Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

heir

TOL Subscriber
I do not think what I said was stupid. I have been reading and following him for about 5 years now.
I'm glad that Will is a Bible believer and I hope he is faithful man to take what he has heard of Paul and teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2 KJV), but your statement about following him is is still stupid. If he departed the faith and started teaching something contrary to sound doctrine/consenting not to wholesome words you should not "follow him", but instead in following Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV), you would mark and avoid him (Romans 16:17 KJV). The scriptures should always be our final authority (Acts 17:11 KJV, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV).
 

Danoh

New member
I don't know, it depends how you would define error.

Are both of the following statements true:

"The Dutch were the first to settle in New York City."

"The Dutch were the first to settle in New Amsterdam".

Does one statement contain an error?

Let's say the KJV used NYC, and the NIV used New Amsterdam. What you guys do is argue that New Amsterdam and the NIV are wrong because the KJV says NYC.

I could show you Wikipedia quotes saying NYC used to be called New Amsterdam, and other secular sources showing it was called New Amsterdam, and you would just keep saying "Nope, it's NYC, the KJV says NYC, I believe the KJV, it's NYC...."

:rotfl: talk about the Dispensational Principle. Again, Tel deserves a well earned :rotfl:
 

Danoh

New member
Why not?

How could two KJVO's come to such a different understanding of what the word "Easter" means in Acts 12:4?

How can you and your fellow Preterist, more ir less: Interplanner, differ as to a gap between your 70AD and 2 Peter 3?
 

Tweety134

New member
I'm glad that Will is a Bible believer and I hope he is faithful man to take what he has heard of Paul and teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2 KJV), but your statement about following him is is still stupid. If he departed the faith and started teaching something contrary to sound doctrine/consenting not to wholesome words you should not "follow him", but instead in following Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV), you would mark and avoid him (Romans 16:17 KJV). The scriptures should always be our final authority (Acts 17:11 KJV, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV).
If Will did depart the faith, which I pray he does not. That would be his choice and he would know the consequences for leaving the faith. I follow alot of people. Not just him.
 

brandplucked

New member
typos

typos

I moved this post into here so we wouldn't be discussing this in the BR thread.

Brandplucked it's no big deal that you edited your post unknowingly. But we can't tell what has been edited so we don't allow that. I believe that you corrected typos etc. But in the future just leave them so it doesn't cause confusion.

Thanks!! :up:

Hi Knight. Yes, that is all I changed. Sorry. I was not told before that we could not edit anything once it was posted. Now I know. It won't happen again. Thanks.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
How can you and your fellow Preterist, more ir less: Interplanner, differ as to a gap between your 70AD and 2 Peter 3?

Interplanner and myself don't claim only one bible translation is the only preserved word of God.

If KJVO is correct, then how can two KJVO's be so far off on the word "Easter"?

All the modern versions use the word "Passover", and there is no disagreement.

The only confusion around Acts 12:4 is with KJVO.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
There's nothing wrong with the word, it's one of us with the error.

Nope, you're both wrong.

If the two of you would concede that the best translation of the Greek word "pascha" is Passover, the two of you wouldn't both be wrong.

The Greek word "pascha" is found 29 other times in the NT, and every time it is translated "Passover" in the KJV.
 

brandplucked

New member
The modern perversionist's silly complaint

The modern perversionist's silly complaint

Doctors and Pharmacists study and train for years to learn the language of their trade. People just pick up a KJV and start reading and assume that in the last 300 years or so the meanings of words have not changed. They have. That is just a simple fact of language.

Hi CM. The simple fact of the matter is, you and most Christians like you do NOT believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God.

You "use" the every changing NIV. Yet nobody (including you) seriously believes it is the inerrant and 100% true words of God. Your NIV is the Comic Book of the Vatican Versions. It rejects and then adds to scores of Hebrew readings in the O.T.

The NIVs continue to change both their underlying Hebrew and Greek textual basis, while it omits some 3000 words from just the N.T. Reformation text of the KJB and it contains numerous theological errors.

All this seems to be of little concern to people like you. You just want something that is "easy to read". That seems to be the mindset of so many today.

There is a lot more to my article called The "Old fashioned language" of the King James Bible - "Archaic and Inerrant" beats "Modernized and Wrong" Any Day of the Week"

http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/archaickjbship.htm

I hope you and others will read the whole article. I think you will learn some things you didn't know before or even consider.

I give some examples of these changes and I also deal with the handful of truly "archaic" words found in the KJB. But here is the part I want you to see for now.

I have made up a Vocabulary Test taken from your "easy to understand" NIV. Try giving this to most 21st century public school educated young people, and see how many of them would get a passing grade.

The NIV Vocabulary Test

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, 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."
 

brandplucked

New member
More misinformation from the bible agnostics -

More misinformation from the bible agnostics -

As I stated, you won't find a trace of KJVO before Seventh Day Adventism.


Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830

We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

1857: “The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted...” (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).



1882: “I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED...” (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).

1890: The Supreme Court said, “…the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects…” (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).

1897: "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers hands for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version. It had come to have all the significance of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, and they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called the best translation in the world, and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...(Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.)


In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, “I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)


Commenting on the KJV Bible in 1922 William L. Phelps, Professor of English Literature at Yale, wrote, “The Elizabethan period—a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642—is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature.... the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorised Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611.... the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the [KJV] Bible. WE ANGLO-SAXONS HAVE A BETTER BIBLE THAN THE FRENCH OR THE GERMANS OR THE ITALIANS OR THE SPANISH; OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS; THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WAS INSPIRED." (Human Nature in The Bible, William Lyon Phelps, 1922, pp. 10, 11)




1945: President Harry S. Truman said, “THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE BEST THERE IS OR EVER HAS BEEN OR WILL BE, and you get a bunch of college professors spending years working on it, and all they do is take the poetry out of it.”
(President Harry S. Truman, quoted in, Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, 1985)

1946: “When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering [saying, 'that word means'], and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. WE BELIEVE THAT GOD OVERRULED HIS GIFT OF THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611, SO THAT IN IT WE HAVE THE VERY WORD OF GOD." (Le Baron Wilmont Kinney, Acres of Rubies, Loizeaux, 1946)


Winston Churchill - “In the crowded emigrant ships which sailed to the New World of America, there was little room for baggage. If the adventurers took books with them, they took the Bible, Shakespeare, and later Pilgrim’s Progress; and the Bible they mostly took with them was the Authorized Version of King James I. About ninety million copies are thought to have been published in the English language alone. It has been translated into more than seven hundred and sixty tongues. The Authorized Version is still the most popular in England and the United States. This may be deemed James’ greatest achievement, for the impulse was largely his. The Scottish pedant built better than he knew. The scholars who produced this masterpiece are mostly unknown and unremembered. But they forged an enduring link, literary and religious, between the English-speaking peoples of the world.”

Churchill, Winston, Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Commager, One volume edition, Mead and Co., 1965, p. 160
 

brandplucked

New member
Easter is correct in Acts 12:4

Easter is correct in Acts 12:4

brandplucked did a lot of research, but it all came to nothing because of his beliefs.

He believes "The King James Bible is always right." (quoted from his article on Easter)

Hi go. Sound rebuttal to my arguments, sir. Really deep stuff you give us here.:duh:

You are right about my belief that the KJB is always right. But I reached this conclusion from studying the issues more and praying that God would show me the truth. I gave lots of historic and grammatical reasons as to why Easter is correct in Acts 12:4. A lot more went into this than just "He believes "The King James Bible is always right."
 

brandplucked

New member
Inconsistent beliefs

Inconsistent beliefs

The KJB IS ALWAYS right, it is us who are NOT ALWAYS right.

Hi Danoh. You seem to be inconsistent. If you believe the KJB is always right (as I most definitely do), then why do you criticize the word Easter in Acts 12:4? You can't have it both ways, you know. It is either the perfect and inerrant words of God, or it isn't.

God bless.
 
Top