User Tag List

Page 101 of 104 FirstFirst ... 51919899100101102103104 LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,515 of 1546

Thread: Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

  1. #1501
    Over 1000 post club Shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,141
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 117 Times in 94 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    94472
    Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible
    I see; the fire gave light to see them, though it had no power of heat to burn them.
    Like the Son of God; a Divine, most beautiful, and glorious countenance; either of a mere angel, or rather of Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, who did sometimes appear in the Old Testament before his incarnation, Genesis 12:7 18:10,13,17,20 Exo 23:23 33:2 Joshua 5:13-15 Proverbs 8:31; in all which places it is Jehovah; Genesis 19:24 Exodus 3:2 Acts 7:30,32,33,38.

    Poole, Matthew, "Commentary on Daniel 3:25". Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible. "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=3". 1685.
    Notice that while Poole believed the "fourth figure" was a Christophany he allowed that it might have been an angel. Indeed, I do not find in any of these commentators a dogmatic opinion that it HAD to be THE SON of God in the fire. Clearly they were not acolytes of a KJVO movement although the KJV certaintly existed in their days.

    E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
    the son of God = a son of God (no Art.): i.e. a superhuman being, or an angel. Compare Daniel 3:28, and see App-23. Nebuchadnezzar could know nothing of N.T. revelation.
    ________________________________________
    Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Daniel 3:25". "E.W. Bullinger's Companion bible Notes". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=3. 1909-1922.
    Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible
    Daniel 3:25. Is like the Son of God— Rather like a Son of God, or of the gods: in agreement with the Hebrew, LXX, and Syriac; that is to say, "Like a divine and glorious person, sent from the powers above to rescue and deliver these men." For, as Nebuchadnezzar was an idolater, it is scarcely to be conceived that he should know any thing concerning the Son of God, the Messiah, and much less of his form and likeness: whereas all the heathens had a notion, which runs through their theology, of the sons of the deities, as powerful beings sent often to the aid and protection of mankind.

    Coke, Thomas. "Commentary on Daniel 3:25". Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible. "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tcc/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=3". 1801-1803.

  2. #1502
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,104
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 123 Times in 119 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    72216
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    It's impossible to have any kind of rational conversation with these people.

    Bob and Will Duffy did an excellent job, and Will Kinney couldn't even answer half their questions.

    Of all the "isms" there are, KJVO is by far the wackiest of them all.

    Will Kinney's only argument is to call all non-KJVO's "bible agnostics". That's all he has.
    Thanks tetelestai. Yes, I think your assessment is correct. - Bob E.
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Enyart For Your Post:

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  4. #1503
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 186 Times in 118 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    454952
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Yorzhik, YES there have been minor printing errors in the KJB. I have admitted this over and over again. But we King James Bible know where God's complete and inerrant words are found - the present day printings of the King James Bible Cambridge editions.
    Yes. Exactly as I previously said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    My highlighting. Will Duffy wasn't asking what the cause of these errors were. You didn't answer the question. He asked you what year the errors were finally eradicated. You wrote thousands of words wasting your time and changing the subject. You could have answered with a simple date. Perhaps your first bolded section is the most revealing of your thought processes

    but it is not there today

    In other words you only believe that the Bible you can buy today is 100% inerrant. So long as you, Will Kinney, are well sorted, that is all that matters. I don't think you care that none of those people in the past 2000 years had this version.
    Your credibility is in shreds. You say 'inerrant' and 'printing errors' in the same paragraph. We use ordinary language here. Inerrant means without error. Got it?

    Got it?
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  5. #1504
    Rookie Stone Mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2296
    Just a quick thank you to the three participants in the debate. I appreciated the research activities that were done to make this a highly interesting read.

  6. #1505
    Over 750 post club Brother Vinny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Tulsa, dig it?
    Posts
    767
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 30 Times in 24 Posts

    Blog Entries
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    94165
    Quote Originally Posted by Shasta View Post
    Notice that while Poole believed the "fourth figure" was a Christophany he allowed that it might have been an angel. Indeed, I do not find in any of these commentators a dogmatic opinion that it HAD to be THE SON of God in the fire. Clearly they were not acolytes of a KJVO movement although the KJV certaintly existed in their days.
    They were proto-bible-agnostics.
    "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

  7. #1506
    Get your armor ready! Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    50,619
    Thanks
    158,284
    Thanked 46,147 Times in 28,422 Posts

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



    Rep Power
    2148164
    Quote Originally Posted by Stone Mason View Post
    Just a quick thank you to the three participants in the debate. I appreciated the research activities that were done to make this a highly interesting read.
    Ditto.

    "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." Exodus 15:3

  8. #1507
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    332
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68568

    Shasta has a hard time understanding English

    Quote Originally Posted by Shasta View Post
    You need to study Jamison Fausett and Brown more carefully. Here is what they said:



    The Commentators treat the scriptures on two levels. On one hand, they admit that the king was saying the "fourth man" in the fire was an angel or messenger sent by the gods. At the same time they maintain that this was a Christophany. This shows that even they believe that the letter of the text conveys the idea that this person is an angelic messenger not the Son of God. This being the case, the most appropriate way to render the verse is that the fourth man is "a son (a messenger or agent) of the gods." Do we think Nebuchadnezzar thought the Hebrew God had only ONE messenger in his entourage?



    Aren't people's words supposed to be understood by how THEY meant them and not by what it happens to stimulate in the minds of the? Here they admit that the king did not believe the fourth man was a chief among the gods but a mere messenger. Also, if that was really his belief why translate HIS words as "THE SON of GOD" when he most certainly would have said "a son of gods." It was obvious to these commentators that Nebuchadnezzar meant (his equivalent of) an angel.


    Shasta. What I said, and still say is the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown themselves believed that this was the Son of God who was with the Hebrew children. I know that they go into what they think Nebuchadnezzar thought, but what was the conclusion Jamieson, Faussett and Brown gave us at the very end there? You DID read it, right?

    This is their own conclusion when commenting on Daniel 3:25 - "Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation."

    They sided with the way the King James Bible has it.

    By the way, here is a more complete list of Bible translations that read like the King James Bible in Daniel 3:25 And when you look at the actual translation of the most common "Septuagint" in print that is out there, it says "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD" So does Brenton's New Translation of 2012.


    "The fourth is like THE SON OF GOD"

    "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 - "the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.", the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.", the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.",the King James Bible 1611, The Bill Bible 1671, Webster's translation 1833,the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Smith Bible 1876, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD", the Douay of 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "the fourth is like that of the Son of God.", The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the NKJV of 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF ELAH", the 2009 Bond Slave Version, the Asser Septuagint 2009 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

    It is also the reading of The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin (Ben Elohim, Hebrew).", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God", Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2012 - “the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD." and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God!”

    This online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."


    http://studybible.info/IHOT/Daniel%203:25

    It is even the reading found in the so called Greek Septuagint copy I have which is translated as "the fourth is like the Son of God."

    Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”



    Foreign language translations that say the fourth is like the Son of God are the French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy - " le quatričme est semblable au Fils de Dieu.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez - "y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al Hijo de Dios.", the Check BKR Bible - "jest synu Božímu.", the Lithuanian Bible - "kaip Dievo sūnus!”, the Russian Synodal Version - "подобен сыну Божию.", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bbile - "ca a Fiului lui Dumnezeu. "

    and the Modern Greek Bible -"ου τεταρτου ειναι ομοια με Υιον Θεου."

    The NKJV 1982 also reads: "the fourth is like the Son of God" but then it has a footnote that reads: "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace.

  9. #1508
    TOL Legend chrysostom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    20,527
    Thanks
    336
    Thanked 980 Times in 791 Posts

    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    862486
    why is the word
    test
    not in the kjv?

    all the others have it
    a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

  10. #1509
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    33,404
    Thanks
    18,066
    Thanked 16,572 Times in 13,015 Posts

    Blog Entries
    32
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Branplucked, do you know that adding 3 letters after the scripture - KJV - will pull up King James instead of New King James like your posts do now.

  11. #1510
    Over 1000 post club Shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,141
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 117 Times in 94 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    94472
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Vinny View Post
    They were proto-bible-agnostics.
    Have you, like some others, received a personal revelation from the Almighty that one particular translation, (after several revisions) was eventually transformed into an inerrant Bible that perfectly and in all parts reflects every meaning and nuance of the original languages in exact English equivalents. Surely you can see that this narrative is an extra-Biblical construct. When Paul said "all scripture is God-breathed" he was not talking about the coming of the KJB.

    I call this view Translational Gnosticism because the Gnostics of the First and Second Centuries believed they received revelations of divine truth that were not based in scripture. There is a difference between this view and that of people who, on the whole, believe the KJV is better than other translations. People who hold that opinion would not go as far as to say that even their favorite translation is always right in every respect. The presumption of divine revelation closes the mind to reason and commits a person to an unceasing defense, not of the Word but of every last word of the KJB.

    The fact is most of the mainstream commentators I cited did not base their study of the scriptures solely on the KJB (even though many obviously preferred it) but upon hermeneutical, linguistic, historical and cultural facts. That they did this is evidence of their commitment to search the word as noble Bereans. It is also evidence of the fairly recent advent of the KJVO belief.

    Had they believed completely in the KJVO doctrine they never would have been so honest in their treatment of Daniel 3:25. Rather, they would have tried to justify the KJV's rendering of this verse from the outset. Their "commentaries" would not have been an exploration of scripture but a polemic for KJVO. As it was, some of them presented contradictory opinions which resulted from trying to maintain Biblical scholarship while simultaneously holding to a traditional view that was incompatible.

  12. #1511
    Over 750 post club Brother Vinny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Tulsa, dig it?
    Posts
    767
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 30 Times in 24 Posts

    Blog Entries
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    94165
    Quote Originally Posted by Shasta View Post
    Have you. . ..
    I'm guessing irony isn't your strong suit.
    "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

  13. #1512
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,487
    Thanks
    922
    Thanked 929 Times in 536 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    529093
    Quote Originally Posted by chrysostom View Post
    why is the word
    test
    not in the kjv?

    all the others have it
    I don't think it was used back then.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  14. #1513
    Over 750 post club Brother Vinny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Tulsa, dig it?
    Posts
    767
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 30 Times in 24 Posts

    Blog Entries
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    94165
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    I don't think it was used back then.
    According to Webster, first known use of test as a verb was 1748. As a noun it goes back to the 14th century.
    "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

  15. #1514
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,931
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 281 Times in 220 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    390436
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Yorzhik, YES there have been minor printing errors in the KJB. I have admitted this over and over again. But we King James Bible know where God's complete and inerrant words are found - the present day printings of the King James Bible Cambridge editions. Or I can show you an online site where you can see it. Or give you the names of some American publishing companies where you can get one.

    Most of these minor printing errors were corrected in the first 30 years by two men who were the original translators.

    You guys who are bible agnostics and unbelievers in an inerrant Bible in any language, will insist that these minor printing errors prove that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible.

    For those of us who believe God has given us an inerrant Bible,we can tell you where it is. It is the King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today.

    You guys, on the other hand, will NEVER show us a copy of the inerrant Bible simply because none of you really believes such a thing exists. It is just that simple and easily shown. NONE of you will ever come out and take a serious and consistent stand on ANY Bible in any language as being the Standard of inerrancy.

    And so you mock and ridicule those of us who believe God really has given us an inerrant Bible.

    Now, just out of curiosity, how would you translate that verse you were talking about in Romans 8?
    OK. So printing errors don't count. One could reasonably ask "Why? Why don't printing errors count?" Especially since "minor" errors are still errors and remove the label of "inerrant", and have the same potential of creating the confusion that other translations could lead to. Let's move on to other types of errors.

    You said in your article on Ex 20:13 "For this simple reason, abortion is the law of the land. It is not illegal for a doctor to deprive a living child of its life if the mother consents to this act."

    But a better understanding of the issue is that it doesn't matter if the law of the land says something is lawful or not. What matters is what God considers the act in this context, which is correctly called "murder" and not "killing" because the baby murder industry is glad to say they are killing a fetus. It is only when they are faced with the truth, that they are murdering a baby, that everyone can see that what they are doing is wrong.

    Do you still stand by your assertion that "kill" is a better translation than "murder" in Ex 20:13?

    As to the translation of Rom 8:28. I don't read Greek so I cannot translate it. I told you is wasn't my translation. What makes you think the correct translation I've presented isn't inspired? Just because you don't like it? Just because it isn't the KJV?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Yorzhik For Your Post:

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  17. #1515
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    19,194
    Thanks
    3,468
    Thanked 21,721 Times in 12,637 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147814
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart View Post
    Thanks tetelestai. Yes, I think your assessment is correct. - Bob E.
    Tet will say the same about you if you discuss his preterism.

    He will say you have been brainwashed by Darby, and he cannot have a logical conversation with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to SaulToPaul For Your Post:

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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