PDA

View Full Version : Is the KJV the only inspired version today? - Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54



Knight
September 26th, 2002, 11:02 AM
Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

TOPIC:
Is the King James Version the only inspired translation for today?

Have both combatants read, understand and agree to the battle Royale Rules (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2629)?

I need a post from each combatant stating "YES" regarding the rules.

This will be a 10 round battle and will be refereed by me and by Becky.

Knight
September 26th, 2002, 11:08 AM
ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), Becky, Jaltus or s9s27s54. You may discuss Battle Royale IV here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3505)

Knight
September 26th, 2002, 11:09 AM
After I receive a "yes, I understand the rules" affirming that each combatant understands the rules I will flip a coin to determine who posts first, then that chosen combatant will have 48 hours to make his/her opening statement. Each combatant will then have 48 hours to make subsequent posts after the other combatant makes their post. You need NOT wait for me to officially end a round before making your next response.

This will be a 10 round battle (20 post total - 10 posts each).

Jaltus
September 26th, 2002, 12:29 PM
Yes I understand the rules.

You might want to post the link for s9, though.

Knight
September 26th, 2002, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Yes I understand the rules.

You might want to post the link for s9, though. I PM'd him/her.

s9s27s54
September 26th, 2002, 03:16 PM
I'm ready and I read and understand the rules. I think it was nice of Jaltus to suggest you post the link. Thank you Jaltus.

Knight
September 26th, 2002, 03:30 PM
Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

TOPIC:
Is the King James Version the only inspired translation for today?

OK... here's the coin toss.... heads will be JALTUS and tails will be s9s27s54.....

.....FLIP......

Tails it is!

s9s27s54 will begin and is now on the clock. s9s27s54 has 48 hours to make his first post and then Jaltus will have 48 hours to make his first post AFTER s9s27s54's first post has been posted. You do NOT need to take 48 hours to post your post and you do not NEED to wait for me to end a round. Simply post your posts when your ready as long as its your turn!

Remember to use the "preview this post" button to avoid editing your posts after they have been actually posted.

Let the battle begin!

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), Becky, s9s27s54 or Jaltus. You may discuss Battle Royale IV here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3505)

s9s27s54
September 27th, 2002, 05:57 AM
Wow! A thread that only a certain few can even post in. I feel special.

Here's my opening statement.

Let's open this up with prayer. Lord, You know which bible has Your precious Word. You know what bible you want your children to use. Help us to see which version is the best one You have for us today. Let this be a good discussion where we can learn from you from both sides. You said in Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. So we have your Word for us today. Show us which version is the best one. I say the King James Bible is for today and Jaltus says any version will do. Which is correct, Lord? In Jesus Name I pray.

Since I've been saved I have used other versions of the Bible. Before I got saved I was reading the Bible, the Living Bible. It was very easy to understand. After getting saved I still read other versions including the King James Bible. My boss witnessed to me using a King James Bible New Testament. After I got saved, I started reading other versions of the Bible. I heard different things about the versions, like one omitted the blood of Christ. I would look this up. I wish I could remember which verse and version it was. Also, in one version it says in the gospels, right after Jesus healed someone it happened immediately, another version said within an hour. I even read the Good News For Modern Man and liked it!

These new versions are perverted and it keeps getting worse. I've heard they are or are going to come out with a Bible that offends no one. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God. They're going to take that out so it doesn't offend left handed people. God is going to be Father/Mother. Another Bible that'll come out is a Bible with no violence. Where does it all end? God's Word is being all watered down. What happened to good old conviction of sin? The reason they're coming out with new versions is so people don't feel guilty anymore.

I have a book called New Age Bible Versions. The author is G. A. Riplinger. I will be using that book in this debate.

In the introduction one of the things it says about other versions is:

"The New Age Movements expressed goal of infiltrating the evangelical church and gradually changthe bible to conform to its One World Religion is evident in the current new versions. Their words and doctrines prepare the apostate church of theser last days to accept the ANtichrist, his mark, image, and religion-Lucifer worship."

It makes sense. There really isn't much difference between the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church. They are all moving into the one world church.

Jaltus: Why do you like the other versions? Isn't one bible enough? Don't you understand the King James Bible at all? Why do you suppose there are so many versions out there? Confusion is of the devil. All these versions are copyrighted. The King James Bible is not. How come?

Jaltus
September 27th, 2002, 07:18 AM
Is the King James Version the only inspired translation for today?

Setting aside the obvious track of heading into languages other than English (at least for now), let me begin by talking about what I plan on covering in my following 8 posts and my conclusion.

Scripture in Translation

The first question will be, what is translation? This breaks down into a few different areas, such as what does the bible tell us (directly or indirectly) about translations of the Bible? What does it mean to translate a text from one language into another? How close a congruence is there between languages, namely how flexible should a translation be?

I plan on showing that the same passage can be translated in different ways, and often is. I plan on showing that the Bible itself is flexible in translating, thus setting an example for multiple translations right off the bat. I will attempt to show that the nature of language is fluid, something that those who hold to the King James Version Only doctrine (KJVO from now on) must deny in order to keep the label of “inspired” for their outdated Bible.

Scripture in Manuscripts

The obvious follow up question to translation is what are we translating? This is where I will discuss manuscript evidence, dealing with the major types and styles of manuscripts that have come down to us, that we have found through archeological methods. In the quest to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament (the Old Testament manuscripts are the same for every version of the Bible, with slight changes only), we now have over 5300 manuscripts just in Greek alone. There are also early texts that were translated into numerous languages, such as Armenian, Georgian, and Syriac. While it may sound wonderful that we have so many manuscripts (the next closest book ever is The Iliad, which has 700 manuscripts at most), it is also a problem due to the differences between all the manuscripts.

In ancient times, quotations did not have to be word for word, they only needed to carry the original thought of the person. A 20 minute sermon could be written in 5 sentences or so and still be called an accurate account if it distilled the thoughts correctly. Therefore, scribes had no problem with changing words or smoothing out phrases as long as it did not change the meaning of the text. Therefore, in the quest to reconstruct the original text, all these scribal changes must be waded through and corrected, but what are changes and what are original?

In the coming discussion, I will be referring to many manuscripts. in particular, I will talk about the Majority Text (MT) and the Textus Receptus (TR).. The MT is the text found in most manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, though not a single one of those manuscripts dates earlier than 700 AD. It is also called the Byzantine Text Type since it was the predominant form that appeared in the Byzantine Empire, which used Greek in their church services up through and beyond the 15th century. The TR, also called the Received Text, is a specific single text of the Greek New Testament put together by Erasmus in 1516, which the KJV is based on.

Scriptural Inspiration

This is the last and most important area that this debate will center on. The first question to be answered is, what does inspired mean? Once that is defined, we will move on to ask how can a translation be inspired when compared to the biblical authors? Then the questions will get harder for the KJVO holders, since the natural follow up is why can there only be one inspired version in English? Is that true for every language?

In answering these questions we will quickly see that either KJVO tries to give the KJV equal authority with the original manuscripts (called the autographs) or else a special place among translations. Both options are unwarranted.

If time permits, I will also point out areas in which the KJV tends to either translate incorrectly or even contradicts itself in terms of what it says in English.

Included in my bibliography will be the following books:

Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (called Aland from now on)
D.A. Carson, The King James Only Debate (called Carson from now on)
Kent D. Clarke, Textual Optimism (called Clarke from now on)
Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (called Erhman from now on)
Michael W. Holmes, “Text Criticism,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, eds. (called Holmes from now on)
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (called Metzger from now on)
I will also use the abbreviations BDAG for the Greek Lexicon by Bauer in its 3rd edition and BDB for the Hebrew Lexicon by Brown, Driver, and Briggs.

Knight
September 27th, 2002, 10:56 AM
That's the end of round #1.

S9 is back on the clock - good job combatants!

s9s27s54
September 27th, 2002, 12:10 PM
Jaltus,

Since this is a battle, I'm going to treat it as a battle. You have not even attempted to answer any of my questions. I'll repeat them for you.

If you don't answer my questions, I won't answer yours.

Why do you like the other versions? Isn't one bible enough? Don't you understand the King James Bible at all? Why do you suppose there are so many versions out there? Confusion is of the devil. All these versions are copyrighted. The King James Bible is not. How come?

Jaltus
September 27th, 2002, 08:57 PM
s9s27s54,

First off, let me say that in an introduction, you do not quote your opponent, you set out what you are going to do. It is with the second post that the direct argumentation begins. At least, that is how I am doing it. In all liklihood, I will not address your direct questions in my concluding post either, since I will be summing up my case.

On to the post.

You said:

Why do you like the other versions?I like other versions because they are more true to the original text of the New Testament, as well as we can figure it out today. I’ll get back to this in a bit.

Isn't one bible enough?Yes, if that one Bible is the original Bible. However, we do not have the luxury of having the autographs nor do many of us speak Koine Greek or Ancient Hebrew. Therefore, we need translations. The only inerrant scripture is the original, which has been lost to us.

Don't you understand the King James Bible at all?Yes, but the translators did not understand Greek or Hebrew very well, as their mistakes show.

Why do you suppose there are so many versions out there?Each version is probably based on a different motivation, or combination of motivations. This is a bit too broad of a question.

Confusion is of the devil.Ok.

All these versions are copyrighted.False. The WEB is not copyrighted, and there are a few others that are not as well (though I currently do not remember which ones).
The King James Bible is not. How come?Because the translation was made before there was such a thing as copyrights, and for that matter it was around before this country even existed. That is like asking why Homer’s Iliad is not copyrighted, the answer is because it is older than copyright laws!

Now, let us look at what the KJV is based on in terms of translation. It was based on a combination of the Latin Vulgate, the Tyndale translation, the MT, but mostly on the TR.

The TR was a Greek manuscript put together by Erasmus. He had a few Greek manuscripts to work with, none of which were later than the 12th century. For Revelation, he had only one Greek copy, and that was missing the last 6 verses, so he translated them from Latin into Greek and, get this, those verses did not match any Greek manuscript ever found! What are those verses?*
From The KJV, Revelation 22:16-21:

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Notice that there is a warning about adding to or taking away from the words of this book, and yet Erasmus did just that! Not only is that a crime against the Bible, but the KJV is based on it! Why, why should ANYONE use a text that goes against the very words of scripture?

In trying to find a text that was written around 50-90 AD, what makes more sense: Look for copies from 200-400 AD and base our text on that, or look for copies made around 1100 AD or later and base our text on that? That answer is that obviously the earlier the text, the better off we are in establishing the original.

All modern translations since 1900 have been based on Greek texts that date back to at least 400 AD, whereas the KJV is based on texts from no earlier than 1100 AD!

Now, before I go any further, let me ask s9s27s54 a few questions:

What is inspiration?
Is translation flexible or is it rigid? In other words, can a sentence only be translated one way?
Why should anyone use a Bible such as the KJV that is based on a corrupt version of the Greek text?

That should give you enough to chew on for now.


*This is taken from Carson, page 34, and from Holmes, page 69 note 34. The major portion of the quote from Holmes is as follows:

For the first edition he relied primarily upon MS 2 of the Gospels and MS 2 of the Acts and Catholic Epistles; his sources of correction were MS 817 (Gospels) and MS 4 (Acts and Catholic Epistles). His main source for the Pauline Epistles was MS 7…His only source for Revelation, MS 1, was missing the last six verses. Erasmus filled in the gap by translating from the Vulgate back into the Greek…

s9s27s54
September 28th, 2002, 08:35 AM
Jaltus,

I'm sorry for not doing this right. I'm new at this and maybe I should have waited a bit to actually go into the ring with anybody. Since I'm here I'll have to do the best I can and learn from this experience. Afterwards,I'll reread all my books on the subject and ask questions. You've pointed out somed very good points.

I will address your questions:

What is inspiration?

Inspiration is literally God breathed. One of the meanings of Inspiration in the dictionary is “A divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul of a man.” & “The divine quality of the writings or words of men so influenced.” That was the theological meaning.

Is translation flexible or is it rigid? In other words, can a sentence only be translated one way?

I looked up the word "translation" up in the dictionary. It means "the rendering of something into a different language. I believe a sentence can only be translated one way, I could be wrong. I do know God wants everybody to read the bible. God wants everyone saved.

Why should anyone use a Bible such as the KJV that is based on a corrupt version of the Greek text?

I don't know that the KJV is based on a corrupts version of the Greek text. Since you mentioned the Catholics had a hand in translating the Bible, I can't believe they did it correctly. I believe the Great Whore in Revelation 16 & 17 is the Catholic Church. They have the pope and nuns, which aren't in the bible. As for Peter being the first pope, Peter was married. Matthew 8:14. And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

I will add something here. This comes from the book "New Age Bible Versions. I quote, "The Greek text used to translate the NIV, NASB and others was an edition drastically aletered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seanes), who believed he was in the "new age." Two other 'new' version editors were also involved in Spiritualism.

So in my conclusion of this post, my question to you Jaltus, is how can you trust in corupt versions when you have the Catholic Church and Spiritualists interpreting the Bible?

Knight
September 28th, 2002, 12:14 PM
Due to the nature of this battle and the topic we have decided to shorten Battle Royale IV to 5 rounds. Which means that Jaltus has three more posts and s9s27s54 has two more posts.

Jaltus
September 29th, 2002, 04:34 PM
s9,

I asked :What is inspiration?

Inspiration is literally God breathed. One of the meanings of Inspiration in the dictionary is “A divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul of a man.” & “The divine quality of the writings or words of men so influenced.” That was the theological meaning. So is only the KJV an inspired version according to this definition, or can any other Bible claim the same priviledge? My point is this: if “inspired” means from God in any sense, how can any human claim to know what happened between God and a group of people? none of us were there when the KJV was written, nor were any of us there when (for example) the ESV was written. Thus, it is impossible for us to even make a claim about inspiration since it necessarily means knowing what went on between God and a group of people. Maybe you are ready to say that you know this, but I do not have the arrgoance to make such a claim.

What if we alter the meaning a little and say that inspiration depends on the results of what a Bible does? Then it becomes even less clear, for God is not limited by anything! Someone could find the name “Jesus” written in a newspaper and God could use that to save, for “all things are possible” through God.

I asked: Is translation flexible or is it rigid? In other words, can a sentence only be translated one way?

I looked up the word "translation" up in the dictionary. It means "the rendering of something into a different language. I believe a sentence can only be translated one way, I could be wrong. I do know God wants everybody to read the bible. God wants everyone saved. Actually, you are wrong. Let us look at a single phrase in Greek: agape theou. Literally this means “love of God.” However, in Greek, the form is much more flexible than that. The possible meanings include (but are not limited to) love from God, love for God, God’s love, love which originates with God, love sent by God, or even love reflecting back to God that was originally His. That is just two Greek words! You see, there really is no such thing as translation without interpretation, for whoever is taking the phrase from Greek into english is going to have to decide which one of the various meanings to employ each time they come across that phrase, and each time is another interpretive decision.

I do not plan on arguing for or against the Roman Catholic Church, so I am just going to skip that part.

I will add something here. This comes from the book "New Age Bible Versions. I quote, "The Greek text used to translate the NIV, NASB and others was an edition drastically aletered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seanes), who believed he was in the "new age." Two other 'new' version editors were also involved in Spiritualism.This is just flat out false. There is no truth to this claim in the least. Again, this is based on the assumption that the Wescott and Hort text is the basis for all new translations when in fact it is not. The only Bible translations based on the WH text are the RSV and (I believe) the NRSV. All other editions are based on the Nestle-Aland text, of which the 27th edition is the latest, which is based on a different methodology (and therefore different text) than the WH text.

So in my conclusion of this post, my question to you Jaltus, is how can you trust in corupt versions when you have the Catholic Church and Spiritualists interpreting the Bible?First off, any version of the Bible is going to come down to us through the Catholic church, since it was the only church in the world for at least a little while. Thus, that point is moot. In terms of spiritualists, this is just a false allegation.

The bottom line is this: None of us were there when Erasmus made his Greek text of the New Testament, but he tells us enough about it that we know he goofed and he knew he goofed. Why would I want a translation based on the incorrect text of the New Testament? The TR is not even in agreement with the Majority Text, having over 500 differences with the majority of the Majority Text!

So do we trust translators from 400 years ago, who spoke a completely different dialect of English than we do today, who based their translation work on the wrong manuscripts of the New Testament, or do we trust scholars from today who have meticulously coallated and compared manuscripts that are hundreds of years closer to the actual writing of the New Testament and whose work we can check by knowing who they are?

Frankly, I vote for the latter.

Not only that, but due to the fluidity of language (see the discussion of agape theou above), how can any one English translation hope to capture the enormity and profundity of the Greek language?

I am not advocating that one translation is better than another. I am simply advocating that God preserved His word in many forms, who are we to tell Him how He must do things?

Knight
September 30th, 2002, 10:14 AM
That's the end of round 3.

S9 is back on the clock with two posts left!

s9s27s54
September 30th, 2002, 06:12 PM
You said,


So is only the KJV an inspired version according to this definition, or can any other Bible claim the same priviledge? My point is this: if “inspired” means from God in any sense, how can any human claim to know what happened between God and a group of people? none of us were there when the KJV was written, nor were any of us there when (for example) the ESV was written. Thus, it is impossible for us to even make a claim about inspiration since it necessarily means knowing what went on between God and a group of people. Maybe you are ready to say that you know this, but I do not have the arrgoance to make such a claim.

It's not arrogancy that is making me make such a claim. It's called obedience. Inspired means literally God breathed. This does not mean in any sense. He had a purpose in mind. That purpose was His Word. And not just any bible either. If you compare the versions written today you'll see what I mean. We will compare verses later.

You said,
What if we alter the meaning a little and say that inspiration depends on the results of what a Bible does? Then it becomes even less clear, for God is not limited by anything! Someone could find the name “Jesus” written in a newspaper and God could use that to save, for “all things are possible” through God.

Why alter the meaning? That means to change the meaning. Changing the meaning is a no-no in God's book. That's exactly what these new versions do, is change the meaning.`Here are just a few words the new versions "alter." This comes from the book New Age Bible Versions: Lucifer is called Morning Star, Jehovah is Lord (In the Old Testament KJV Jehovah is called Lord, but with all caps, there is a difference between all cap and just the L being capitalized.) Holy One of Israel is called One, Holy Ghost is called Spirit, (just plain Spirit, nothing else), Lord Jesus Christ is called Lord (You have Jesus and God being called Lord and they are, but the KJV makes a difference between the two, in other words, it's more to the point.) Godhead is Divine Being.

You told me I was wrong in my translation meaning. You chose a single phrase. You said it had different meanings. True, words do have more than one meaning. Explain this if you will. Again I'm using New Age Bible Versions book. I'm using one example. When the KJV used the phrase: I abhor myself, the other versions say My conscience is clear. These other versions also omit a lot of things, but I'll leave that for my closing arguement.


You really shouldn't skip what I said about the Catholic Church. You say it's been around. Believe me when I tell it's a touchy subject.

You said: First off, any version of the Bible is going to come down to us through the Catholic church, since it was the only church in the world for at least a little while. Thus, that point is moot. In terms of spiritualists, this is just a false allegation

This is false. The Catholic Church started around 325 A.D. God has always had a remnant.

When I was talking about the people tranlating the bible being spiritualists, you said it was a lie. Prove it. It's not. It's documented. The footnote says: Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Wescott, Vol.II (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited 1903 p. 252.

In conclusion you said:

I am not advocating that one translation is better than another. I am simply advocating that God preserved His word in many forms, who are we to tell Him how He must do things?

Well, I am advocating one translation. It's the right translation. Your "other" translations omit a lot of things which I will get into in my closing argument and change the meanings.

And another thing, you haven't shown me any scripture.

Knight
September 30th, 2002, 06:32 PM
Battle Royale IV shirts now on sale! I think the BR IV logo is the best yet.

BUY NOW! (http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/prod.aspx?p=tolstore.3366413)

Jaltus
October 1st, 2002, 05:18 PM
You said,

1It's not arrogancy that is making me make such a claim. It's called obedience. Inspired means literally God breathed. This does not mean in any sense. He had a purpose in mind. That purpose was His Word. And not just any bible either. If you compare the versions written today you'll see what I mean. We will compare verses later.How do you know “not just any Bible?” Where in scripture is the King James Version mentioned as the Only Inspired Translation? Is there only 1 translation viable per language?

You said,

2Why alter the meaning? That means to change the meaning. Changing the meaning is a no-no in God's book. That's exactly what these new versions do, is change the meaning.`Here are just a few words the new versions "alter." This comes from the book New Age Bible Versions: Lucifer is called Morning Star, Jehovah is Lord (In the Old Testament KJV Jehovah is called Lord, but with all caps, there is a difference between all cap and just the L being capitalized.) Holy One of Israel is called One, Holy Ghost is called Spirit, (just plain Spirit, nothing else), Lord Jesus Christ is called Lord (You have Jesus and God being called Lord and they are, but the KJV makes a difference between the two, in other words, it's more to the point.) Godhead is Divine Being.Not in any version I read are these changes made, except for two. Lucifer means Morning Star, it is a Hebrew word. The only difference is translating the name. Next, I refuse to use the tetragrammaton, especially spelled wrong (there is no J in Hebrew, nor is there a V, they are Y and W respectively). Otherwise, none of those changes occur that I know of, at least not wholesale as you seem to be claiming. Sure, there are a few small changes in terms of here it is JC, there it is LJC, and there it is just J. However, it is only a minor difference in wording, but no difference in meaning. (is Jesus somehow different from the Lord Jesus Christ in terms of who it refers to?)

3You told me I was wrong in my translation meaning. You chose a single phrase. You said it had different meanings. True, words do have more than one meaning. Explain this if you will. Again I'm using New Age Bible Versions book. I'm using one example. When the KJV used the phrase: I abhor myself, the other versions say My conscience is clear. These other versions also omit a lot of things, but I'll leave that for my closing arguement.That is just wrong, assuming you are referring to Job 42:6. Some translations say “I retract myself” since the Hebrew wording can mean either, but most go with “I despise myself.”


This is false. The Catholic Church started around 325 A.D. God has always had a remnant.LOL. Not even touching this, it is so fallacious.

4When I was talking about the people tranlating the bible being spiritualists, you said it was a lie. Prove it. It's not. It's documented. The footnote says: Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Wescott, Vol.II (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited 1903 p. 252.Again, that only works for the RSV, maybe. Wescott and Hort were only involved in the RSV, but they were not in fact translators, they collated Greek manuscripts. Therefore, your contention is at the least misguided. For other versions of the Bible, it is flat out wrong.

5And another thing, you haven't shown me any scripture.Pot, meet kettle.

Anyway, let me put forth a few more arguments:

Notice that I put numbers next to each of the quotations. I’ll make arguments sustaining my points according to the numbering, though not necessarily in that order.

I would like to point out that in number 3 you completely dodged my question and my point. Specifically, how can there only be a single inspired translation when Greek words can possibly mean so many things? What I mean is, how could ANY English translation fully contain the pregnant meaning of the sparse Greek words agape theou? Unless you plan on foot-noting the entire translation, some meaning content will be lost. That is why it is helpful to have multiple versions and to refer back to the original languages.

Next, according to number 4 it seems that the character of the people doing the translating work is important. Why? God can use anybody. He used a mass murder, one who tried to destroy the church to become its leading proponent throughout a large portion of the world. God used a man who disobeyed Him directly about how to handle a situation, yet Moses is still considered one of the great leaders of the Bible. David was an adulterer and a murderer. For that matter, Balaam was an unrepentant pagan, but God used him. Argument from character or even religious background means nothing, for God can use anybody to do anything.

Again, how can someone trust the KJV Bible when they know that it is based on Erasmus’ work, not on the actual original manuscripts? Erasmus, as I have previously laid out, made up his own translation of the Greek text from the Latin for Revelation 22:16-21. He made up the word of God, adding to the book of Revelation words that do not appear in any manuscript of Greek ever found! Why are you basing your faith on that?

In response to 5, how about this:

Assuming you believe, as most KJVOs do, that God only uses one translation per language, let me ask you this about some verses. In Mark 1:2-3 we see the following:
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Verse 2 is based on Mark’s own translation of the Hebrew text, whereas verse 3 is based on the LXX version of the Greek. According to your theory, only one of them is inspired, since they are two different translations, one being Mark’s the other being from the LXX.. Which one is correct?

Knight
October 1st, 2002, 05:20 PM
OK, that's the end of round 4.

Last round is next (only one more post each) and S9 is on the clock!

s9s27s54
October 2nd, 2002, 04:50 PM
Last post and closing argument.
You said:

How do you know “not just any Bible?” Where in scripture is the King James Version mentioned as the Only Inspired Translation? Is there only 1 translation viable per language?

I don't know that there is only one translation per language, but it would make sense. A lot of translations are confusing. How do you know which one to trust? Not everything out there is a bible even if it's labeled bible. There's a lot of junk out there.

You said,

Not in any version I read are these changes made, except for two. Lucifer means Morning Star, it is a Hebrew word. The only difference is translating the name. Next, I refuse to use the tetragrammaton, especially spelled wrong (there is no J in Hebrew, nor is there a V, they are Y and W respectively). Otherwise, none of those changes occur that I know of, at least not wholesale as you seem to be claiming. Sure, there are a few small changes in terms of here it is JC, there it is LJC, and there it is just J. However, it is only a minor difference in wording, but no difference in meaning. (is Jesus somehow different from the Lord Jesus Christ in terms of who it refers to?)

The King James Bible is more specific and to the point than any version out there and it's been around longer. And as for the copyright which we discussed earlier, God Himself would not copyright His Word. If He did, we wouldn't have it today. The reason you have copyrgihted Bibles now is so they (the authors) don't loose any money.

In my last post I said:

This is false. The Catholic Church started around 325 A.D. God has always had a remnant.

And you answered:

LOL. Not even touching this, it is so fallacious.

Why not touch on this? It's the truth.

You said:

Next, according to number 4 it seems that the character of the people doing the translating work is important. Why? God can use anybody. He used a mass murder, one who tried to destroy the church to become its leading proponent throughout a large portion of the world. God used a man who disobeyed Him directly about how to handle a situation, yet Moses is still considered one of the great leaders of the Bible. David was an adulterer and a murderer. For that matter, Balaam was an unrepentant pagan, but God used him. Argument from character or even religious background means nothing, for God can use anybody to do anything.

True, God can use anybody, but He won't use someone, like a spiritualist, who is after the devil's heart. I'll tell you about the people you listed.

#1 - You said:

He used a mass murder, one who tried to destroy the church to become its leading proponent throughout a large portion of the world.

This refers to Paul, even though you don't use his name. Or did you forget it because of all thoses different translations? You didn't know what to call him. Yes, he was a murderer and tried to destroy the church. If you notice, he did it in God's name. He thought they were doing wrong. Jesus showed him the way and he got saved and became a mighty warrior for God.

You mentioned Moses.
Once Moses submitted to God everything was ok. So he slipped up, who doesn't.

David was an adulter and a murderer. He suffered for it big time, but he was still after God's heart and God loved him.

Balaam was only after what he could get, yet God used him. None of the people you mentioned even wanted anything to do with the devil. God isn't going to use any spiritualist to write the Bible. It just doesn't work that way. Nor will he use the Catholic Church because the devil has those people as well.

So the age old argument continues... Which Bible is best? I'm sticking with my King James Bible.

I don't know that I have the room to discuss other verses in this post, so if anybody is interested, we can discuss/argue it in another thread.

One more thing: John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.

God Himself through the Holy Spirit has shown me truth through the King James Bible. He will show those of you who want to really know the truth of this matter. I was saved by the King James bible, so it's good enough for me. The Lord still speaks to me using the King James. I don't need all those other versions. They don't all say the same thing.

Jaltus
October 3rd, 2002, 09:05 AM
You said:

I don't know that there is only one translation per language, but it would make sense. A lot of translations are confusing. How do you know which one to trust? Not everything out there is a bible even if it's labeled bible. There's a lot of junk out there.I know which one to trust because I am able to do the work in the original language myself. I am able to compare manuscripts so that I get what the most original reading is. In other words, I think critically. I am not going to take a man’s word about God’s word.

As for saying only one translation per language, I think you slipped up. If you will note in my last post, I pointedly referred to a passage (Mark 1:2-3) where two different translations into Greek of the Hebrew are used. If the Bible allows for multiple translations, why do you not? This is a point that destroys the KJVO position quite soundly. If the Bible uses multiple translations, why can Christians not?

You said:

The King James Bible is more specific and to the point than any version out there and it's been around longer. And as for the copyright which we discussed earlier, God Himself would not copyright His Word. If He did, we wouldn't have it today. The reason you have copyrighted Bibles now is so they (the authors) don't loose any money. A mistake that has lasted a few hundred years does not make it any less a mistake. After all, there are still those who deny that Jesus ever existed, and they have been around a long time, does that mean they are right?

I think you misunderstand what copyrighting entails, nor did you engage my argument at all about copyrighting, so I’ll just take that point and move on.

You said:

True, God can use anybody, but He won't use someone, like a spiritualist, who is after the devil's heart. I'll tell you about the people you listed.He won’t use someone after the devil’s heart? What about Saul, the King? What about the Ammonites? What about the Assyrians? The entire OT contradicts this statement!

You said:

God Himself through the Holy Spirit has shown me truth through the King James Bible. He will show those of you who want to really know the truth of this matter. I was saved by the King James bible, so it's good enough for me. The Lord still speaks to me using the King James. I don't need all those other versions. They don't all say the same thing.And God has revealed to me by His Spirit working in and through me that other translations are His word. Who is right? Personal experience of God is quite subjective, and God often sounds like what we want to hear. After all, even Christians are still marred by sin, the noetic effects of the fall (meaning that sin clouds our minds) do not disappear until we are glorified with Him.

So the age old argument continues... Which Bible is best? I'm sticking with my King James Bible.If the argument is which is best, the newer translations win. But which is best is not, or at least should not be the point. The point is, how does God work? The KJVOs want to put God into a little box and dictate to Him how He can and cannot work. The KJVOs want to close their eyes to scholarship in general, calling it evil and satanic and anything else they can say in order not to deal with it. As long as they can anathematize anyone who uses such methods, they can feel comfy in their artificial world, believing that they have defeated the “bogeyman” of modern scholarship.

The truth, however, is much less enjoyable to them.

The truth is that they have no real justification for their beliefs other than blind faith. Is it faith in God? No! It is faith in a translation!

You see, they claim that the “doctrine of preservation” shows that God kept the Bible the same for all those years. However, there is no proof of it! In fact, the earliest that any of the Byzantine Text Type is found is maybe 500 AD. Not only that, but the KJV does not even agree with the Byzantine text type, it agrees with the Textus Receptus which was compiled by ONE MAN who was missing verses of the Bible so he translated them from Latin into Greek.

Who would use a Bible based on a translation, not from the actual language that the Bible was written in, but rather on a translation back into the language the Bible was written in? If the King James Version is a translation of a perfectly preserved document, why is it that not a single Greek manuscript matches the King James? What was then preserved? Obviously not the text!

The bottom line is that the doctrine of KJVO is based on blind faith, a faith that is misplaced in men and not in God, and it is from fear. They are afraid of what scholarship can tell them, they are afraid that if they accept part of it, they need to take in it all. They are afraid to have their faith challenged. Therefore, they declare those who do not use the KJV as heterodox, if not heretical. But doesn’t that go against what scripture itself teaches? Shouldn’t we, as the body of Christ, be more worried about the unsaved than about attacking each other? Shouldn’t we be more worried about our relationship with God than what translation we use?

John 17:15-26
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

At the end of the day, it is the love we show each other that matters, the love that comes from God. Admittedly, we need to keep each other from doctrinal error, but we do so through love. Calvin said we should look at the world through the "spectacles of scripture." What he forgot to add is that the tint is love.

God bless.

Knight
October 3rd, 2002, 10:32 AM
That's it, Battle Royale IV is Ooooo-Vahhhh!!!

Thank you to both combatants for your time and effort!

Knight
October 3rd, 2002, 10:41 AM
Battle Royale IV shirts now on sale! I think the BR IV logo is the best yet.

BUY NOW! (http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/prod.aspx?p=tolstore.3366413)