User Tag List

Page 103 of 103 FirstFirst ... 35393100101102103
Results 1,531 to 1,543 of 1543

Thread: Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

  1. #1531
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    southeast ohio
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    The truth is simple: THE KJVO MYTH HAS NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Tomorrow, God Willing, I'll post its cultic, dishonest, man-made origin.

  2. #1532
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    southeast ohio
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    As promised, here's the origin of the current KJVO myth:

    Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

    In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

    He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

    There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

    In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

    Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

    Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

    Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

    Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

    Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

    These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in npublic libraries, many religious book stores, or are for sale at various websites of religious book stores.

    Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

    I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to robycop3 For Your Post:

    MarleneJ (April 3rd, 2017),musterion (June 6th, 2016)

  4. #1533
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    southeast ohio
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    BTW, I see Mr. Kinney quickly posted the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" in his OP in the debate, an idea taken straight outta Dr. Wilkinson's book mentioned in my above post.

    That idea is phony as a Ford Corvette, proven so by the AV 1611 itself, among others. In the AV 1611, there's a little dagger beside the 2nd them in Psalm 12:7, indicating a marginal note. that note reads "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them.". This proves the AV men believed V7 is about PEOPLE. Most other translations read similarly.

    Even if V7 was about God's words, (which it isn't) this begs the question: "Where does it mention the KJV?"

    So Mr. kinney presents a goof, right off the bat.

  5. #1534
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    southeast ohio
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    I see Mr. Kinney has failed to respond. We must conclure Mr. Enyart and we Freedom Readers have won this "battle royale".

  6. #1535
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,839
    Thanks
    3,020
    Thanked 2,740 Times in 1,670 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    Quote Originally Posted by robycop3 View Post
    As promised, here's the origin of the current KJVO myth:

    Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

    In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he...
    Or you could have just pointed us all here:
    http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_unlearned_men.htm

    Are you Doug Kutilek, the actual man behind "the skinny" you have posted? If you are not, then you do know anything at all about him?

    By the way, here are some of Wilkinson's own words from the book in question on the matter of the use of the English translation:
    Spoiler

    God who foresaw the coming greatness of the English-speaking world, prepared in advance the agent who early would give direction to the course of its thinking. One man stands out silhouetted against the horizon above all others, as having stamped his genius upon English thought and upon the English language. That man was William Tyndale. (pg. 33)

    The hour had arrived, and from the human point of view, conditions were perfect, for God to bring forth a translation of the Bible which would sum up in itself the best of the ages. The heavenly Father foresaw the opportunity of giving His Word to the inhabitants of earth by the coming of the British Empire with its dominions scattered throughout the world, and by the great American Republic, both speaking the English language. Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would be again, but the Hebrew and the Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of giant minds, supported by excellent physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship. (pg. 42)

    The birth of the King James Bible was a death stroke to the supremacy of Roman Catholicism. The translators little foresaw the wide extent of circulation and the tremendous influence to be won by their book. They little dreamed that for three hundred years it would form the bond of English Protestantism in all parts of the world. One of the brilliant minds of the last generation, Faber, who as a clergyman in the Church of England, labored to Romanize that body, and finally abandoned it for the Church of Rome, cried out, ”Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvelous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country?”Ě

    Yes, more, it has not only been the stronghold of Protestantism in Great Britain, but it has built a gigantic wall as a barrier against the spread of Romanism.

    ”The printing of the English Bible has proved to be by far the mightiest barrier ever reared to repel the advance of Popery, and to damage all the resources of the Papacy.”Ě

    Small wonder then that for three hundred years incessant warfare has been waged upon this instrument created by God to mold all constitutions and laws of the British Empire, and of the great American Republic, while at the same time comforting, blessing, and instructing the lives of the millions who inhabit these territories. Behold what it has given to the world! The machinery of the Catholic Church can never begin to compare with the splendid machinery of Protestantism. The Sabbath School, the Bible printing houses, the foreign missionary societies, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Protestant denominational organizations, these all were the offspring of Protestantism. Their benefits have gone to all lands and been adopted by practically all nations. Shall we throw away the Bible from which such splendid organizations have sprung? (51-52)


    The point being that this work is not advocating KJBOnlyism at all versus the writer's pointing out that the translation was serving a mighty good purpose for an empire upon which the sun never set at the time. Who can deny as such? That others come along later and co-opt the written material, turning it into something more than for which it was originally intended is no warrant to lay their acts at Wilkinson's feet.

    Actually I have no dog in this KJBOnlyism fight, but if I did, I would not be using sourced materials from folks that could so easily be shown to be very shallow in their scholarship (e.g., Doug Kutilek) by the more reasoned. I am just suggesting that when you gleefully tee up this type of material as a "gotcha!" item, you really need to have done your homework, else you end up looking, er, well, like you do now....

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    ó Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  7. #1536
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    southeast ohio
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    Actually, in some 35 years of working against false doctrines such as the KJVO myth, I've read the boox in question as well as articles by Kutilek, Hudson, and others. I know Dr. W wasn't trying to start a new doctrine with his book, but, beginning with "J. J. Ray" in 1955, others picked it up & ran with it to start the current myth.

    I have had discussions with Mr. kinney on many other sites, and he always dodges the fact there's no Scriptural support for KJVO. And at times I post that little reminder of the origin of the current KJVO myth, as Kutilek's articles are no longer as near-viral as they once were. Not tryint to plagiarize, etc. whatsoever, but to educate and remind people that KJVO is phony as a Chevy F-150.

  8. #1537
    The Flying Ban Hammer ✈ Spam Killing Tomcat Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    12,170
    Thanks
    1,415
    Thanked 8,929 Times in 6,709 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)




    Rep Power
    2147688
    I am now going the weigh in on how this debate was conducted.

    Brandplucked ignored the moderators instructions to 'Please take more time' and to respond to the questions 'BWQ4b BWQ9 BWQ10 BWQ11 BWQ18'.
    Brandplucked just refused saying he had, when he hadn't. And Knight had said, "You had plenty of time (which you didn't use)... "rules violation" ... and again, "Take more of your allowed 48 hours between posts..." on one of the nights brandplucked posted five hours after Enyart and Duffy did, with much of his final unresponsiveness being because he didn't use 43 hours he had available.

    So I am declaring the winners of the debate Enyart and Duffy.

    His hurried posting caused the posts to pop up at the odd hours and rob Enyart and Duffy of precious sleep. Brandplucked's material did not answer many of the questions posted and was hurriedly put up. The whole medodlyology was underhanded as hasty. As a penalty to brandplucked I allowed Duffy and Enyart extra time.

    The Troll Shredder--Brrrtttttt!

    June is Gay Pride Month.Tolerance and diversity? More like tolerate perversity.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Sherman For Your Post:

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  10. #1538
    Silver Member patrick jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    26,934
    Thanks
    11,624
    Thanked 13,597 Times in 10,937 Posts

    Blog Entries
    27
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147787
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman View Post
    I am now going the weigh in on how this debate was conducted.

    Brandplucked ignored the moderators instructions to 'Please take more time' and to respond to the questions 'BWQ4b BWQ9 BWQ10 BWQ11 BWQ18'.
    Brandplucked just refused saying he had, when he hadn't. And Knight had said, "You had plenty of time (which you didn't use)... "rules violation" ... and again, "Take more of your allowed 48 hours between posts..." on one of the nights brandplucked posted five hours after Enyart and Duffy did, with much of his final unresponsiveness being because he didn't use 43 hours he had available.

    So I am declaring the winners of the debate Enyart and Duffy.

    His hurried posting caused the posts to pop up at the odd hours and rob Enyart and Duffy of precious sleep. Brandplucked's material did not answer many of the questions posted and was hurriedly put up. The whole medodlyology was underhanded as hasty. As a penalty to brandplucked I allowed Duffy and Enyart extra time.
    I noticed that along with everybody and it was underhanded of BP to do that. Even if one thinks they answered, just answer again to make doubly sure. He was doing it on purpose to mess with E & D's schedule.
    1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -


    Colossians 1:13-14 KJV - Colossians 1:15-16 KJV - Colossians 1:17-18 KJV -

    Colossians 1:19-20 KJV - Colossians 1:21-22 KJV - Colossians 1:23 KJV -

    Colossians 1:25-26 KJV 27, 28, 29 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:12-13, 14 -



  11. #1539
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    southeast ohio
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    Typical KJVO tactic. As they have NO Scriptural support for their doctrine, they must resort to subterfuge, tall tales, "political-type" doubletalk, and plain ole fables to attempt to justify their doctrine.

    Again, Mr. Kinney reveals one of his sources for his KJVO myth by citing the false "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" from Dr. Wilkinson's book in one of his responses.

    Conclusion: the KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette.

  12. #1540
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    2,505
    Thanks
    2,220
    Thanked 674 Times in 571 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    74489
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    It's been a full seven years since the last Battle Royale on TOL. Well.... good news folks because Battle Royale XIV is heading your way and it's going to a fun one.



    What: Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today? Battle Royale XIV

    Who: This King James Only debate will be moderated by TheologyOnline.comís webmaster, through his TOL screen name Knight, who can be contacted at knight@TheologyOnline.com. Will Kinney has informed us that he will defend the proposition that the King James Bible is the only inspired Scripture on Earth today. Pastor Bob Enyart and Will Duffy of Denver Bible Church have informed us that they will oppose the proposition.

    Where: The debate will take place in the Coliseum at TheologyOnline.com (TOL), the popular online Christian forum, in the Battle Royale Center Ring. The moderator, TOLís webmaster Knight, and the opponents will participate over the web. Spectators can likewise observe the debate and comment in The Grandstands there within the Coliseum.

    When: The debate will begin on Monday, November 2, 2015 at noon Mountain Time. TOLís webmaster Knight will open the debate and both sides will simultaneously post their opening statements.

    KJO Debate Guidelines

    Honor: Both sides commit to honor God through their demeanor, to ďargue hard and love much.Ē

    Clarity: Both sides will attempt to achieve clarity and avoid obfuscation.


    Responsiveness: Each side will make an effort to be responsive to the other, to interact, and to answer relevant questions forthrightly, which also ensures that the participants actually debate one another and not simply post material written for other purposes, especially if that material is not specifically responsive.


    KJO Debate Rules

    Question Numbering: To help focus the opponent on the topic(s) of a particular post, and to enable readers to follow the debate more easily, participants will sequentially number their questions using TOLís Battle Royale convention of initials, a Q for question, an A for answer, and then the question number. Bob Enyart and Will Duffy will identify their questions with BWQ1, BWQ2; Will Kinney will identify his questions with WKQ1, WKQ2, etc. To reply, mark any answer with BWA-WKQ1 (Bob & Will answer Will Kinneyís first question), WKA-BWQ3 (Will Kinney answerís Bob & Willís third question), etc. Prior to presenting the answer, first quote in full the question that was asked, and then present one's answer. After reading a post, without such a convention, it may be unclear to the audience and even to the opponent exactly what is being asked. So this also saves participants time in evaluating an opponentís post. And it discourages unresponsive replies that focus for example on rhetorical questions or incidental details while ignoring the primary challenges. Of course there can be valid reasons why an opponent may refuse to answer a given question.

    Posting: The debate will consist of five rounds of a maximum of 6,000 words per post. Both first round posts will appear online simultaneously at noon on November 2nd. For each of the next four rounds, the proponent, Will Kinney, must post within 48 hours of the previous post, and the opponents, Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, must post within 48 hours of Will Kinneyís post. The official Battle Royale XIV clock will be set by Knight and will show the countdown on TOL. Graphics are permitted but links will not be permitted except at the end of each sideís final post.

    All participants in the debate have agreed to the rules and are preparing their opening round posts as we speak.

    In this thread feel free to discuss the battle and how you think it might go as well as comment on the battle posts as the participants make them.
    The King James has good qualities, but it was a translation with an agenda.

    I submit a quote from King James himself

    "The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
    Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . .

    I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws. . . I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances:

    First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office.

    Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . . All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body. and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions, for that were to judge me unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me.

    And lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law, and whereunto . . . you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.

    From King James I, Works, (1609)."

    On that note, it would be unwise to believe that the KJV is without its flaws.

    Jesus Red Letters and the Counselor are the only dependable filters to view all cannon through.

    Language and translation are merely a luxury.




    Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

  13. #1541
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 24 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5839
    I am a new member, and just read through the full debate, but not this thread. (So forgive me if I repeat what others have said! 100+ pages was a bit much for me!)

    I am a person who has read 10 translations of the Bible over 50 times, plus French, some Spanish, the NT in Greek, and a lot of the OT in Hebrew. But, because of the archaic grammar, obsolete words, I have never been able to get through the KJV, although I have memorized many key verses in KJV, from my Sunday School days in the early 1960's.

    So I did come into the debate a bit biased, (as an understatement). I have also done translations of the Hebrew and compared them to KJV for Hebrew classes (we compared to many versions, ESV most often came up as closest to the Hebrew!) and in my translating Greek, I can point to small errors in the KJV on almost any page.

    Ok, so I am not biased, but rather have completely rejected the KJO claims. Although, I believe in its time, it was a crucial translation which greatly impacted the western world for immense good! One should never argue against the historical value of the KJV. I have also debated KJ Onlyists, and set them packing on a number of occasion, but from a much different angle than the tact that Bob Enyart and Will Duffy took.

    My argument has always been how badly the KJV has been translated, compared to the newer versions. Besides being wooden, and claiming to be a word for word translation (which would be impossible with Greek, and in many cases for the Hebrew) the KJV simply makes mistakes.

    I thought that would be the approach here, but I can see the value of using the actual earlier Bible with margin notes, to show the error corrections, especially because although the Middle English script was hard to read, it was certainly easier for people without a background in Koine Greek to read, and to transliterate into a more modern English.

    It was a novel approach, and I was greatly rewarded by this discussion. I have read White's book on the KJO Controversy, and I did not see much overlap on the original posts by the anti-side. ("Anti" as in the KJV as the only "perfect" version!) I commend the scholarship and research that the Enyart-Duffy team did, too! Esp, the photos which showed the notations in the margins for changes.

    It might be nice to do a similar debate, but use the Greek and Hebrew to show major translation mistakes. I also understand very few Greek manuscripts, and much later ones were used, which were very corrupt to translate the KJV.. I would love to see a few more photos of the Byzantine Greek, complete with their margin notations, which were incorporated into the next generation of manuscripts, resulting in the very corrupt versions the KJV used.

    Kostenburger et al, in their text "Going Deeper with New Testament Greek" gets into this in the introduction and it is a good piece towards the effort to finally and completely put this KJV Only fallacy to rest, once and for all!

    Congrats to Enyart-Duffy for an excellent job. My condolences to the loser, Will Kinney, who parroted things, and yes, looked very similar to the Mormons I had once on my door, claiming Joseph Smith to be the "final prophet, " or whatever he was. I appreciated that analogy from the winning side!

    And thanks for letting me post this so much later, and the discussion not being closed to further replies!

  14. #1542
    Fiddle Dee Dee Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    41,364
    Thanks
    120,460
    Thanked 36,376 Times in 22,721 Posts

    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2148060
    Quote Originally Posted by MarleneJ View Post
    I am a new member, and just read through the full debate,


    **snipped for brevity**
    Welcome!

    I am sure that anything you want to post right here in this thread will be appreciated for further study.
    Or you can start a brand new thread of your own in the open religion forum here at TOL.

    For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Tambora For Your Post:

    MarleneJ (April 3rd, 2017)

  16. #1543
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2297
    The KJV was not translated fresh from the Greek Scriptures available, but was a compromise of the various English Versions at that time. In fact, the Great Bible was the one most copied.
    The most literal translation that I use, and everyone can, are Young's Literal Translation,and Rotherham's Emphatic Version.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us