Jump to content
Website Glitch Read more... ×
Online Baptist

brandplucked

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    921
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

brandplucked last won the day on January 2 2012

brandplucked had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About brandplucked

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

5,133 profile views
  1. Psalm 18:13 "The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; HAIL STONES AND COALS OF FIRE." Bible versions that include the phrase "hail stones and coals of fire" are the Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, Darby, the Jewish translations of 1917 (JPS), 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the 2004 Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, the RV 1881, the ASV 1901, the RSV 1954, World English Bible, the NASB 1995, God's Word 1995, the 2001 ESV, the Names of God Bible 2011, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the NKJV 1982, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010 - "The Highest gave his voice: hailstones and coals of fire.", the Common English Bible of 2011, and The Voice of 2012 (These last two are both new critical text versions - Obviously the "scholars" who make up today's Bible Babble Buffet versions do not agree with each other). Foreign Language Bibles Foreign language translations that include these words are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, the Reina Valera 1602 to 1995 and the 1997 Biblia de las Américas - "Y el Altísimo dió su voz; Granizo y carbones de fuego.", the Italian Diodati of 1649, the Nuova Diodati of 1991 and the Italian Riveduta of 2006 - "l’Altissimo fece udire la sua voce con grandine e con carboni ardenti." as well as the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "e havia saraiva e brasas de fogo." and the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 21 of 2007 - "de la grêle et des charbons de feu.", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Russian Synodal Translation, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia - "mga granizo, at mga bagang apoy. and the Modern Greek Bible (not to be confused with the so called LXX) - "χαλαζα και ανθρακες πυρος." = "hail stones and coals of fire." However the NIV, NRSV 1989, Dan Wallace and company's NET version, and the 2003 Holman Standard omit these words, and then in a footnote tell us that some Hebrew mss. and the LXX omit these words, but they are found in most Hebrew manuscripts. Well, not only are they found in all Hebrew Bibles but they are also found in the ancient Syriac versions too. Also of interest is that the NIV Spanish edition, called Nueva Versión Internacional 1999, put out by the same people who give us the NIV English version (International Bible Society) has included the Hebrew words left out by the NIV English version. It reads: “En el cielo, ENTRE GRANIZOS Y CARBONES ENCENDIDOS, se oyó el trueno del Señor, resonó la voz del Altísimo.” Likewise the NIV French edition, called La Bible du Semeur 1999 (IBS) also includes the Hebrew words omitted by the American NIV. Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 as well as the 1950 Douay contain the Hebrew reading - " and the Highest gave his voice: HAIL AND COALS OF FIRE." BUT then the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible all omitted the words "hail and coals of fire". In fact the New Jerusalem notes that these words ARE in the Hebrew but the Greek omits them. Oh, but wait. They are not done yet. Now in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it puts the Hebrew reading back in again! It now reads: "And the Lord thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice: HAIL AND COALS OF FIRE." Notice too that the previous 1954 RSV included the words; then the NRSV 1989 omitted them, but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV 2001 - “scientifically” put them back in again! This typifies what modern scholars call "the art and science of textual criticism” - which in reality is nothing more than random guesswork and fickle change so they can sell you their late$t and be$t Ver$ion.
  2. You Better Hope Your Surgeon is Not a Modern Versionist - LOINS Loins is not an archaic word. In fact the NKJV, NASB, ESV and NIV all use the word loins, which means the upper and lower abdominal area and the region about the hips. It is a much broader area than just “the waist”. The word LOINS is found in the King James Bible some 61 times. In the Old Testament 53 times and 8 times in the New Testament - Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6 “with a girdle of skin about his loins”; Luke 12:35 “Let your loins be girded about”; Acts 2:30 “of the fruit of his loins”; Ephesians 6:14 “having your loins girded about with truth”; Hebrews 7:5, 10 - “out of the loins of Abraham (of his father)” and in 1 Peter 1:13 “Gird up the loins of your mind, be sober” The NASB uses the word “loins” 45 times with only two of them in the N.T. in Ephesians 6:14 and Hebrews 7:10. However in the ESV this number is down to 14 times with only one N.T. reference in Hebrews 7:10 -“he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.” In the NKJV this number is down to only 13 times, with 8 in the O.T. and 3 in the New Testament - Hebrews 7:5 and 10 and 1 Peter 1:13. And in the NIV this number is reduced to a mere total of 6 times, with none appearing in the New Testament. The NKJV correctly translates the word "loins" in 15 passages, but in many others it changes the meaning of the word into something very different. The NKJV reads "loins" in the following passages: Deuteronomy 33:11 "smite through the loins of them that rise against him" 1 Kings 8:19; 2 Chron. 6:9 "thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins"; 1 Kings 18:46 "he girded up his loins and ran"; Psalm 38:7 "for my loins are filled with a loathsome disease"; Psalm 69:23 "make their loins shake continually"; Isaiah 5:27 “neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed” Isaiah 11:5 “righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins” Isaiah 21:3 "my loins are filled with pain"; Jeremiah 30:6 "every man with his hands on his loins"; Jeremiah 48:37 “and upon the loins sackcloth” Ezekiel 29:7 “and modest all their loins to be at a stand” Hebrews 7:5 "though they come out of the loins of Abraham"; Hebrews 7:10 “(Levi) for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him” and 1 Peter 1:13 "wherefore gird up the loins of your mind". The NKJV correctly contains the phrase "gird up your loins" in 1 Kings 8:19 and 1 Peter 1:13, but in 2 Kings 4:29 where Elisha says to Gehazi "gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thy hand", the NKJV now switches over to "GET YOURSELF READY and take my staff." It also does the same thing in 2 Kings 9:1, Job 38:3; 40:7; and Jeremiah 1:17. Ezekiel 21:6 - 7 "Sigh therefore, thou son of man, with breaking of thy LOINS; and with bitterness sigh before their eyes...every HEART shall melt, and all hands shall be feeble..." The Hebrew word is clearly and indisputably "loins" in 21:6 and a very different word is translated as "heart" in 21:7. "with breaking of thy LOINS" is the reading found in the Bishop's bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Young's, Darby, Douay, Green's "literal" 2000, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Hebrew Names Bible, the Jewish Publication Society version 1917, the Judaica Press Tanach 2005, the KJV 21st century 1994, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 "los lomos", the 1991 Italian Diodati "lombi", Luther's German bible 1545 "Linden", and the Portuguese Almeida "lombos". However, beginning with the liberal RSV and continuing now with the NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and Wallace's NET version, we read of the "aching HEART" or the "breaking HEART" instead of the "loins", but they DO translate the word for "heart" as "heart" in verse 21:7. Even Wallace's NET version and the NASB then tell us in their footnotes that the literal Hebrew is "breaking of LOINS". Another time the NKJV unbelievably joins the NIV and wrongly translates "loins" as "armor". In Isaiah 45:1 the KJB, as well as the NASB, RV, ASV and even the RSV all say: "I will loose the LOINS of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates", but the NKJV and NIV say: "I will loose the ARMOR of kings..." The ESV has “to loose THE BELTS of kings”, while the Holman Standard says “TO DISARM kings” and then footnotes that literally it is “unloosen the loins”. Exodus 1:5 "And all the SOULS that CAME OUT OF THE LOINS of Jacob were seventy SOULS." This is also the reading of the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the NASB. However the NKJV and ESV both say: "All THOSE WHO WERE DESCENDANTS of Jacob were seventy PERSONS." Footnote in NKJV - Literally "who came from the loins of". The NKJV and ESV omit "souls" and unnecessarily changes the literal meaning of the Hebrew. 2 Chronicles 10:10 KJB - "My little finger shall be thicker than my father's LOINS." Loins is the reading of Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Darby, Youngs, the NASB, RV, and ASV, RSV, and NRSV here. The ESV has “my father’s THIGHS”. Dan Wallace's NET version completely paraphrases this as "I am a lot harsher than my father." But the NKJV has again joined the NIV and translated this word here as "my father's WAIST" as it also does in Genesis 37:34; Exodus 12:11; 28:42; 1 Kings 2:5; 1 Kings 12:10; 1 Kings 20:31, 32; 2 Kings 1:8; Job 12:18; Isaiah 32:11; Jeremiah 13:1, 2, 4, 11; Ezekiel 1:27; 8:2; 23:15; 47:4; Daniel 10:5; and Amos 8:10. In other places where the KJB correctly has loins, the NKJV changes this to HIPS - 2 Samuel 20:8; Nehemiah 4:18; Job 40:16; Daniel 5:6; BODY - Genesis 35:11; 46:26; Isaiah 20:2; BACKS - Psalms 66:11; HERSELF - Proverbs 31:17; YOURSELF - Jeremiah 1:17; HEART - Ezekiel 21:6; Job 31:20; BODIES - Ezekiel 44:18, and FLANKS - Nahum 2:10. So much for the accuracy of the NKJV and the false claim that they are just updating the "archaic" language. In the New Testament the word loins (osphus) occurs 8 times. The NKJV has correctly translated this word as loins only 3 of the 8 times it occurs. They correctly have loins in Hebrews 7:5,10 and 1 Peter 1:13. However, in both Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6 where John the Baptist is described as having a leathern girdle about his loins, the NKJV says he had a leather belt around his WAIST. In Luke 12:35 where the Lord tells us: "Let your loins be girded about", the NKJV changes this to "waist". The same thing occurs in Ephesians 6:14 "having your loins girt about with truth" becomes " having girded your WAIST with truth" in the NKJV. In Acts 2:30 we are told of David: "knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of THE FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne", but the NKJV changes this to "of the fruit of his BODY". There is a different Greek word used for "body" (soma) but this is not it. The Greek here is all texts is "of the fruit of his loins" (ek karpou tees osphuos autou) and so read the KJB, RV, ASV, Lamsa, Darby, Douay, Third Millennium Bible, Green's literal translation, Young's, Tyndale and Geneva Bibles. However the NASB and NIV join the RSV, ESV, and ISV (International Standard Version) in completely paraphrasing this as "ONE OF HIS DESCENDANTS". 1 Peter 1:13 KJB - “Wherefore GIRD UP THE LOINS OF YOUR MIND, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” - (τας οσφυας της διανοιας υμων) So read Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Bishops’ bible, the Geneva bible, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the NKJV 1982 and the New Matthew Bible 2016. But many modern versions completely paraphrase this and do not give us a literal translation of what God inspired. The NASB says “PREPARE YOUR MINDS FOR ACTION” but then footnotes that it Literally says “gird the loins of your mind”. The ESV is similar to the NASB with: “PREPARING YOUR MINDS FOR ACTION”. The NIV even omits the verb and says: “WITH MINDS THAT ARE ALERT” and so does the Holman Standard with: “WITH YOUR MINDS READY FOR ACTION” Let's hope your surgeon knows the difference between these two very different parts of the human body, even though some modern versionists do not. To see the whole article - Better Hope Your Surgeon is Not a Modern Versionist" with MANY body parts examples like this where the modern versions are wild paraphrases go here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/surgeonmodernversion.htm
  3. brandplucked

    Contradiction??? Little help?

    Another King James Bible BelieverHi saints. I hope this is of some help in solving this apparent contradiction. How Old Was Ahaziah, 22 or 42? King James Bible - 2 Chronicles 22:2 "FORTY AND TWO years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem..." 2 Kings 8:26 - "TWO AND TWENTY years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem..." ESV, NIV, NASB, NET - 2 Chronicles 22:2 "Ahaziah was TWENTY-TWO years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem." The simple solution to this apparent contradiction is that Ahaziah was physically 22 years old when he began to reign, but since God has appointed Jehu to cut off the house of Ahab, as a son of Ahab through marriage, he was 42 years old. The information is all there in the texts, and we will look at it in a moment. We just have to put it together. But it is not an error in the Hebrew texts. This is an apparent contradiction that frequently is thrown in the face of Christians who believe we have an inspired Bible. Many Atheist, Islam and Bible debunker sites bring up this example. Sad to say, most of the “Christian” apologetic sites which promote the new bible versions cave in here and say the number 42 is a copyist error. Here is a typical response by those Christians who use and promote the modern versions. This one comes from Techtonics Apologetics. This “defender of the faith” answers: “ Was Ahaziah forty-two or twenty-two (per 2 Kings 8:26) when he ascended the throne? More likely 22, and 2 Chronicles has been hit by a copyist error. See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background. In favor of the "22" reading in 2 Chronicles: The 2 Kings reading; some LXX and Syriac manuscripts. This typical Christian response is not limited to this one example, but in many objections brought up by the infidels or the curious, this same rote answer is given - "There is a copyist error". There is a typo in God’s book. The skeptics laugh and the modern version proponent looks like a fool. 2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Jerome's Vulgate 382 A.D., Clementine Vulgate, the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company bible 1936, Douay 1950, the RSV 1952, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the New English Bible 1970, the Amplified Version 1987, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, The New Jewish Version 1985, the NRSV 1989, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Koster Scriptures 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The World English Bible 2012, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014. Foreign Language Bibles Luther's German Bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera Bible 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, and the Reina Valera Contemporánea of 2011 "Ocozías tenía cuarenta y dos años de edad cuando comenzó a reinar", the NIV Spanish translation of 1994 and 1999 !!! -"Tenía cuarenta y dos años cuando ascendió al trono". You can see the NIV Spanish edition of 1999 here and confirm it for yourself. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2022:2&version=NVI the Traducción en lenguage actual 2000, the Italian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta 1927 and the Nuovo Diodati 1991, and the Nuova Riveduta of 2008 - "Achaziah aveva quarantadue anni quando iniziò a regnare", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Achazia avait quarante-deux ans lorsqu'il devint roi", Portuguese Almeida Corrigida Bible 2009 "Tinha quarenta e dois anos quando começou a ruiner ", the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Catholic Connection In typical "Bible Agnostic" fashion, the "infallible" Catholic church has come out with several different versions which contain several different numbers. The older Douay-Rheims Bible of 1610 and the Douay Version 1950 say in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old. But in 1968 the Catholic Jerusalem bible was published and it says Ahaziah was TWENTY YEARS OLD! Then in 1970 the St. Joseph New American Bible came out and it says that he was TWENTY-TWO years old like the modern NASB, NIV, ESVs. But then again in 1985 and again in 2009 the New Jerusalem Bible and the Catholic Public Domain versions have now gone back to the Hebrew reading that Ahaziah was FORTY-TWO years old when he began to reign. The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old. The Masoretic scribes were very scrupulous in copying their sacred trust. No word or number was written from memory but each word was carefully checked before he recopied it. The copies were checked and checked again and if there were a single error, the whole was discarded and new one begun. God promised to preserve His words. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. When our Lord mentions the jots and tittles He is speaking of the Hebrew language. The King James Bible Old Testament is solely based on the Hebrew text. All modern versions depart from the Hebrew text in numerous places. Versions like the NIV, ESV, Holman Standard and Daniel Wallace's NET version even tell you this in their footnotes. The NASB rejects the Hebrew text in at least 40 places too, but it doesn't let you know this. You have to consult other versions and compare them to find this out. Here are many examples of where modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman often reject the Hebrew readings and follow something else or just plain make them up out of thin air. http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew2.htm The NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, Wallace's NET version the Message 2002 and the NIVs English versions change the number 42 to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. The NIV, NET, and Holman Standard footnote says: "Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac read 22; the Hebrew says 42". Yet the NIV Spanish translation (Nueva Versión Internacional) of 1994 clearly reads 42 years old - cuarenta y dos años. The Septuagint version I have says 20 years old, not 22 nor 42. Not only do the NASB and NIV English edition, ESV, NET and Message change the Hebrew text here and say 22 rather than 42, but so also do Young's, Darby's, the Bible in Basic English, the Living Bible, the Holman Standard 2003, and the New Living translation. There is a solution to this apparent contradiction. Sad to say, almost every Bible commentator I consulted caves in at this point and tells the reader that a scribal error has been made in all the hundreds of Hebrew copies. This is why I do not trust any Bible commentary as my final authority. What one commentator affirms another one just as adamantly denies. The Geneva Bible The Geneva Bible offers a very basic and simple solution to this apparent contradiction. It may well be the answer. Here it is - Comparing 2 Kings 8:25 "In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. (26) Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. The Geneva Bible Notes simply says: "Which is to be understood, that he was made king when his father reigned, but after his father's death he was confirmed king when he was forty two years old, as in 2 Chronicles 22:2" A couple of Bible commentators I found offer a reasonable explanation of the two passages without calling into question the Hebrew texts. One is Dr. Lightfoot and the other is Matthew Poole . Dr. Lightfoot says: " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign - Compare 2 Kings 8:26. According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the twenty-second year of his age, and, according to this, in the forty-second year of the kingdom of his mother's family." Matthew Poole, Bible commentator, says: - "Of the reign of that royal race and family from which by his mother he was descended, to wit, of the house of Omri,...all which, put together, make up exactly these forty-two years; for Ahaziah began his reign in Joram's-twelfth year, 2 Kings viii. 25. And such a kind of computation of the years, not of the king's person, but of his reign or kingdom, we had before, chap, xvi. 1, where see the notes. And so we have an account of the person's age in 2 Kings viii. 26, and here of the kingdom to which he belonged." Bullinger's Companion Bible also agrees that the Hebrew text reading of 42 years old in 2 Chronicles 22:2 is correct and his interpretation is similar to the one I offer. He says in his notes: "Forty and two years old = a son of forty-two years: i.e. of the house of Omri, on account of his connection with it through his mother. In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah's actual age (twenty-two years) is given when he began to reign during the two years of his father's disease." Here is a similar explanation from Dr. Lawrence Bednar at KJB Textual Technology. Was Ahaziah 42 Years Old or 22 Years Old When He Began to Reign in Judah? http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/ahaziahs-age-when-he-began-to-rule-22-years-or-42.php Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab. Ahab was the king of Israel, not of Judah. But Ahaziah was related to Ahab by marriage because his father Jehoram who "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 21:6. Likewise in 2 Kings 8:16-18 we read of Jehoram, the father of Ahaziah, that "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." And of his son Ahaziah, just a few verses later in 2 Kings 8:26-27 we read: "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER OF OMRI (father of Ahab) king of Israel. And HE WALKED IN THE WAY OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, AS DID THE HOUSE OF AHAB; FOR HE WAS SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Here we clearly see that Ahaziah is considered by God to be related to the house of Ahab and he walked in the way of the house of Ahab. In 2 Chronicles 22:7 we read: "And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against JEHU the son of Nimshi, WHOM THE LORD HAD ANOINTED TO CUT OFF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." To repeat, Ahaziah was son-in-law of the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 8:26 -27 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER (grand-daughter) OF OMRI KING OF ISRAEL. And HE WALKED IN THE WAY OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE WAS THE SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Ahaziah is counted as a son-in-law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself. Ahaziah was thus related by marriage to the house of Ahab through the marriage of his father with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab. When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab. Ahaziah could not have been 42 years old biologically, because his father was only 40 years old when Ahaziah became king (See 2 Chron. 21:20 - 2 Chron. 22:2 ). "Jehoram (the father of Ahaziah) was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired...and the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead...Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign". For a man to become a father at the age of 18 is very likely, but for a son to be born two years earlier than his father is not. The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab who reigned for 22 years and his son Jehoram was in his twelfth and final year at the time Ahaziah began to reign. 22 + 12 = 34. This would be the house of Ahab on the king's of Israel side. When we look at the house of Ahab on the king's of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah's father. Jehoram "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, LIKE AS DID THE HOUSE OF AHAB: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 21:6. 22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a the youngest and most recent member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab over both Israel and Judah. Ahab's other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram, does not come into consideration because his two year reign was overlapped on both sides by that of his father and of his brother. So the actual number of years the house of Ahab is in power is not affected or changed by his two year reign - his first year as co-regent to his father Ahab, and the second by his brother Jehoram, kings of Israel. The actual number of years the house of Ahab is in power is 42 years when we finally get to Ahaziah king of Judah, who himself was son in law of the house of Ahab and walked in the evil ways of the house of Ahab. The two years of Ahaziah, Ahab's son, are overlapped on one side by Ahab his father and on the other by Jehoram his brother. 1 Kings 22:41 tells us that "Jehosaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel." Ahab reigned for 22 years, so at the time Jehosaphat begins to reign, Ahab has 18 more years to go as king of Israel. When Ahab goes out to battle the Syrians, his son Ahaziah is made co-regent and remains in Samaria while his father goes to battle. 1 Kings 22:51 tells us "Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel." The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab's 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle. So Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign in Samaria. However this same Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him.(See 2 Kings 1:2) 2 Kings 3:1 tells us: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years." Notice that Ahaziah (Ahab's son) began to reign in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat's 18th year. We see that Ahaziah was co-regent to his father Ahab for one year and Jehoram, his brother, was co-regent to Ahaziah for one year during his sickness. Looked at in this way, his two year reign is overlapped by both that of his father and of his brother. We are left then with the 22 years of Ahab, 12 years of Jehoram of Ahab and the additional 8 years of Jehoram of Judah which again totals 42 years of reign till the time of Ahaziah of Judah. Ahab's reign of 22 years does not overlap the 12 years of his son Jehoram. Likewise the one year of Ahaziah, king of Judah, does not overlap the reign of his father Jehoram. 2 Chronicles tells us that the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest sons, so the only one left to sit on the throne was the youngest son, Ahaziah. The house of Ahab was then cut off by Jehu when he killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Athaliah, that wicked queen, destroyed the rest of the seed royal of the house of Judah, except the baby Joash who was stolen away and hid for six years while Athaliah reigned. The continuous reign of successive "sons" (including son in law) of the house of Ahab ceased with the death of Jehoram and Ahaziah. The central issue in all this is simply - How long was the combined reign of "the house of Ahab" over the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah? The answer is 42 years when Ahaziah began to reign. There is no error in either the Hebrew texts nor in all the Reformation bibles and many others even in modern times that tell us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram. The new version editors like Gleason Archer, and many Christian apologetic web sites say, “This is a scribal error.” They are clearly wrong and are guilty of unbelief and using human reasoning when dealing with the infallible words of the living God. I believe God has preserved his words without error, and we have those inspired words today in the King James Bible. Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm Floyd Nolan Jones in his Chronology of the Old Testament also writes about the age of Ahaziah and defends the Hebrew text. His explanation is very much like the one I have offered in this article. You can see it here. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZkBasQYRy4sC&pg=PA139 Since writing this article defending the Hebrew Masoretic text and the King James Bible, another Bible believer sent me a link to a very good article dealing with this apparent contradiction, and I have contacted the man who wrote it. He does a very good job of defending the Book and gives a good explanation of how to put it all together. You can see his article at this site: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/ahaziah-contradiction.pdf
  4. brandplucked

    Stop Lying About It!

    Hi guys. I understand your points and your clarification was needed, because the way he phrased the question "in your inerrant Bible" it certainly sounded like so many other bible agnostics I hear from. And, Yes, I did post the response on Facebook. In any event, I will be happy to edit out the parts you object to. I hope that the brother who asked the question is really a King James Bible believer and not a modern perversion promoter. God bless.
  5. brandplucked

    Stop Lying About It!

    Matthew 2:23 and Bible Mockers A professing Bible believer at a Christian forum writes: “With your infallible Bible could you please tell me who these prophets were and list chapters and verses so I can mark the references? Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by THE PROPHETS, He shall be called a Nazarene.” My response - This is not just an issue with the King James Bible but with ALL Bibles. They all say the same thing in Matthew 2:23. There IS a reasonable way to explain this verse. First, it should be pointed out that there is no specific prophet mentioned here, as there are in many other Scriptural references. So, what is Matthew referring to when he is writing his gospel account under the inspiration of God? I think it is actually pretty easy to explain. The Explanation. “A Nazarene” was a well known term of contempt. Those living in this region were in close contact with the vile Gentiles referred to as dogs. We see this in places like John 1:46. “And Nathanael said unto him (Philip), Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.” And in John 7:52 - “They (the Pharisees) answered and said unto him (Nicodemus), Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” And Luke 4:16 to 30 describe the reaction of those in the hometown of Nazareth reacted to the Lord Jesus when he began his public ministry. Jesus goes into the synagogue and reads a section of Scripture from the book of Isaiah, and then tells the people “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” And what was the reaction of the people from Nazareth? Jesus said that “No prophet is accepted in his own country.” (Luke 4:24). “And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way. Even later in the book of Acts we see this association of Nazareth (the town where Jesus was brought up) as a term of contempt that was used against the apostle Paul, when the Jews are seeking his death before the governor Felix. “For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5) What we see it that to be called a Nazarene was a term of contempt, and this is what we see foretold by several Old Testament prophets concerning their promised Messiah. “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake their head” (Psalms 22:6-7) “I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them.” (Psalms 69:11) “Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee.” (Psalms 69:19) “Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers…” (Isaiah 49:7) “and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him: he is despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:2-3) This understanding of what the verse means when it says “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” is nothing new or unique. Several Bible commentators have offered this same explanation. Matthew Henry - “As a name of reproach and contempt. To be called a Nazarene, was to be called a despicable man, a man from whom no good was to be expected, and to whom no respect was to be paid. The devil first fastened this name upon Christ, to render him mean, and prejudice people against him, and it stuck as a nickname to him and his followers. Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:2, 3), a Worm, and no man (Ps. 22:6, 7), that he should be an Alien to his brethren Ps. 69:7, 8. Let no name of reproach for religion's sake seem hard to us, when our Master was himself called a Nazarene.” John Lightfoot’s Bible Commentary - “Matthew may be understood concerning the outward, humble, and mean condition of our Saviour. And that by the word, Nazarene, he hints his separation and estrangement from other men, as a despicable person, and unworthy of the society of men.” “Therefore, by the signification of an angel, he is sent away into Galilee, a very contemptible country, and into the city Nazareth, a place of no account: whence, from this very place, and the name of it, you may observe that fulfilled to a tittle which is so often declared by the prophets, that the Messias should be Nazor, a stranger, or separate from men, as if he were a very vile person, and not worthy of their company.” B. W. Johnson’s Bible Commentary - “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. Not by one prophet, but the summing up of a number of prophecies. No prophet had declared in express terms that he should be called a Nazarene. They, however, did apply to Christ the term Nezer, from which Nazareth is derived… the meanness and contempt in which Nazareth was held was itself a prophecy of one who "was despised and rejected." Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “The little town of Nazareth, mentioned neither in the Old Testament nor in JOSEPHUS, was probably so called from its insignificance: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree; and a special contempt seemed to rest upon it--"Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46) --over and above the general contempt in which all Galilee was held, from the number of Gentiles that settled in the upper territories of it, and, in the estimation of the Jews, debased it. Thus, in the providential arrangement by which our Lord was brought up at the insignificant and opprobrious town called Nazareth, there was involved, first, a local humiliation; next, an allusion to Isaiah's prediction of His lowly, twig-like upspringing from the branchless, dried-up stump of Jesse; and yet further, a standing memorial of that humiliation which "the prophets," in a number of the most striking predictions, had attached to the Messiah.” McGarvey and Pendleton Bible Commentary - “That he should be called a Nazarene. The Hebrew word "netzer" means "branch" or "sprout". It is used figuratively for that which is lowly or despised (Isaiah 17:9; Ezekiel 15:1-6; Malachi 4:1). Now, Nazareth, if derived from "netzer", answered to its name, and was a despised place (John 1:45-46), and Jesus, though in truth a Bethlehemite, bore the name Nazarene because it fitly expressed the contempt of those who despised and rejected him.” The King James Bible is right, as always, and this Bible Mocker is wrong, as they always are.
  6. brandplucked

    Before the KJV

    Hi Sword. What you have there in "the" Hebrew is Jay P. Green's own, personal translation. Jay Green did NOT believe several readings in the particular TR that underlies the KJB were inspired Scripture. He did not believe 1 John 5:7 was inspired. How does, not Green, but the Hebrew text you have there read in Psalms 22:16 where the KJB says "they pierced my hands and my feet"? How do you reconcile the two different ages of Jehoiachin in the Hebrew text? How Old Was Jehoiachin, 8 or 18? 2 Chronicles 36:9 KJB (ESV 2001 edition) - "Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days." 2 Kings 24:8 KJB - "Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months." And regarding that Greek copy you show here, it looks like it is the Scrivener text of 1894, right? Are you aware that NO Bible in any language and NO other Greek New Testament read the same way in many places before 1894? Do you know how Scrivener came up with his Greek text? So, what exactly was this " preserved Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW." BEFORE this particular Greek text by Scrivener that you show us here?
  7. brandplucked

    Before the KJV

    Hi Scott. You tell us: " I DO with conviction believe that the Lord our God HAS preserved His Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW. I DO believe with conviction (even if you do not believe me, and prefer to call me a "liar") that the Lord our God has so preserved His Holy Word in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and the Greek of the Received text." Scott, again, I do not believe you. It looks like you are more of a Greekophile than a King James Bible believer. I am not ignorant of the textual issues. So, my question (which I think you are going to dodge) is WHICH "the" Greek Received text do you believe is the complete and inerrant New Testament that (according to you) is this "preserved Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW."??? Was there an inerrant Bible in English before the King James Bible? If so, which one was it? And Scott, there is no such animal as "the" Received Text. The Textus Receptus has had over 25 revisions, all varying from one another. No absolute definition of the TR actually exists... A few of these revisions are: 1516 - Erasmus' first edition 1519 - Erasmus' second edition - More than 400 changes from the first edition 1522 - Erasmus' third edition - More than 100 changes from his second edition 1527 - Erasmus' fourth edition - More than 100 alterations of the third edition, 90 of them in Revelation 1546 - Stephanus's first edition 1549 - Stephanus's second edition - more than 60 changes from the Stephanus's first edition 1550 - Stephanus's third edition - Includes varient readings in the margins 1551 - Stephanus's fourth edition - The first time the text is divided into numbered verses 1565-1604 - Beza's eleven editions - Minor changes in Stephanus's text. All of Beza's editions vary somewhat from Stephanus's and from each other 1624 Elziver edition - You can see it online here - https://www.bible.com/bible/182/mat.1.tr1624 1633 - Elziver's second edition - First called the Textus Receptus (22 years after the publication of the KJV) 1650 - Elziver's third edition - Differs from the second edition in about 287 places In addition, the TR that is used today (published by the Trinitarian Bible Society) is not identical to any of the references above, but is an "eclectic" text that draws its readings from different sources. The modern day TR that underlies the King James Bible can be called “a variety of the Textus Receptus” Scott, you can show us a copy of what you say is this inerrant Bible you believe in because all these things in their various forms are on the internet. I can show you a copy of my inerrant Bible. You can see it here at this site https://www.biblegateway.com
  8. brandplucked

    Stop Lying About It!

    Stop Lying About It! Why do so many Christians today continue to LIE about what they really believe about “the Bible”? For example, James White SAYS he believes The Bible IS the infallible words of God. I asked him this question personally on his radio program. But when I asked Mr. White where we can see a copy of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES to believe in, he immediately changes the subject. The simple fact is this - When James White, and others like him, says "I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God" he is not referring to a real, tangible, in print, hold it in your hands and read Book at all. He is referring to a mythical, imaginary, hypothetical, invisible and non-existent, phantom "bible" that he has never seen, does not have and certainly cannot give to anybody else. In other words, he is professing a fantasy faith in a Fantasy Bible. And then he thinks we King James Bible believers who have a real Bible printed on paper between two covers we can actually hold in our hands and give to anybody that asks to see it are "a cult", and even heretics. In his way of thinking, those of us who confess faith in a tangible, preserved, and inerrant Bible are "heretics" and "cultic", but people like him who LIE when they say they believe the Bible IS (as though it really exists) the infallible words of God" are somehow "Orthodox". Actually, the polls show that there are many who, at least privately in an anonymous poll, are beginning to be more honest about their beliefs and admit that they do NOT believe “The Bible IS the inerrant words of God”. See the documented facts for this here: “The Bible is NOT the infallible words of God” - http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm God is a God of truth and He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and we His people are supposed to speak truth one with another. “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: (Eph. 4:25) God says in His word - “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight.” Proverbs 12:22 God’s word also tells us that the last days will be characterized by LYING. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (Yea, hath God said...?) SPEAKING LIES IN HYPOCRISY...” 1 Timothy 4:1-2 If you go to almost any Christian website or Church home page they tell you what they supposedly believe about “The Bible”. You will usually read words to the effect of “We believe the Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.” Notice their use of a present tense verb “is” as though it were something that EXISTS now. However, if you press them about it, you soon come to find out they are not talking about any real or tangible “hold it in your hands, read and believe every word is true” type of Bible. No, they don’t really believe such a thing exists. Then they begin their backtracking, Double-Speak Dance by saying something like “Oh well, only the originals ARE inspired and inerrant.” Well, my Christian friend, there ARE no originals and everybody knows it. Two such prominent Liars and "highly respected men in the Christian Community" are James White and Daniel Wallace. Both men profess to believe "The Bible IS the infallible words of God." But if you ask either of them where we can get a copy of this inspired and inerrant words of God Bible they SAY they believe in, they will NEVER tell us. See 'James White - the Protestant Pope of the New Vatican Versions" here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/jameswhiteppopevv.htm Likewise Daniel Wallace, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and main creator of the well known NET version, has written an article called "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today”. See my rebuttal to his article here. http://brandplucked.webs.com/danwallacenut.htm The very first thing Dan Wallace says in his article where he criticizes the King James Bible is: “First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD, INERRANT, INSPIRED AND OUR FINAL AUTHORITY FOR FAITH AND LIFE.” Notice that Dan Wallace is using a present tense verb here - IS - when he professes to believe The Bible IS the word of God, inerrant, inspired and our final authority." Sounds great, right? So where IS this inerrant Bible he piously professes to believe in? A little later in this same article Dan Wallace writes - "NO TRANSLATION IS INFALLIBLE”. Wait a minute. What's going on here? At this point it behooves us to ask Dan Wallace and James White and others like them, WHERE exactly IS this "inerrant and inspired Bible" you guys piously PROFESS to believe in? Do you perhaps have an UN-translated Bible in “the original languages” of Hebrew and Greek that you can show us that you honestly believe IS the inspired and infallible words of God? Not a chance. They will NEVER actually SHOW you this inerrant Bible they SAY they believe in, and they know they can't. In simple, biblical words, folks, they are lying. Ad hominem At this point in the argument I usually hear from other "Bible agnostics" (they don't know for sure what God may or may not have written) and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible in ANY language comments like - "Hey, you're using "ad hominem" arguments and I'm not going to listen to you." The fancy Latin words "ad hominem" simply mean "against the man" and are usually used by those who cannot answer your arguments to mean "You are attacking the man and not his arguments" and it is appealing to a person's feelings and prejudices rather than his intellect. I think this whole "ad hominem" argument that has infected much of the professing Christian church today and people resort to calling you when they can't win the argument is nothing more than carnal, humanistic, worldly philosophy that turns men into wimps. The Bible itself, the prophets, the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ would ALL be accused by today's compromising, "tolerant" Christians as being guilty of "ad hominem". "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...ye shall receive the greater damnation." Matthew 23:14 "Ye fools and blind" Matthew 23:19 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Matthew 23:33 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." John8:44 "Go ye, and tell that FOX, Behold, I cast out devils..." Luke 13:32 (Jesus speaking of Herod) "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:8 "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption." 2 Peter 2:12 (Peter speaking of the false prophets that would enter the church) "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber." Isaiah 56:10 "The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." Titus 12-13 "...thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Revelation 2:2 Note - After I wrote this article a brother posted an interesting article called The Virtue of Name Calling. The man uses one of the modern bible versions in his article, but what he says is right on. See his article here - http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=8 In the ongoing discussion about the Bible Version issue many Christians come up with an empty and meaningless statement like the one found in the well known Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. See http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm “Translations of Scripture ARE the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” Pious sounding statements like this are absurdly hypocritical on several levels. First of all, they have never seen a single word of these originals a day in their lives and the originals never did make up a 66 books in one volume Bible to begin with. Secondly, it is absurd to affirm that "translations are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original", when they HAVE no original to compare ANY translation to! So how could they possibly know if what they have come up with at their Bible of the Month Club “represents the original” or not? They try to give you the impression that they have “the originals” or a copy of them right there in front of them and they’re looking to see if their “late$t and be$t ver$ion” matches the originals or not. THEY ARE LYING. To take the position of “ONLY the originals ARE inspired and inerrant” is to leave the Christian with no inerrant Bible NOW, and there is no getting around this obvious truth. A far more honest “statement of inerrancy” based on what they really believe (and most other Christians today too) would go something like this: “IF the originals had survived and WOULD HAVE BEEN placed into a single volume consisting of 66 inspired books, THEN THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant and 100% historically true Bible we could have believed in. Unfortunately God did not do it this way and so we just have to do the best we can with what we have and nobody is really sure about or in total agreement with everybody else about what any particular reading or text might be. So, go with God and hope for the best.” Even AFTER I pointed these things out to a Christian man named Matthew, he came back with this statement: “I believe the originals are inerrant and I believe the stream and transmission we have is the best we can expect. I do not see any reason to assume error as we continue to strive forward we have more access to affirming a bible as close to the originals as possible.” He still doesn’t get it, does he. There ARE no originals, so how could he possibly know he is “close to the originals as possible” or not? By the way, this Matthew also posted that he “likes” the NKJV, the NASB and the ESV. Apparently he is either unaware or “sees no reason to assume error” in the fact that among these three modern versions they differ textually by literally thousands of words, including numerous whole verses, and a couple of them reject scores of Hebrew readings, and hundreds of verses have completely different meanings. Matthew also tells us that he thinks Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7 don’t really belong in the Bible, but he still maintains that he “sees no reason to assume error.” Does this modern day Christian’s lackadaisical attitude toward the words of the living God look anything like what we see in the Bible of those “that tremble at His word”? (Isaiah 66:5) All I am asking for is more honesty from folks when it comes to saying what they REALLY believe about the Bible. I, along with thousands of other Christians, am a King James Bible believer. We do not have to LIE when we say we believe the King James Bible IS the complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God. That is what we really believe. You do not have to agree with us on this. You may think we are completely wrong, ignorant, uneducated, “divisive”, the spawn of Satan, a “Cult” or what seems to be even worse - a Ruckmanite :-0 But at least we tell you what we really believe and are not LYING ABOUT IT. By the way, this same Matthew posted a poll called “Is KJV onlyism a cult”. It seems more than a tad ironic that in his mind Christians who actually believe their Bible IS the inerrant words of God belong to a Cult, but apparently those who don’t believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS inerrant are now considered to be “Orthodox”. We do live in interesting times, don’t we. It is comments like these when they call us Bible believers "a cult" or "idolaters" that caused me to write an article called Are King James Bible believers "Idolaters"? If interested, you can see it here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbsidolaters.htm IF you are an “originals only” type of Christian who believes that ONLY the originals ARE/were inspired and inerrant, and that “No translation is perfect”, then just say so. Be honest about it. But don’t stand in the pulpit or write on your blog things like “We believe the Bible IS the inerrant words of God”, when you have no such Bible anywhere in print to give to anyone, and you know you don’t. STOP LYING ABOUT IT! If you are an “originals only” type of Christian with a non-existent, hypothetical “word of God” and all you can hope for is an ever changing, evolving, ballpark approximation to what you think God may or may not have written (though none of you agree even among yourselves), then just say so. Go ahead with your “I believe only the originals were inspired and inerrant” and leave it at that. It is good that you say “The Bible contains the truth that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead and those that believe on Him shall receive forgiveness of sins.” We believe that too and want it preached. But don’t use pious sounding words or religious phrases like “the Bible IS infallible” or “the Scriptures ARE the inerrant words of God” when you don’t really believe it for a second. STOP LYING ABOUT IT! “Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.” Isaiah 66:5 Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
  9. brandplucked

    Before the KJV

    Hi Scott Markle. You are still not answering my question. Can you SHOW US A COPY of this complete and inerrant words of God Bible you say you believe in? Yes or No? To help you better understand my position on this issue, may I recommend you read my article Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? If you think there was, or is now, in ANY language, then simply answer the question and show it to us. http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm God bless.
  10. brandplucked

    Before the KJV

    Scott Markie says: "YES, absolutely, I believe that the Lord our God both has promise and has been faithful unto His promise to preserve His pure and holy Word in the original languages of their originally inspired authorship, that is -- in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and the original Greek for the New Testament. I believe that those pure and preserved words are to be found in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Received text of the Greek New Testament." Hi Scott. Two things. You did not answer my question, and I don't believe you. There IS NO original Hebrew or Greek, and you know there isn't. You are confessing a faith in a Phantom bible that you not only have never seen (and probably could not read even if you had it) but in something that YOU KNOW DOES NOT EXIST. I asked you if you can SHOW ME a copy of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in. You did not do that. All you did was give me some vague, ballpark approximation of what you think may be the complete and inerrant words of God, and they are in languages that most people in this world can't even read. All modern versionists maintain that "the" Hebrew text (there is no such animal) has been corrupted in many places, and as far as 'the' Received Text, again, there is no such animal. Two questions. Can you show me a copy of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in? Yes or No? Do you believe that any English bible is inerrant? If not, which one do you think comes the closest? Thank you.
  11. Hi Scott Markle. Thank you for your comments and criticism. I do disagree with you about your understanding of who and what the seed is. You state: "Furthermore, I would contend that your use of Matthew 13:25, 39 to explain Genesis 3:15 is also faulty. In Genesis 3:15 the "seed" is specifically described as the seed of a woman. However, in Matthew 13:25, 39 the "seed" is specifically described as the seed of some plant-crops. These two forms of "seed" are in no manner equivalent. Therefore, Matthew 13:25, 39 is not a legitimate passage of explanation for Genesis 3:15." Matthew 13 is NOT just talking about some "plant crops". It specifically refers to the two different seeds planted by the Sower and others by the devil. As I stated - Here we read of two different seeds. There are the children of the devil and the children of God. See Matthew 13:25, 39. Christ sowed good seed in his field. The good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the enemy who is the devil sowed tares and these are the children of the wicked one. Compare Galatians 3:16 and 29. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Abraham's seed is both Christ and His people. God calls his people "the planting of the LORD" (Isaiah 61:) and "the branch of my planting, the work of my hands" (Isaiah 59:21) And we are called "God's husbandry" 1 Cor. 3:9 All of God's elect from Adam to the last saint saved are God's planting and his seed. Christ is the head of his people, and we are in him. Anyway, that is how I understand the passage. You, of course, are entitled to see it differently. I am not going to die on this mountain. There are lots of things I do not understand about God's words. God bless.
  12. Genesis 3:15 - "IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." In this 7 minute video, Bible corrector John Ankerberg and some “expert” criticize the King James Bible and tell us that the translators of the King James Bible were “being chicken” for not using the third-person singular pronoun "he" instead of "it" in Genesis 3:15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRjZWvHEk_0&app=desktop Are they right? Of course not. They are missing an important truth found in the King James Bible, but they are just too dull to see it. The great promise of Genesis 3:15 has been altered in many versions. God speaks to the serpent whom He had just cursed and says: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; IT shall BRUISE thy head, and thou shalt BRUISE his heel." Here we read of two different seeds. There are the children of the devil and the children of God. See Matthew 13:25, 39. Christ sowed good seed in his field. The good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the enemy who is the devil sowed tares and these are the children of the wicked one. In the KJB the seed that will bruise the serpent's head is referred to as IT. Why is this? I believe it is because the seed refers not only to Christ but also to His people who will bruise the head of Satan. Christ is the seed, but we are also in Christ and are the promised seed as well. Compare Galatians 3:16 and 29. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Abraham's seed is both Christ and His people. The clincher is Romans 16:20, but it has been messed up in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT. In the King James Bible we read: "And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." The KJB has "bruise" in both Genesis 3:15 and in Romans 16:20, thus tying the two verses together. But the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT have changed "bruise" to "crush" in Romans 16:20 and thus obscure this connection. We also read a related promise to the saints of God in Psalm 91:13 "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet." We read of the enmity of Satan with the seed of the woman in Revelation 12:17 "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." In Genesis 3:15 the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Holman, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT, the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 unite in changing the seed being referred to as "IT" to "HE" thus limiting it to only Christ. The Catholic Douay version 1950 and the Work of God's Children Bible 2011 have "SHE shall bruise your head", probably referring to Mary. While the New English Bible 1970, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Revised English Bible 1989 and The New Jewish Version 1985 have "THEY shall bruise your head", which would also include the saints of God. The “they” can be seen as to include both the promised Messiah and His seed together who will bruise Satan. Dan Wallace and company have translated Genesis 3:15 this way: "And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; HER OFFSPRING will attack your head, and you will attack HER OFFSPRING'S heel." This translation also allows the inclusion of both the Christ and His people." The Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 translated it as: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed; THAT SEED shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise HIS heel." Even those who criticize the King James Bible (none of whom believes that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God) will at least admit that the Hebrew text can be translated as "IT." Tyndale 1534, Matthew's Bible 1549, God's First Truth 1999, the Jubilee Bible 2010 all say "THAT SEED shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Coverdale's Bible of 1535 and The Great Bible of 1540 both read: "I will also put enemytie betwene the & the woman, betwene thy sede and hyr sede: THE SAME shall treade downe thy head, and thou shalt treade vpon hys hele." The words "the same" refers back to the seed. It is not masculine, but the neuter singular, which refers to seed and can include the Christ and His chosen seed. "IT shall bruise thy head" Other Bible translations that read IT along with the KJB are the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's translation 1833, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885 - “IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Bond Slave Version 2012, and The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “IT shall crush thy rosh, and thou shalt strike his akev (heel).”. And this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." - http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%203:15 The word "it" referring to the seed plural is also found in Genesis 16:10. "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that IT shall not be numbered for multitude." Foreign language Bibles There are also some foreign language Bibles that translate the passage in a similar way. The Spanish Cipriano de Valera of 1602, the Valera of 1865 and the Reina Valera of 1909 and 1995 all read: - "Y enemistad pondré entre ti y la mujer, y entre tu simiente y la simiente suya; ésta te herirá en la cabeza, y tú le herirás en el calcañar." Here the word "ésta" is a feminine singular that can only refer back to "the seed" (which is feminine in Spanish), just as in the KJB the word "it" refers back to the seed, which includes the Messiah and His people. It is not the masculine "he". So too the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel Bible of 1681 which reads: "E porei inimizade entre ti e a mulher, e entre a tua semente e a sua semente; esta te ferirá a cabeça, e tu lhe ferirás o calcanhar. " Once again, the word "ESTA" is feminine singular referring to "the seed", just as "it" does in the English Bible. The French Martin Bible of 1744 reads: "Et je mettrai inimitié entre toi et la femme, et entre ta semence et la semence de la femme; cette [semence] te brisera la tête, et tu lui briseras le talon." = "THAT seed will bruise your head". Likewise the Italian Diodati of 1649 and the Riveduta Bible of 2006 both say: "Ed io metterò inimicizia fra te e la donna, e fra la tua progenie e la progenie di essa; questa progenie ti triterà il capo e tu le ferirai il calcagno." = "THAT SEED (or, offspring) will crush your head". Once again it is a singular feminine which can only refer to the seed, and can include the Messiah and His people. Luther's German Bible of 1545 reads: "Und ich will Feindschaft setzen zwischen dir und dem Weibe und zwischen deinem Samen und ihrem Samen. Der selbe soll dir den Kopf zertreten, und du wirst ihn in die Ferse stechen." = "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. THE SAME shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." And finally the Modern Greek Bible is very interesting because it agrees with the King James Bible translation, even in the word "IT". It reads: "και εχθραν θελω στησει αναμεσον σου και της γυναικος, και αναμεσον του σπερματος σου και του σπερματος αυτης· αυτο θελει σου συντριψει την κεφαλην, και συ θελεις κεντησει την πτερναν αυτου." = "IT will bruise your head". The Greek word "auto" is a NEUTER and not a masculine or feminine. It would be translated exactly as it stands in the King James Bible and others that say "IT shall bruise thy head". The Greek masculine word for "he" is "autos". This is clearly the Greek neuter nominative case, meaning "IT". Isn't is wonderful to know that we are in Christ and are His seed, members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones; and that His victory is also ours because we are in Him and that shortly God will bruise Satan under our feet? John Calvin also understood the passage in this way. He comments: John Calvin - “It shall bruise . This passage affords too clear a proof of the great ignorance, dullness, and carelessness, which have prevailed among all the learned men of the Papacy. The feminine gender has crept in instead of the masculine or neuter. There has been none among them who would consult the Hebrew or Greek codices, or who would even compare the Latin copies with each other. Therefore, by a common error, this most corrupt reading has been received. Then, a profane exposition of it has been invented, by applying to the mother of Christ what is said concerning her seed. There is, indeed no ambiguity in the words here used by Moses; but I do not agree with others respecting their meaning; for other interpreters take the seed for Christ, without controversy; as if it were said, that some one would arise from the seed of the woman who should wound the serpent's head. Gladly would I give my suffrage in support of their opinion, but that I regard the word seed as too violently distorted by them; for who will concede that a collective noun is to be understood of one man only? Further, as the perpetuity of the contest is noted, so victory is promised to the human race through a continual succession of ages. I explain, therefore, the seed to mean the posterity of the woman generally. But since experience teaches that not all the sons of Adam by far, arise as conquerors of the devil, we must necessarily come to one head, that we may find to whom the victory belongs. So Paul, from the seed of Abraham, leads us to Christ; because many were degenerate sons, and a considerable part adulterous, through infidelity; whence it follows that the unity of the body flows from the head. Wherefore, the sense will be (in my judgment) that the human race, which Satan was endeavoring to oppress, would at length be victorious....But because one stronger than he has descended from heaven, who will subdue him, hence it comes to pass that, in the same manner, the whole Church of God, under its Head, will gloriously exult over him. To this the declaration of Paul refers, "The Lord shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly," (Romans 16:20.) By which words he signifies that the power of bruising Satan is imparted to faithful men, and thus the blessing is the common property of the whole Church.” Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - 15. thy seed--not only evil spirits, but wicked men. seed of the woman--the Messiah, or His Church it shall bruise thy head--The serpent's poison is lodged in its head; and a bruise on that part is fatal. Thus, fatal shall be the stroke which Satan shall receive from Christ, though it is probable he did not at first understand the nature and extent of his doom.” Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible also saw the same truth, saying: “and by way of participation, all the members of Christ, all believers and holy men, who are called the children of Christ, Hebrews 2:13, and of the heavenly Jerusalem, Galatians 4:26. All the members whereof are the seed of this woman; and all these are the implacable enemies of the devil, whom also by Christ’s merit and strength they do overcome.” Whedon’s Commentary shares the same view as well. He comments - “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. But this prophecy, given in Paradise before the expulsion of the transgressors, should not be explained exclusively of the personal Messiah. That promised seed comprehends also the redeemed humanity of which he is Head — that great company who both suffer with him and with him shall also be glorified. Romans 8:17…So only those who belong to Christ as their great head and leader, are the seed of promise; all others, though born of woman, by espousing the serpent’s cause and doing the lusts of the devil (John 8:44) are of the seed of the serpent, a “generation of vipers,” (Matthew 23:33) whose end is perdition.” The Seed, the "IT" in Genesis 3:15, that shall ultimately bruise the head of Satan is Both the Lord Jesus Christ and all the redeemed who are His Seed together. The victory is ours as well because we are in Him and Scripture clearly promises to every saint of God - "And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." Romans 16:20 This truth is lost in these modern versions. The King James Bible is right, as always, and none of those who criticize and "correct" it will ever show you a copy of any Bible in any language that they honestly believe is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They are all version rummagers and their own authority as they piece together their individual "bible" versions which differ from every body else's. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25 The King James Bible is God’s true “Book of the LORD” - Isaiah 34:16 - “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” All of grace, believing the Book, Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
  13. brandplucked

    Before the KJV

  14. brandplucked

    Before the KJV

  15. brandplucked

    Cainan in Luke 3:36

    Luke 3:36 and the alleged LXX Who is Cainan in Luke 3:36? "Answers in Genesis" is usually a very good ministry which defends creationism versus evolution. However the textual consultant, Mr. Sarfati, does the usual tap dance when discussing the inspiration of Scripture. Here are some of his comments. Cainan: How do you explain the difference between Luke 3:36 and Genesis 11:12? by Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati - "The difference is that Luke 3:36 has the extra name Cainan. Some skeptics have used this difference to attack biblical inerrancy. However, it is important to note that Biblical inerrancy, derived from the teaching that Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21 and ‘cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) and many other places, has to refer to the original autographs that God directly inspired, not to copies or translations. The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today. 1. The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. So if a copyist of Luke’s gospel is responsible for the error, how come it is in the LXX as well? A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The evidence shows conclusively that the extra name Cainan is not part of God’s original Word, but due to a later copyist’s error. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan." (End of Mr. Sarfati's comments) A Bible Believer's Response Mr. Sarfati starts off his "defense" of inerrancy with three huge whoppers. He says: "The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." He then assures us that the Bible's assertions are factually true in ALL THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and that they are the supreme authority in all matters of faith. How can something that does not exit "be the supreme authority in all matters of faith"? Mr. Sarfati has never seen one of these "original autographs" a day in his life, simply because they do not exist, and he knows they don't exist when he says this. He has absolutely no way on earth of knowing for sure what or what was not "in the original autographs". His second big lie is implying "A COPYIST of Luke's gospel is responsible for the error". The simple fact is, the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is not found in just one or two copies of Luke, but is the reading found in practically every known Greek manuscript in existence today. It is in the vast Majority of all Greek copies, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, as well as the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic and Latin versions. It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, and every English Bible version I have ever seen. It is also in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, the Portuguese Almeida, the French Martin and Ostervald and the Louis Second 2007 and Luther's German Bible. I know of no Bible version in any language that omits this name from the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three. His third big lie is telling us: "this is one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." Mr. Sarfati should be well aware of the fact that there are literally THOUSANDS of variant readings, different names, numbers, phrases and entire verses found in some copies that that are not in others. The New Testaments of such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV (none of which totally agree with each other) differ from the New Testament of versions like the King James Bible, NKJV, Young's, and the Geneva Bible, by about 5000 words! This can hardly be called "extremely few". Mr. Sarfati also assures us that the oldest LXX manuscripts do not contain the name Cainan, though he has never seen one of these because, again, they don't exist. Mr. Sarfati continues to make his case for "Christian Logic 101" even worse by saying: "Either way, this extra name ‘Cainan’ cannot be used as an argument against biblical inerrancy." Why not, Mr. Sarfati? IF it is an ERROR found in every Bible on the earth today, then why is it not proof that the Christian Bible is not inerrant? Then Mr. Sarfati attempts to bolster his absurd arguments by quoting a certain Mr. Pierce who summarizes: "I think we have more than enough evidence that would stand up in any court of law to show that EVERY SINGLE COPY WE HAVE OF THE LXX TEXT WAS CORRUPTED SOME TIME AFTER AD 220." Notice here that Mr. Sarfati quotes from another man who tells us that every copy of the LXX we now have is corrupted, yet Mr. Sarfati earlier referred to the oldest LXX which did not contain the name of Cainan. BUT he himself has never seen, nor can he produce for us this hypothetical "would stand up in any court of law evidence", and he knows he can't. Do you see how the scholar's game is played? MORE COMMENTS ON THE LXX John Gill's commentary of Luke 3:36. Though I do not agree with everything John Gill states about this verse, (he does not believe Cainan should be in the text at all), yet it is to be noted that he too believed that the present copies of the LXX got their reading in Genesis from the already completed gospel of Luke. Gill says: "Which was the son of Cainan…This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in (Genesis 11:12) nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in (1 Chronicles 1:24) where the genealogy is repeated... it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence... and (it was) SINCE PUT INTO THE SEPTUAGINT TO GIVE IT AUTHORITY." Scholars are a funny bunch. Get five scholars in a room, and you will come out with seven different opinions. Some scholars emphatically tell us that Luke got his reading of 'Cainan' from the LXX itself. Others tell us the opposite, saying that the LXX got it from Luke. And then there are those that tell us that the name Cainan was not in the original LXX NOR in the original gospel of Luke! Go figure. So there you have the thoughts of "scholars" who assume there is no way the Holy Bible can be correct as it stands today, yet they assure us there is really nothing to worry about, and that God's words were once inspired in the "originals", though they have never seen them. In a somewhat similar fashion to the appearance in the Bible of the name of Cainan, we have the names of two individuals listed in the New Testament, which are not found in the Old Testament. In 2 Timothy 3:8 we read: "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." This is an interesting verse in light of those who criticize the Holy Bible and tell us it contains errors, isn't it? "Men of corrupt minds, reprobate concering the faith." It seems, though we are nowhere told this directly, that Jannes and Jambres were probably two of the magicians in Pharoah's court who performed miracles imitating those God did through Moses. Where did Paul get this additional information about the specific names of these individuals? God revealed it to him. The Bible is a supernatural book. Likewise I do not believe that the additional name of Cainan, who is listed as a "son" of Arphaxad is an error in the Holy Bible. Those who tell us the name Cainan is not in the original have only two manuscripts of very dubious character that either do not contain the name Cainan (Manuscript D) or, to quote many scholarly articles, "appears not to contain this name" - (P75). It should be noted that neither does manuscript D contain many other whole verses or sections of Luke's gospel, though found in the others. Manuscript D is notorious for adding large sections to the gospel of Luke which are not found in any other manuscript, and D is also well known for omitting other large portions of Luke's gospel. One example of many that could be provided is the additional reading found in manuscript D, also known as Codex Bezae, in Luke 6:5. There our Lord says: "And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath". Then D alone adds: "On the same day seeing some one working on the Sabbath, He said to him: man, if you know what you do, blessed are you; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law." Manuscript D also omits all of Luke 23:34 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do." It also alone omits Luke 24:6 "He is not here, but is risen"; Luke 24:12 "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."; Luke 24:36 "and saith unto them, Peace be unto you"; Luke 24:40 "And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet."; and Luke 24:51 "and carried up into heaven." These are just a very few of the many omissions found in manuscript D. Not very reliable, is it? As for P75, not only does it "appear" to omit the name Cainan from Luke 3:36, but P75 also is missing all of Luke 3:23 to 3:33! It also is missing Luke 4:3 to 4:33; 5:11 to 5:36; 6:5 to 6:9; 7:33-34; 7:44-45; 17:16-18, and from Luke 18:19 all the way to Luke 22:3! Such is the scant evidence for the omission of the name Cainan from the gospel of Luke 3:36. So how do we explain who this man Cainan is? In Luke 3 we read of the lineage of the Lord Jesus from the side of Mary. There we see "Heber, which was the son of Sala (Salah), which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem (Shem), which was the son of Noah..." In the Bible, the words "begat" and "son" do not necessarily imply a direct father to son relationship. For example: Matthew 1:8 "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias." Did you know that Uzziah (Ozias) is the great-great-grandson of Joram? Yet the text says, "Joram begat Ozias". In the book of Ruth we read in 4:17 "And the women her neighbours gave it a name (the child Ruth just gave birth to), saying, There is a SON BORN TO NAOMI; and they called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father of David." Naomi was actually the grandmother of the child, yet Scripture calls the grandchild her son, and says he was BORN TO Naomi. Likewise the gospel of Matthew 1:1 starts off saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Obviously the word "son" does not always mean a direct line from father to son. The word "son" is also used to denote a son-in-law. King David was Saul's son-in-law, yet Saul calls David his "son" several times in Scripture. In the book of Ruth, Naomi calls Ruth her "daughter", yet in fact she was her daughter-in-law. Among the various possibilities of who this man Cainan was are the following two. #1. Cainan may have been the firstborn son of Arphaxad who married at an early age. Cainan conceives Salah with his wife, but he dies before his son Selah is born. So Arphaxad, his father, adopts Salah and becomes his "father". Remember, the word "beget" does not necessarily mean direct father-son relationship. Or #2. Cainan may have married one of Arphaxad's daughters and Salah was his son. However, in the genealogy listed in Genesis chapter 11, Arphaxad is listed as having "begotten" Salah, even though he was the grandfather. Genealogies often skip over generations, and sons are not always listed in the order in which they were born. See Genesis 6:10 where Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Though Japheth was the elder (Genesis 10:21) yet he is listed last. In Luke, Cainan is listed as Arphaxad's "son", even though he was in fact his son-in-law. These are the two possibilities that make the most sense to me, and do not in any way call into question the reliability or accuracy of the Scriptures. The King James Holy Bible is always right. Get used to it. Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
×