Stopping the KJVO myth in its tracks...

robycop3

Member
The KJVO myth is the false belief that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation. Without going into its many other falsehoods, there's one fact that automatically renders it false - ITS TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

No doctrine of faith/worship can be true without Scriptural support, as it has a source of origin other than from GOD. And KJVO has no such support.

For that matter, NO doctrine of exclusivity for any one Bible translation is valid, either, for the same reason.

If one PREFERS the KJV or any other one version, fine, but assigning exclusivity to any one version is simply WRONG.
 

God's Truth

New member
God's written Word has been available to us in our language in English, and that goes back to the KJV.

I trust the KJV because of the fear that went into the translating. The KJV is essential in studying the deep things of God in the Old Testament.

However, we still need to pair it with a translation in our English.
 

brandplucked

New member
Hi all. Robycop is a very confused individual who has NO complete and inerrant Bible in any language he can show to anybody. When you challenge him on this, he comes back listing 3 or 4 different "bibles" with different texts and different meanings, and claims that these are "more inerrant" than the King James Bible.

Something cannot be "more inerrant" than something else. It is either inerrant or it isn't.

Robycop likes to tell us that there is no Scriptural basis for KJB only. It should be pointed out that neither is there any Scriptural support for "the originals" or even for "the Hebrew and the Greek".

God is a God of absolute truth and he cannot lie. Fake bibles all contain lies and thus prove themselves to be false witnesses.

"Seven easy ways to tell the true Bible from the false ones"

https://brandplucked.webs.com/truebible.htm

But don't expect rabid roby to show you one. He's got several "more inerrant bibles" that all disagree with each other, and he's fine with that absurdity.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Hi all. Robycop is a very confused individual who has NO complete and inerrant Bible in any language he can show to anybody. When you challenge him on this, he comes back listing 3 or 4 different "bibles" with different texts and different meanings, and claims that these are "more inerrant" than the King James Bible.

Something cannot be "more inerrant" than something else. It is either inerrant or it isn't.

Robycop likes to tell us that there is no Scriptural basis for KJB only. It should be pointed out that neither is there any Scriptural support for "the originals" or even for "the Hebrew and the Greek".

God is a God of absolute truth and he cannot lie. Fake bibles all contain lies and thus prove themselves to be false witnesses.

"Seven easy ways to tell the true Bible from the false ones"

https://brandplucked.webs.com/truebible.htm

But don't expect rabid roby to show you one. He's got several "more inerrant bibles" that all disagree with each other, and he's fine with that absurdity.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38

Hey, Will Kenny, I think you may have forgotten what happened during your debate with Bob Enyart and Will Duffy in Battle Royale XIV...

Here's a refresher for you:

https://kgov.com/king-james-only-debate

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4502735

In the debate, they steamrolled you with the knowledge and photographs they gained from their trip to Oxford, and gave a good thrashing to the belief that the KJV (whichever one that may be) is the only inerrant Bible.

So maybe, before attacking someone because of something they believe (which is an ad hominem, by the way, instead of attacking their belief itself), you should go through the debate again.

I think one of my favorite arguments against the KJO position is this:

How are people who can't understand English supposed to read the "perfect" English King James Bible?

Do they have to first learn English? or are they stuck with reading a lesser version of the Bible?

Or could it be, that God doesn't require strict standards for the Bible, and that some errors are ok in the process of translating/copying, provided they don't change the message, which God is fully capable of preserving in other ways (such as redundancy)?
 

brandplucked

New member
Hey, Will Kenny, I think you may have forgotten what happened during your debate with Bob Enyart and Will Duffy in Battle Royale XIV...

Here's a refresher for you:

https://kgov.com/king-james-only-debate

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4502735

In the debate, they steamrolled you with the knowledge and photographs they gained from their trip to Oxford, and gave a good thrashing to the belief that the KJV (whichever one that may be) is the only inerrant Bible.

So maybe, before attacking someone because of something they believe (which is an ad hominem, by the way, instead of attacking their belief itself), you should go through the debate again.

I think one of my favorite arguments against the KJO position is this:

How are people who can't understand English supposed to read the "perfect" English King James Bible?

Do they have to first learn English? or are they stuck with reading a lesser version of the Bible?

Or could it be, that God doesn't require strict standards for the Bible, and that some errors are ok in the process of translating/copying, provided they don't change the message, which God is fully capable of preserving in other ways (such as redundancy)?

Hi JudgeRightly. If you think Bob Enyart and Will Duffy "steamrolled" me in the debate, then that must be because you are all kindred spirits. Not one of these men nor you have any Bible in any language you can show us that you honestly believe is the complete and inerrant words of God. That may well be why you found them so convincing.

And as for your question about those who do not know how to read English, here is my response to this objection that so frequently comes up from those like you do who not believe there is such a thing as an inerrant bible.

What about Foreign Language speakers? Must they learn English?


If the King James Bible in English is the perfect words of God, then What About Other Languages?

https://brandplucked.webs.com/otherlanguages.htm
 

chair

Well-known member
So:
"There has to be at least one perfect Bible in this world that serves as the Final Authority and Standard by which all others are measured.

It certainly does not exist in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is no "the Hebrew" and much less is there "the" Greek."

Then you go on to explain that since so many people speak English, the English version must be the inerrant one. But there is no inerrant one, except in your imagination. And English wasn't a common language for many centuries. Even today, more people speak Chinese than English.

Your position is absurd. wake up.
 

DAN P

Well-known member
The KJVO myth is the false belief that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation. Without going into its many other falsehoods, there's one fact that automatically renders it false - ITS TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

No doctrine of faith/worship can be true without Scriptural support, as it has a source of origin other than from GOD. And KJVO has no such support.

For that matter, NO doctrine of exclusivity for any one Bible translation is valid, either, for the same reason.

If one PREFERS the KJV or any other one version, fine, but assigning exclusivity to any one version is simply WRONG.

Hi and I use the KJV only because I grew up with it !!

All , over 100 translations are not inspired , ONLY the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS are inspired , !!

dan p
 

brandplucked

New member
Hi and I use the KJV only because I grew up with it !!

All , over 100 translations are not inspired , ONLY the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS are inspired , !!

dan p

Hi Dan. Well, sir, if "only the original autographs are inspired", then you (like most Christians today) are professing a faith in a Phantom Bible that you have never seen, never read, can't show to anybody else and that you KNOW does not exist. Yet you use a present tense verb - ARE - when you tell us that something that does not exist "ONLY the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS ARE inspired!"

And you "Phantom bible" guys think us King James Bible believers are whackos???
 

God's Truth

New member
God brings His message to us in our language.

The King James Version is reliable, but it is not in our English, it is hard to read sometimes.

The New International Version is a good study translation to read along with the KJV, because it is international, meaning many different denominations had part in it, not just the Reformed Protestants who translated the English Standard Version, or the Douay-Rheims Bible which has only the Catholic influence. I do use the NIV, even though I sometimes see some questionable things.

I sense the 'Calvin' too much in the English Standard Version; I sense the Catholic spirit too much in the Jerusalem Bible and the Douay-Rheims translation, and the NKJV is out, due to too strong of ties to false doctrines. I won't have anything to do with the Jehovah Witnesses special translation

I appreciate the way some of the scriptures are translated in the NET, and Holman translation, and Weymouth.

No one is going to understand any Bible correctly unless they get Jesus' teachings and do what he says. That is to whom Jesus gives knowledge.

I wouldn't ever want to be without my KJV, or to use it without a translation in nowadays English.

The KJV is written in “Early Modern English”, used from 1450 to 1650. The KJV might have been written in what is called "Early Modern English", but it is NOT our English. It is old English to us. We are in an age of many blessings as we have many resources for studying the written Word of God in the language we speak.
 

brandplucked

New member
God brings His message to us in our language.

The KJV is written in “Early Modern English”, used from 1450 to 1650. The KJV might have been written in what is called "Early Modern English", but it is NOT our English. It is old English to us. We are in an age of many blessings as we have many resources for studying the written Word of God in the language we speak.

Hi God's Truth. You "use" many different bible versions (all of which contradict not only each other but themselves in numerous places) but you don't really believe that any of then are the complete and inerrant words of God, right?

You probably blew right on by the Bible Agnostic test, correct? Didn't even look at it.

You complain about the English of the KJB so I want to ask you a question about it. Do you know the difference in meaning between "thou" and "ye"? Did you even know there is a difference in meaning? It is impossible to have an accurate translation without using them. Can you tell us what the difference is?

Since most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, can you honestly answer this question for us? Most bible agnostics simply dodge the question. How about you?


Do you believe there IS (present tense) ANY Bible in ANY language, translated or untranslated, that you can SHOW US (Give us a link to where we can see it) that you honestly believe IS the complete and inerrant (infallible, 100% true) words of God? Yes or No?

If Yes, which one is it?

If No, or simply “I don’t know” are you honest enough to admit it?

Thank you.

By the way, How would the average high school student do on this Spelling Quiz taken from your "easy to read" NIV?

Here are some of those words found in the "easy to read" NIV.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

abashed, abominable, abstinence, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonish, advocate, affinity, alcove, algum, allays, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, aloof, amend (not a patch), antitype (not opposed to typewriters), appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire, dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebbed, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hot dogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

There are many cases where the NIV uses a harder word than the KJB. Compare the following: The NIV has “abasement” in Ezra 9:5 whereas the KJB has “heaviness.” Isaiah 24:23: “abashed” (NIV) = “confounded” (KJB). Ezekiel 40:18: “abutted” (NIV) = “over against” (KJB). 2 Chronicles 15:14: “acclamation” (NIV) = “voice” (KJB). Isaiah 13:8: “aghast” (NIV) = “amazed” (KJB) Psalm 107:5 "ebbed away" (NIV) = "fainted" (KJB). A personal favorite is “squall” (NIV) instead of “storm” (KJB) in Mark 4:37.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."
 

God's Truth

New member
Hi God's Truth. You "use" many different bible versions (all of which contradict not only each other but themselves in numerous places) but you don't really believe that any of then are the complete and inerrant words of God, right?

Hi brandplucked. I do use different versions. Show me which ones contradict.

You probably blew right on by the Bible Agnostic test, correct? Didn't even look at it.

I have not looked at that thread.


You complain about the English of the KJB so I want to ask you a question about it. Do you know the difference in meaning between "thou" and "ye"? Did you even know there is a difference in meaning? It is impossible to have an accurate translation without using them. Can you tell us what the difference is?
How do you think it matters?

Since most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, can you honestly answer this question for us? Most bible agnostics simply dodge the question. How about you?

There is absolutely no false teachings. The false teachings comes from false teachers.


Do you believe there IS (present tense) ANY Bible in ANY language, translated or untranslated, that you can SHOW US (Give us a link to where we can see it) that you honestly believe IS the complete and inerrant (infallible, 100% true) words of God? Yes or No?

If Yes, which one is it?
I would say the KJV; however, when I first was saved I bought and studied with the NIV 1984 translation and it was a blessing. The KJV and that NIV they worked well together.
If No, or simply “I don’t know” are you honest enough to admit it?

Thank you.

You are welcome. We can know God's Truth.
I haven't searched out every translation ever known, but I know I have the truth and can prove it with scripture.
By the way, How would the average high school student do on this Spelling Quiz taken from your "easy to read" NIV?


Here are some of those words found in the "easy to read" NIV.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

abashed, abominable, abstinence, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonish, advocate, affinity, alcove, algum, allays, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, aloof, amend (not a patch), antitype (not opposed to typewriters), appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire, dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebbed, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hot dogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

There are many cases where the NIV uses a harder word than the KJB. Compare the following: The NIV has “abasement” in Ezra 9:5 whereas the KJB has “heaviness.” Isaiah 24:23: “abashed” (NIV) = “confounded” (KJB). Ezekiel 40:18: “abutted” (NIV) = “over against” (KJB). 2 Chronicles 15:14: “acclamation” (NIV) = “voice” (KJB). Isaiah 13:8: “aghast” (NIV) = “amazed” (KJB) Psalm 107:5 "ebbed away" (NIV) = "fainted" (KJB). A personal favorite is “squall” (NIV) instead of “storm” (KJB) in Mark 4:37.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."

Give the scripture references.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Hi JudgeRightly. If you think Bob Enyart and Will Duffy "steamrolled" me in the debate, then that must be because you are all kindred spirits.
No, it isn't that. It's because we read the debate, that why we think that. It's because they took the philosophical equivalent of a steamroller and smashed your position into powder with it.

Not one of these men nor you have any Bible in any language you can show us that you honestly believe is the complete and inerrant words of God.
I'll address this in a minute.

That may well be why you found them so convincing.
No, they were convincing because they made cojent arguments that proved not only that the bible we have is trustworthy but that your position is self-contradictory.

That's how a lot of debates are won, you know.

And as for your question about those who do not know how to read English, here is my response to this objection that so frequently comes up from those like you do who not believe there is such a thing as an inerrant bible.

If the bible we have isn't inerrant, we don't have anything

What about Foreign Language speakers? Must they learn English?

If the King James Bible in English is the perfect words of God, then What About Other Languages?

https://brandplucked.webs.com/otherlanguages.htm
That's the objection you felt the need to respond to? Okay, whatever, but I'm not going to respond to someone else's work on another website. Make the argument here. It doesn't need to be 4000 words. Just boil it down to its basic points so that I can tell wether the longer article is even worth my time to bother reading.

Now, lets go back to this point about inerrancy...

Not one of these men nor you have any Bible in any language you can show us that you honestly believe is the complete and inerrant words of God.
Actually, just go find any bible anywhere. Pull one off your shelf or go to any church, book store, hotel room or nearly any household in America and perhaps even most of the world and find a bible. Pretty much any bible in any language that you find will suffice. You'll have in your hands the word of God.

Your argument is self-defeating because you don't believe it either! The King James Bible is demonstrably NOT inerrant (forgive the double negative) and not only can you not prove otherwise, you don't actually believe otherwise! (I acknowledge that you think you believe it, by the way. It isn't my intent to imply that you're lying.) The proof of this is the fact that the King James Bible you use every day is not the original King James Bible. In fact, you wouldn't even be able to read (understand) the original 1611 King James Bible and even if you could (which you can't), there were two editions of the King James Bible produced in 1611! Not to mention the fact that in included the Apocrypha, which you surely reject as being part of the bible.

You'll want to try to tell me that nearly all of the changes made in the KJV are related to spelling and printing errors but it doesn't matter. Is it your position that God can't spell correcly and isn't capable of divinely inspiring the printing process?

The bottom line is that the bible is God's word and if it isn't "inerrant" then it doesn't need to be.

Clete
 

brandplucked

New member
Hi brandplucked. I do use different versions. Show me which ones contradict.




I have not looked at that thread.



How do you think it matters?



There is absolutely no false teachings. The false teachings comes from false teachers.



I would say the KJV; however, when I first was saved I bought and studied with the NIV 1984 translation and it was a blessing. The KJV and that NIV they worked well together.


You are welcome. We can know God's Truth.
I haven't searched out every translation ever known, but I know I have the truth and can prove it with scripture.


Give the scripture references.

Hi God's Truth. "Which ones contradict?"
They all contradict each other. I can easily prove this. Here is the Bible Agnostic Test for example. These are just a few of the literally hundreds of examples I can show you.

the Bible Agnostic Test.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/bibleagnostictest.htm

Just to give you some more examples, take a look at Bible Babble Buffet Part One (I have 4 parts to this study)

https://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebabel1.htm

Second thing you ask about is the difference in meaning between "thou" and "ye" and how it matters. It most certainly does matter and here is why.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/theeandye.htm

And as for that NIV Vocabulary list I gave you, I put it together just by looking at the NIV 1984 edition complete concordance. If you doubt that it is accurate, just go to a Bible version site and type in the word and look it up in the NIV. I did not make this up. It is there for anyone to see.


God bless.
 

brandplucked

New member
Now, lets go back to this point about inerrancy...


Actually, just go find any bible anywhere. Pull one off your shelf or go to any church, book store, hotel room or nearly any household in America and perhaps even most of the world and find a bible. Pretty much any bible in any language that you find will suffice. You'll have in your hands the word of God.
Clete

Clete, if you think just any "bible" out there in Bible Babble Buffet Land is the inerrant words of God, then. why don't you take up the Bible Agnostic Test challenge I gave here and so far nobody has actually taken?

Just pick two of the examples I give and let us know if you know which readings are the 100% historically true words of God.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/bibleagnostictest.htm

By the way, regarding Bob Enyart and that "debate" we had, if you remember, he criticized 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJB and in the NKJV (which he uses) and when I kept asking him to identify this inerrant Bible he supposedly believes in he mentioned some obscure Hungarian translation. But this Hungarian translation he mentioned has 1 John 5:7 in it just like the KJB he criticizes. He only showed how confused and self contradictory he is. And you think he won the debate???!!!
 

God's Truth

New member
Hi God's Truth. "Which ones contradict?"
They all contradict each other. I can easily prove this. Here is the Bible Agnostic Test for example. These are just a few of the literally hundreds of examples I can show you.

the Bible Agnostic Test.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/bibleagnostictest.htm

Just to give you some more examples, take a look at Bible Babble Buffet Part One (I have 4 parts to this study)

https://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebabel1.htm

Second thing you ask about is the difference in meaning between "thou" and "ye" and how it matters. It most certainly does matter and here is why.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/theeandye.htm

And as for that NIV Vocabulary list I gave you, I put it together just by looking at the NIV 1984 edition complete concordance. If you doubt that it is accurate, just go to a Bible version site and type in the word and look it up in the NIV. I did not make this up. It is there for anyone to see.


God bless.

I do not go by concordances. Why would you bring up concordances? Concordances are not scripture.

As for the links, I am not going to go to them to discuss with you here. Could you try to make your case here?
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
No, it isn't that. It's because we read the debate, that why we think that. It's because they took the philosophical equivalent of a steamroller and smashed your position into powder with it.
You read the debate and you came up with an opinion because a debate is solely designed to solicit opinion. History shows us that truth cannot be decided by popularity. Others have different subjective opinions which are no less valuable than your subjective opinions.

No, they were convincing because they made cojent arguments that proved not only that the bible we have is trustworthy but that your position is self-contradictory.

No, they were convincing because you had already made up your mind before reading it.

That's the objection you felt the need to respond to? Okay, whatever, but I'm not going to respond to someone else's work on another website. Make the argument here. It doesn't need to be 4000 words. Just boil it down to its basic points so that I can tell wether the longer article is even worth my time to bother reading.

This is nothing more than admitting that you are not interested in further knowledge - your mind is made up.
Dear God,
I don't have time to read all that stuff you put in the Bible because I am pretty sure it's not worth my time. Can you please just send me the most important parts? And keep it short will you? I am a busy man.
Your friend,
xxxxx​

Actually, just go find any bible anywhere. Pull one off your shelf or go to any church, book store, hotel room or nearly any household in America and perhaps even most of the world and find a bible. Pretty much any bible in any language that you find will suffice. You'll have in your hands the word of God.

Is God divided against Himself? Which one of these is the real Word of God? It may not be important to you, but I would really like to know and trust in the real words of Jesus. I pulled these two off the shelf.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. KJV
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.” NIV

Your argument is self-defeating because you don't believe it either!

Unfounded opinion.

The King James Bible is demonstrably NOT inerrant (forgive the double negative)...

Opinion based on ignorance. (maybe you should read more stuff you don't have time for before making a fool of yourself)
Of the tens of thousands of supposed objections to inerrancy there are only a handful that don't more than one possible and quite reasonable solutions. Except, of course, for those whose narrative demands mistakes.

and not only can you not prove otherwise, you don't actually believe otherwise! (I acknowledge that you think you believe it, by the way. It isn't my intent to imply that you're lying.)

More unfounded opinion.

The proof of this is the fact that the King James Bible you use every day is not the original King James Bible.

Pay attention! this was answered.

In fact, you wouldn't even be able to read (understand) the original 1611 King James Bible and even if you could (which you can't), there were two editions of the King James Bible produced in 1611!

So was this.

Not to mention the fact that in included the Apocrypha, which you surely reject as being part of the bible.

So was this. Boy you really have a lot of reading to do!

You'll want to try to tell me that nearly all of the changes made in the KJV are related to spelling and printing errors but it doesn't matter. Is it your position that God can't spell correcly and isn't capable of divinely inspiring the printing process?

God tells us that the authors were inspired. Nothing else. Getting what the authors said right was a process.

The bottom line is that the bible is God's word and if it isn't "inerrant" then it doesn't need to be.

Clete [/QUOTE]

If it is not inerrant, then it can't be God's Word. He does all things well.


(Please be advised that these comments may/may not reflect the beliefs of 'brandplucked' and are solely my responsibility.)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clete, if you think just any "bible" out there in Bible Babble Buffet Land is the inerrant words of God, then. why don't you take up the Bible Agnostic Test challenge I gave here and so far nobody has actually taken?
I didn't say it was "the inerrant word of God", I said that if you pick up any bible (i.e. any legitimate bible - not the Satanic Bible or Thomas Jefferson Bible or whatever) then you will have God's word in your hand. You can read it, believe it and get saved as a result.

Just pick two of the examples I give and let us know if you know which readings are the 100% historically true words of God.
That would be a waste of time. Not even you could do that.

https://brandplucked.webs.com/bibleagnostictest.htm

By the way, regarding Bob Enyart and that "debate" we had, if you remember, he criticized 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJB and in the NKJV (which he uses) and when I kept asking him to identify this inerrant Bible he supposedly believes in he mentioned some obscure Hungarian translation.
No, he didn't.

Please don't make stuff up when the debate is still there for everyone to read.

But this Hungarian translation he mentioned has 1 John 5:7 in it just like the KJB he criticizes. He only showed how confused and self contradictory he is. And you think he won the debate???!!!
You missing the point of an argument doesn't count as him having contradicted himself.

He absolutely crushed you into dust in that debate and you know it. It was over after one post!

How many of your friends have you told to read that debate to see how well you did in it.

None! That's precisely how many. Zero!

Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You read the debate and you came up with an opinion because a debate is solely designed to solicit opinion. History shows us that truth cannot be decided by popularity. Others have different subjective opinions which are no less valuable than your subjective opinions.



No, they were convincing because you had already made up your mind before reading it.



This is nothing more than admitting that you are not interested in further knowledge - your mind is made up.
Dear God,
I don't have time to read all that stuff you put in the Bible because I am pretty sure it's not worth my time. Can you please just send me the most important parts? And keep it short will you? I am a busy man.
Your friend,
xxxxx​



Is God divided against Himself? Which one of these is the real Word of God? It may not be important to you, but I would really like to know and trust in the real words of Jesus. I pulled these two off the shelf.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. KJV
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.” NIV



Unfounded opinion.



Opinion based on ignorance. (maybe you should read more stuff you don't have time for before making a fool of yourself)
Of the tens of thousands of supposed objections to inerrancy there are only a handful that don't more than one possible and quite reasonable solutions. Except, of course, for those whose narrative demands mistakes.



More unfounded opinion.



Pay attention! this was answered.



So was this.



So was this. Boy you really have a lot of reading to do!



God tells us that the authors were inspired. Nothing else. Getting what the authors said right was a process.



Clete [ /QUOTE ]

If it is not inerrant, then it can't be God's Word. He does all things well.


(Please be advised that these comments may/may not reflect the beliefs of 'brandplucked' and are solely my responsibility.)

Fix your formatting please.
 
Top