have tried to tell you this. Is not the quote above your very own words?

Take a look at this message board, seems it is a big issues.


Online Baptist A KJV Site!

A site for Independent, Fundamental Baptist believers to fellowship and uplift our Lord.

What part of the above do you not understand?

The above is posted on nearly every page. Why. Because we make a big deal out of it.

Your good at trying to explain things away, even the KJ Bible as well as what you post.

By the way, here it is in your very own words and below it is a link that will take you or anyone else to your post where the whole thing whole thing can be seen.

<<"I am not KJVO...so, I guess this question doesn't apply to me. I personally do not have much respect for people who make this a huge issue.">>

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23407&p=372786#p372750

I will post this once again, you seem to keep posting as you've never seen it.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2512

Regarding the KJV issue

Postby BroMatt on Sat Dec 06, 2003 12:39 pm
Most of us who devoutly believe and defend the King James Bible are well aware of how "stupid" "ignorant" "backward" "cultic" "unloving" and "narrow minded" we are IN YOUR EYES.

You do not need to tell us again, we heard you the first time and have been hearing you for hundreds of years. The trouble is that we are a loyal and faithful lot finding it difficult to change our stand and beliefs. Even with all of your books, magazines, articles, and posts, you have not given us any evidence, either material or Spiritual, to show that you offer us anything better than what we already have. In fact there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you could even offer us anything as good as we have!

Therefore to listen to your insults, blasphemies, and offers, is a repeat of history and a waste of our time but we thank you for your concern (you did come out of true concern didn't you?) but we are really not interested in your offers.

We will however pray that you come to know and believe in something to the point that you are willing to stand as a true defender of the faith in the face of any and all opposition just as most of us do.

We DO however stand with open invitation to all who come sincerely seeking the truth in the matter of the King James Bible versus the Modern Versions. I don't know of a single KJBible defender who will lie to you or twist History or the Scriptures to make a point. If any do then they have other problems that need dealt with before the Lord and have no fellowship with the true defenders of God's Word.

We ask the seeker to look beneath all the hype and the arguments found in every public KJBible forum, for the devil sends such events to keep you discouraged and in the dark. Be not detoured from your mission of truth, for in the end the Spirit of God will testify to the Spirit in you as to what is true and what is not.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26

Written by Jim Oakley and used by permission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Added 11/05/05

I feel it is time I bring this back up to the top. It seems we go in circles talking about these issues and neither side gets anywhere. It is a waste of my time and yours if you will not listen to answers when they are given. If you do not like our stand that is fine just remember that you are the one who came here to fellowship with us.
Last edited by BroMatt on Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Seems your one of them that Bro. Matt posted this for, especially these parts of it.

It seems we go in circles talking about these issues and neither side gets anywhere.

f you do not like our stand that is fine just remember that you are the one who came here to fellowship with us.

Yes, I understand you very well. your trying to tear down the KJ Bible. If you were not you woudl accept what was said, that is you have and answers, but you want accept them because of your own per-conceived ideas you brought here, probably being that you don't respect people who make a big issue out of the KJ Bible only.

We are not getting no where, so I shall try to keep from posting again in this topic.

[Jerry]

Matthew Henry makes this comment, "The land had not yet recovered the famine under which it smarted three years upon the Gibeonites' account," He was not specifically referring to the seven years mentioned - but this is a good point. The first year after a famine would be a year of growth - but if another famine followed immediately on the heels of that, in a way it would make it one continuous famine, because they would not be able to partake of the fruit, etc. that was growing in the meantime. So even IF the famine was ended at the end of the three years, and then started again within a year of that point, the results would be four years of famine (plus the three other possible years mentioned).

[speerjp1]

Again' date=' this doesn't make sense. Why would the famine still be going on if God said his reason for the famine was that Saul's house had not been scoured? The problem had been taken care of.[/quote']


There is no reason in these passages for assuming that after a few years of a famine, the land was immediately restored to it's previous abundance. Therefore, it should be hard to state emphatically that the famine that was in progress was "over." Famines, especially multi-year famines, are not like light switches that can be turned on and off without affecting drastic change.

Throughout the Bible-- and even as evidenced in our own lives-- the consequences of sin almost always outlast the act itself, even after reconciliation and forgiveness.

[Annie]

There is no reason in these passages for assuming that after a few years of a famine, the land was immediately restored to it's previous abundance.

I agree. I'm not assuming this; I'm simply going by what verse 14 says. Apparently, the famine was "over" enough for the author to note the fact.

Therefore, it should be hard to state emphatically that the famine that was in progress was "over." Famines, especially multi-year famines, are not like light switches that can be turned on and off without affecting drastic change.

Right...but, given the meaning of this passage, the people would see signs that the famine was over. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd imagine there are certain weather and crop conditions that are manifested in a famine. According to verse 14, those conditions were over. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone magically had enough to eat right away. But undoubtedly the signs of the famine abated; the weather changed, the crops began growing, etc. IOW, something obvious happened. Otherwise, the author wouldn't have said in verse 14 that God ended the famine after David fulfilled his duty.

Throughout the Bible-- and even as evidenced in our own lives-- the consequences of sin almost always outlast the act itself, even after reconciliation and forgiveness.

Interesting thought, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. Sure, the people had to work to get back to the place where they had enough food, but they were no longer struggling against a famine imposed by God.

[speerjp1]

Even if the famines were disparate (and I'm not saying they were), the fact that they were in such close historical proximity leaves the door wide open for the idea that the two could be combined both historically and in the totality of the consequences of their choices.

Here is what II Sam. 21:14 actually says:

And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son buried they in the country of Benjamin in Zelah, in the sepulchre of Kish his father: and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was intreated for the land.

Note the absence of the words "famine" or "over" or "ended." You have to read a lot into this passage to get anything like that-- or possibly it could be found in some other text?


It seems that what we have here now amounts to no more than a contradiction that exists only in one's strongly held opinion.

[Annie]

Even if the famines were disparate (and I'm not saying they were)' date=' the fact that they were in such close historical proximity leaves the door wide open for the idea that the two could be combined both historically and in the totality of the consequences of their choices.[/quote']

This would be a stretch, IMO, especially b/c Gad was addressing David, who knew that the previous famine had ended. Nowhere does the text indicate that there was a year (or only a year) in between the time that Saul's house was scoured and the ending of the numbering of Israel. We do know that there was a war--no duration given--and the nine months it took for the census. To say that it was a year would be reading things into the text.



speerjp1, you might have missed my explanation of what "was intreated" means. It's a few posts up. Basically, it means that God heard and answered their prayers for the land. IOW, He ended the famine.



As I've said, I'm only going by what the text says. I'm not reading into it, or adding my own ideas to it. I'm letting it speak for itself. I'm not manipulating facts and numbers to get it to say what I want it to say. I would be willing to change my opinion, just as I did on the "valiant men" point, if someone can show me from Scripture why I should do so.

[speerjp1]

Nowhere does the text indicate that there was a year (or only a year) in between the time that Saul's house was scoured and the ending of the numbering of Israel. We do know that there was a war--no duration given--and the nine months it took for the census. To say that it was a year would be reading things into the text.

That line of reasoning is moot until you prove that the famine ended or even lapsed in the interim. If God's word doesn't tell us how much time passed, we should not be so concerned about it that it would cause us to question his very word. It is vanity.(Titus 3:8-9)

Anyway, I was clearly speaking hypothetically.

speerjp1' date=' you might have missed my explanation of what "was intreated" means. It's a few posts up. Basically, it means that God heard and answered their prayers for the land. IOW, He ended the famine.[/quote']

I didn't miss it. :cooldude:

[Annie]

OK...so we're at an impasse. I believe other Scriptures clearly bear out the fact that "was intreated" means "was persuaded."

[Bakershalfdozen]

From what I understand, the word "seven" in the KJV (and several other translations as well) is directly translated from the Hebrew. If there is a mistake, wouldn't it lie primarily in the Hebrew text rather than in the translations?

My pre-conceived ideas about the Hebrew text aren't allowing me to think in that direction right now. From what I've read about them, the Hebrew Scribes were meticulous copyists. Also, (from what I've read) some translations say "three" because the Septuagint says "three" and the Septuagint says "three" because those translators thought the II Sam. and I Chron. passages should be reconciled.

[Annie]

From what I understand' date=' the word "seven" in the KJV (and several other translations as well) is directly translated from the Hebrew. If there is a mistake, wouldn't it lie primarily in the Hebrew text rather than in the translations? [/quote']

When you say "the Hebrew," what are you referring to?

If this is indeed an error, then that means that somewhere along the line, as scribes copied and recopied and recopied the text, one or more scribes miscopied this word.



Again, I'd be interested to know what you mean by "the Hebrew text." There were soooo many Hebrew copies and revisions of texts, not just one. And, meticulous though they were, the Hebrew scribes were still human, as is evidenced by the variant readings of different Hebrew texts. The Masoretic text itself is a compilation of copies of copies of copies (etc.) made over thousands of years. And there is no evidence that there was just one Masoretic text, as in one "master copy" Masoretic text that included all of the books of the OT. But we do know that there was (is) a "family" of Masoretic texts, which contain variant readings from one another.

[Jerry]

When you say "the Hebrew," what are you referring to?

If this is indeed an error, then that means that somewhere along the line, as scribes copied and recopied and recopied the text, one or more scribes miscopied this word.

If every Hebrew copy has the same reading, then it is not a copyist error, but what God originally said.

Again, I'd be interested to know what you mean by "the Hebrew text." There were soooo many Hebrew copies and revisions of texts, not just one. And, meticulous though they were, the Hebrew scribes were still human, as is evidenced by the variant readings of different Hebrew texts. The Masoretic text itself is a compilation of copies of copies of copies (etc.) made over thousands of years. And there is no evidence that there was just one Masoretic text, as in one "master copy" Masoretic text that included all of the books of the OT. But we do know that there was (is) a "family" of Masoretic texts, which contain variant readings from one another.

There is only one Masoretic text, and it was copied meticulously. The history of the Masoretic scribes showed that they destroyed copies with errors. There are other Hebrew texts - compiled/edited/created within the last hundred or so years - but that is not the Masoretic text.