Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Jaltus
    False dilemma is when at least one of the two premises is false or when there is no dilemma to begin with. The fallacy of the excluded middle is when there is a middle path which makes more sense than either choice, a path that was obviously overlooked in the formulation of the problem at hand.

    I hope that helps.
    Thanks! Yes, it does.

    So to drive this into my mind and looking back at the example that started this, which was: either KJV is inspired or None are would be a false dilemma; because the entire set is:
    All are inspired....Some are inspired(1 or more maybe including KJV being inspired).... None are inspired.

    The example was giving two choices, creating a dilemma when in fact there was none as there are many choices (not just an excluded middle.) Those in between the two choices given as well as those outside the given choice range.

    Is it also correct to surmise that in certain cases, a false dilemma may in fact also be an excluded middle due to the nature of the set?

    Comment


    • #92
      No. A false dilemma is untrue even as stated. Excluded middle is when the dilemma is true as stated, it is just overlooking another option.
      For Greek conversion,

      Comment


      • #93
        Will someone have the decency to throw the towel!

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Yxboom
          Will someone have the decency to throw the towel!
          Are you referring to my questions or the "debate" so far between S9 and J. If it is my questions, how do you throw in the towel when you are not debating but just asking questions to learn?

          If its the main debate, you never know, it might get better.

          Comment


          • #95
            Well a battle royal with Jaltus. How about that. If there are two topics of disagreement with Jaltus, it's Wescott and Hort's Bible, which by the way, ALL NEW translations are based on thier corrupted texts, and OSAS.

            BTW S9, this is a debate. Don't waste your posts like you did that 2nd post.


            God is unchangeable. God's word is unchangeable too. In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

            Why then are we so ready to accept changes to God's word in the form of different Bible versions? The Authorized King James text has faithfully served the body of Christ for almost 400 years. During this time, and during its translation, Satan has viciously and relentlessly attacked it. I now hear Christians attacking it too! I've heard preachers and lay people say things like, "it's too hard to read" or "it doesn't properly reflect the true meaning of the original Greek". The issue about the original Greek sets my teeth on edge--which Greek? There are Greek manuscripts galore, including the corrupted manuscripts that the Roman Catholic religion uses. The snide remarks and attacks against this utterly reliable text are unfounded.

            We must remember that the Bible is a spiritual book and is understandable to those who are led by God's Spirit. It is not possible for the natural man to understand it [I Corinthians 2:14], hence paraphrasing or simplifying it will do no good. The Bible is not supposed to read like a fairy tale--Peter said, "for we have not followed cunningly devised fables" [II Peter 1:16]. The words of the Authorized King James are not laborious to me, they are beautiful and full of God's power. Even the world knows it--the Authorized King James has been listed on Norton Anthology's list of "the world's best literature" for decades.

            The new versions have come up with some dangerous changes to the scriptures. The Lord God gives us stern warnings about changing His Word--

            Revelation 22:18-19, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 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.
            Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

            Look at this change in the NIV:

            John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son...
            The authorized King James says,

            John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son.
            In this instance, the NIV changes the scriptures by saying that Jesus is God's "one and only" Son instead of His only begotten Son. This change causes a contradiction in the word of God because God has more than one son according to both the King James (Genesis 6:2, Job 1:6, John 1:12) and NIV (Genesis 6:2).

            I do not buy the line that the inerrant word of God is found only in the originals-- which nobody has. I know that God has the power to preserve His word and that he wouldn't leave us out in the dark with an "imperfect" translation. In the authorized King James Version God assembled, and moved with His Spirit, a team of some of the world's best scholars to translate His word into the world's most popular language, English.

            The complete translator's notes of the Authorized King James scholars are not included in today's publishings. This is unfortunate because these notes say a lot about these men-- they were humble, loved the word of God, loved the King, were berated by the Catholic religion, and they desired a translation for the common man who was kept in darkness. Some of the translators where killed for their faith. This book was forged in blood, sweat, and tears.

            I've heard folks make a big to-do about the italics in the Authorized KJV. Well, unlike many of today's translators, the authorized KJV translators let us know which words they had to add in translating in order to give the full meaning of the original text (these are the words in italics in the KJV). Other translators have added words too--but they don't tell you what they've added. I speak a little Spanish and know that it is oftentimes necessary to rearrange or add words so that the translation makes sense. These men went through the extra trouble of identifying which words they added. That's real scholarship and integrity.

            Let's fall in love with the Authorized KJV again and stand on it. Let's get down to business and read the Word and stop spending so much time reading what others have to say about the Word in commentaries, Greek lexicons, study bibles, etc. We want the Holy Ghost to talk to us.

            How many classes have you been in where every student has a different textbook? None. It just doesn't make good sense on a very practical level. We all need to be on the same sheet of music so that we are in harmony. Let's not confuse our kids by teaching/preaching from the NIV, NASV, LB, the Message, Phillips, GN, etc.

            Let's not accept the premise that the tried and true Authorized King James is somehow outdated and is to be replaced by dozens of new translations. A standard test determined the Authorized KJV reading level to be 5th grade because it contains mostly one and two-syllablic words making it one of the easiest to read. People have been getting saved by reading it for a long, long time. We know that it contains the Word of life whereby we live and grow.

            Satan knows that in a generation we won't uniformly quote the scriptures. Imagine ten people with ten different translations trying to recite a psalm together. Confusion. Satan knows that many newborn babes in Christ will not have the real milk that they need in order to grow because they'll have a watered down version of the truth. He figures that if he can't kill the babes, he'll do the next best thing-stunt their growth. At the same time the world will point to Christianity and say, "They don't even have a definitive word of God. Anybody can write a Bible." They already say that the Bible was "just written by men".

            Being able to talk to a child of God and have our spirits commune on the parts of God's word that we've memorized is great. I now find people who are quoting scriptures that I know, but they are worded so differently that I have to ask the reference. This is confusion, and we know who authors confusion, the enemy of our souls, the Devil. I believe that the emergence of these many different "Bible" versions is Satan's most successful attempt to attack God's word. The Bible says that in the last days there's going to be a falling away of the church and I believe that these other versions are helping to usher it along.
            The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

            Comment


            • #96
              To answer your question, Yx...

              About the debate's original question:

              Knight's question was "Is the King James Version the only inspired translation for today?"

              As a reader of the Luther version (in German), I would say flat out No. Saying the KJV is the only inspired translation would, in my mind, leave out every other language. And thus, that would end the debate for me.

              Maybe Knight did that on purpose to leave greater headway for debate. But, in my opinion, the question needs to be qualified further: did he mean "Is the King James Version the only inspired English translation for today?"

              Then comes the issue of whether or not a translation can be "inspired." To that, I would say "quite possibly," especially if the legend about the Septuagint's translation has any truth to it.

              Dr. B mentioned that you need the Spirit to really understand the Bible. I agree with that. In that light, I would have to ask the question as to whether or not the newer translations are trying to interpret the Bible according to man's understanding, or if the committees that worked on them really sought the Lord for the best rendering of phrases from the original languages. I'm starting to be of the opinion that it's becoming more and more of the former than the latter.

              That would explain why the older versions seem to have more impact than the newer ones, which seem to be a little "dull" (at least to me, and this is someone who, to date, has only read the RSV in its entirety in English). I've found this, to an extent, in the newer Luther revisions and a few other newer German versions, too.

              But on the other hand, if the Spirit is really the best source for interpretation, or any understanding about the Lord, then He is able to overcome the deficiencies of any translation (and all seem to be deficient in one respect or another) and make His points clearest to those who are truly seeking Him.

              Blessings,
              jth
              The free world may be gross, vulgar, and immoral, but that is not something that the slave world can fix

              --Jeff Cooper

              Comment


              • #97
                More Not Abiding by the Rules

                +
                > On 27Sept Pilgrimagain wrote: Textman, learn to use
                > VbCode man. You sound really wierd typing that way.
                .
                Sorry, Pilgrimagain, but I have my own reasons for formatting
                text the way that I do, and I am not impressed by or interested
                in this VbCode stuff. But I would like to forward a motion that
                lateral-scrolling text be banned from TOL posts. I mean really,
                how annoying can you get?
                .
                As for your other observation: I object to your use of the word
                'weird' in reference to my formatting style. According to the
                'Cambridge Dictionary of American English' the word 'weird'
                means 'strangely different from anything natural or ordinary'.
                There is nothing unnatural about it since it is pretty standard
                stuff for UseNet; which is where I developed my particular
                variation in the first place, btw.
                x
                "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's minds." -- S. Adams

                Comment


                • #98
                  Dude!!!

                  I have lateral scrolling text.

                  Otherwise my sig would be 4 lines long and a post unto itself. So for the good of all TOL'ers I have designated to marquee my sig.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    a truly rational response

                    +
                    . . .
                    x
                    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's minds." -- S. Adams

                    Comment


                    • Singing the Psalms

                      Dr B
                      Satan knows that in a generation we won't uniformly quote the scriptures. Imagine ten people with ten different translations trying to recite a psalm together.
                      This does not seem to have bothered the KJV translators, or the Church of England leaders who devised the Book of Common Prayer. At least three official versions survive from the time, besides partial Psalters selected & set to music.

                      The Prayer Book uses the Psalms from the Great Bible, chanted as written. NOT the KJV, and the Scottish Metrical Psalms date from 1564.

                      THus the Christians of the time read the KJV (1611), (or the Geneva (1560) or Great Bible (1539)) and sang the Psalms in the Great Bible version or versified in the Scottish metrical version.
                      By the end of the 17th century, the "problems" were increased by the poetical (as distinct from metrical) Psalms of Isaac Watts & others. John Wesley altered some of Watt's Psalms & hymns.
                      Imagine them trying to worship together


                      Dr B, do YOU chant the KJV Psalms only ?? I doubt it.

                      My memory of Anglican worship as a child is mainly getting lost in the Psalm chants! It was all too confusing to worry about whether the Psalter was different from the AV. There was then no question of modern translations.
                      Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
                      21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

                      In Christ,

                      Ian

                      Comment


                      • Dual authorities

                        Is the debate regarding divine inspiration of the KJB or divine preservation via KJB? The BR seems to imply the former which is just totally ludicrous. Than again. It may be accurate.
                        I believe Inspiration and Preservation are done by God.
                        I have ONE final authority, the KJV.

                        I have more respect for the man who says the NIV is Gods word than someone who runs to the Greek, trying to get you to accept THEM as final authorities.
                        Job 26
                        2 How hast thou helped him that is without power? how savest thou the arm that hath no strength?
                        3 How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?
                        4 To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee?
                        5 Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.

                        Comment


                        • DRB is not Dr. B. He is not a doctor.
                          For Greek conversion,

                          Comment


                          • What is it with this fale idea that Westcott-Hort is the base of all modern translations? Has no one heard of Nestle-Alland?

                            Comment


                            • Textman,
                              But I would like to forward a motion that
                              lateral-scrolling text be banned from TOL posts. I mean really,
                              how annoying can you get?
                              I second that motion. I hate marquee. I hate Interntet Explorer, I hate Windows, I hate Microsoft!!!!!!

                              Comment


                              • Explosived,
                                So, you would rather trust in the faulty pen of man, than the flawless pen of God?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X