> General Discussions

Are there Contradictions in the King James Bible?

<< < (2/6) > >>

hillsbororiver:
Hi Paul,

Where does he say that, do you have a quote available?

I know Ray teaches (truthfully) that there have been and remain some errors in the KJV but also that there is no perfect translation. I remember a quote from the Conference I attended in Mobile last November and he said it at other times that the KJV is actually a pretty good translation once you know the truth about how they translated "hell" and "eternal" and a few other things. As a matter of fact it is a KJV that he primarily uses for teaching, bible studies, his articles and at the Conferences. He will refer to others such as Rotherham's, the NIV and a couple more for clarifying some verses.

His Peace to you,

Joe

Paul:

--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on March 08, 2008, 12:13:44 PM ---he said it at other times that the KJV is actually a pretty good translation once you know the truth about how they translated "hell" and "eternal" and a few other things.
--- End quote ---

Right, he holds the KJV against the original hebrew and greek.

My question is if one were to go by the KJV alone, would they find it to be a contradictory volume?

phazel:
Also read "is everlasting scriptural"   Christians eyes gloss over when you point out that one.

Deborah-Leigh:
All translations will appear to have contradictions not only the KJV. Why? Because if one looks at the Word of God through carnal eyes it just does not make sence.

Here is an excerpt that explains this better. http://bible-truths.com/kennedy2.htm

RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE

If a theologian can't see the "absolute" versus the "relative" in Scripture, he is in no position to teach anyone.

A little boys asks: "Why did God say in Gen. 3:9: 'Where art thou [Adam]?' Mommy says that God knows everything." (I Jn 3:20). You say, "Of course God knew where Adam was. Adam sinned. Adam felt bad. He thought he could hide from God. God was condescending to man's level. It was for Adam's benefit that God asked, 'Where art thou Adam?'" You say, "That's not a problem. That's easy to understand and answer. It's stupid to think that God didn't know where Adam was."

And, of course, we have Scriptural proof that God knew where Adam was because "He [God] knows all" (I Jn 3:20)

Neither did our Lord ask questions out of ignorance:

"Believe ye that I am able to do this?" (Matt. 9:28)

"Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48)

"How many loaves have ye?" (Matt. 15:34)

"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matt. 116:13)

Christ asked dozens of questions during His ministry. But He already knew all the answers:

" ... because of His knowing ALL men ... " (Matt. 21:27).

Christ even answered questions by asking questions. The Pharisees asked why His disciples transgressed the "traditions." Our Lord knew how to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5) by asking: "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?" (Mat. 15:3)

This brings up another apparent contradiction, however, because Prov. 26:4 says: "answer not a fool according to his folly ... " Our Lord knew how to do that as well: "Neither am I telling you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mat. 21:27). These two scriptures in Proverbs should teach us to never pit one verse of Scripture against another. Verse 4 and 5 do not contradict. They are both true.

So if it's stupid to think that God didn't really know where Adam was, a relative statement condescending to man's level, isn't it then, likewise, stupid to believe that God contradicts Himself in the following verses:

 

THE RELATIVE:
 THE ABSOLUTE:
 
" ... seek, and ye shall find ... " (Mat. 7:7) "Not one is seeking out God" (Rom. 3:11)
"God changed His mind" (Ex. 32:14) "God is not a man Who changes His mind" (I Sam. 15:29)
" ... choose you this day whom ye will serve." (Josh. 24:15) "Ye have not chosen me,
but I have chosen you ... " (Jn. 15:16)
" ... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ... " (I Jn. 3:10) "All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18)
"Zechariah was just before God" (Lk. 1:5) (Comparing him to the corrupt priests) "Not one is just" (Rom. 3:10)
(Comparing man with God)

 

One is the "relative" the other is the "absolute." One is from man's point of view, comparing men with men, the other is from God's point of view. One shows how a thing is perceived while the other shows how it actually is. One is for minors while the other is for the mature.

Both Scriptures are true. The relative is true and the absolute is true. They do not contradict. However, one really is "relative" while the other is "absolute."

Theologians are always taking Scriptures that speak of the relative, from man's point of view, and insist that these verses are absolute. By doing this they commit a double sin. Because then they insist that these relative truths actually nullify God's absolute declarations. They won't admit to this in their own words, but this is what they do when they retain the "relative" at the expense of rejecting the "absolute."

Even theologians admit that their free will theory is limited. So they have invented "limited free will." They use analogies like a cow on a tether or a fly in a jar or a lion in a cage. Their freedom is limited to the confines of their restraints, but within those confines they are nonetheless, free. Is this true? Is there such a thing as "limited" free will? Or is this just more theological double-talk?

Only in religion do simple words lose their meaning. Let's look at Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary: Page 963, "limited, a. Restricted." Page 682, "free, a. without restriction." So here then is what theologians want us to believe: Man has a will that is restricted without restriction.

Man does not have "limited" free will. Otherwise God would have "limited" sovereignty. Man has no free will and God has total sovereignty. Theologians try to make high what is low and try to bring low what is high. These teachings do not glorify God.

Somebody has been taking William James too seriously. God is not sitting around waiting to see what man will do through his "free will" so that He can then figure out what to do about it. Rather than conclude from the "wisdom of the world" that man has a free will (and thus deny the sovereignty of God), we must conclude that since God is sovereign, man can not and does not have a free will. This is logical, sensible, and lawful. It is Scriptural and it glorifies God.

Theologians condemn scientists for their inability to see beyond the "relative" in our universe. Surely these scientists must see that a God must be behind everything. However, except for rare persons like Dr. Einstein, they can't.

Bradigans:
I believe if you or I had the original hebrew, aramaic, and/or greek text, you would still find error and contradiction without THE HOLY SPIRIT.

 - Luke 11:13 - If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

 - 2 Corinthians 3:6 - Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

There's only one version/translation to the bible. It's called the Holy Spirit version/translation and begins with you heart.

 - John 3:7 - Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

By faith ask God to make you into a translation.

 - Hebrews 11:5 - By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page