I don't need to explain anything.....it's already decided by credentialed scholars. Unless you can demonstrate you have equal or superior credentials, you offer NO credulity whatsoever.
New International PerVersion
- Thread starter Truster
- Start date
I don't need to explain anything.....it's already decided by credentialed scholars. Unless you can demonstrate you have equal or superior credentials, you offer NO credulity whatsoever.
That is not what the KJV says at all. What you just did is called rationalization. It is an attempt on your part to gloss over an obvious contradiction in the KJV.
Daniel1611
New member
Ooooh so scholars say its better. Read Translators Revisited if you want to read about scholars.
Daniel1611
New member
It says 40,000 for horses and 4,000 for horses AND chariots. No contradiction.
Mocking You
New member
I see. So he had 44,000 horses and 4,000 chariots yet only had 12,000 horsemen. M-Kay.
Daniel1611
New member
If each commanded a chariot team, which they would have, then yes. A chariot team uses multiple horses and drivers. Gosh, the NIV must've dumbed its readers down.
Mocking You
New member
Chariot teams typically consisted of two or four horses. So 4,000 chariots could use 16,000 horses, max. Yet the KJV says there were 40,000 horses. Hmmm...
Personal attack with noted.
Daniel1611
New member
He had more horses than chariots. You have to change horses because the horses get tired. I doubt a king like Solomon had just enough horses. He probably had an excess. Or maybe not all of the horses were for chariots. He probably used some for other things. I.E. some were for chariots, some were for messengers, some did other work. I dont know for sure because it doesn't say, but for something to be a contradiction, you have 2 have two statements that cannot both be true. Saying he had 40,000 horses and 4 thousand stalks for horses and chariots leaves far too many possibilities to say its not true.
Again your layman's opinion of scholars carries NO weight at all, and posting a non-existent title just confirms your lack of credibility.
Daniel1611
New member
I couldn't care less about what scholars say. Many scholars say there is no God at all. Scholars mean nothing to me. All one needs is the Holy Spirit and the Bible. I don't need Christ denying scholars like Darby to tell me about the Bible.
Daniel1611
New member
Still waiting for one single reason why the critical text is better than the TR.
Just as soon as you provide one that shows it isn't. You started with the opining so don't expect anything different from me.
Daniel1611
New member
So you dont have any reasons why one off texts found in a garbage can are better than one that was copied thousands of times, handed down over millennia and translated to English by the most brilliant Christians of their day. Noted.
Mocking You
New member
El Oh El! Thanks for the laugh!
How in the world does Darby come up in this conversation?
Daniel1611
New member
He was the major early supporter of the critical text.
Mocking You
New member
Found in a garbage can? Really, that old chestnut? But let's say it was. Let's say it went unread for centuries (that's how the story goes, anyway.) One could argue that is how God preserved his word. Uncopied, untouched, just waiting to be brought out into the light of day in the 19th century.
The Critical Text is better because it is older and therefore more closer to the original documents, precisely because it hasn't been copied thousands of times.
Furthermore, every time the text is copied you have the possibility of introducing copyist errors. Or you get copyists that act like amateur Bible editors and insert words that weren't in the original texts.
Daniel1611
New member
If I wrote down a recipe for my home made chicken soup and thousands of copies existed that were all the same, and there was one that disagreed, would you say the one off is correct,? The differences in copies of the TR are all superficial. They all say one thing then the critical text, a one off, says something different. Which one should I accept? The answer is obvious
Mocking You
New member
Darby died in 1882; Westcott and Hort's New Testament came out in 1881. How much of it could he have read?
Or are you saying that Darby had access to Tischendorf's New Testament, which was kept in St. Petersburg, Russia?
Mocking You
New member
That's a false choice. I'd say that all copies were accurate copies of the original. It says nothing about the accuracy of the original, just that the copies were faithful reproductions of it.
It's not obvious because the most learned Bible scholars don't agree with you. Oh, that's right--you have no use for them.