User Tag List

Page 102 of 104 FirstFirst ... 2529299100101102103104 LastLast
Results 1,516 to 1,530 of 1546

Thread: Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

  1. #1516
    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
    454955
    I think I will make this my last post to this thread. With thanks to Bob, Will and Will for doing their bit. Especial thanks to Will Kinney for avoiding nearly all my questions in the grandstand and about half of BE's/WD's in the main debate. This really livened the debate up and ensured that there would be both a winner and a loser rather than terminating in a boring draw. We grandstanders would certainly have felt cheated unless there had been real blood spilt, teeth knocked out and permanent brain damage (some people though did think that one of the participants already had brain damage before entering the ring). Well, we were not disappointed! My thanks also to other KJVO participants in the grandstands, including George Affleck, for all the historical evidence, logical and linguistic arguments they didn't come up with.

    For posterity, I'd like to summarise my understanding of the KJVO position now, after reading all the contributions. Then I can go back home to the wife and kids with a good conscience, have a shower, and collect my winnings from the betting shop.

    1. The KJV is without error of any kind, whether translation error, printing error, original manuscript error or any other kind of error. Provided always that the KJVO adherent is the sole arbiter of what is an error and what is not. An objective definition of an error is unnecessary because the KVO adherent will still need to make a subjective judgement anyway. If anyone else points out any errors, it is either a printing error, an error in the original manuscript, not an error, doesn't matter or the person himself doesn't believe in any inerrant version anywhere.

    2. God inspired the translators in 1611 to be 100% accurate in their translations (or marginal notes where they stated that they didn't know what the proper meaning was) but he couldn't be bothered to inspire the printers with like accuracy, with the result that no one could read a fully inerrant version until 1985. The 1985 version is fully 100% inerrant with no printing errors or any other kind of error. Will Kinney guarantees this. Also, the translators were completely unbiased theologically, proven by their written promises to ensure that everything in the translation was consistent with reformed doctrine and the 39 articles.

    3. God chose early modern English as the language of the KJV. This was a mistake on God's part because the language was still very fluid and by the time the language had stabilised, over 24,000 changes needed to be made until 1769 to make the text readable. This gap of 150 or so years is nothing at all because with God even a thousand years is like one day.

    4. No other translation was inspired by God in this way. We know this because a) Will Kinney says so and b) because all other translations differ from the KJB. What the 1611 translators themselves said about this can be ignored as only the actual text of the KJB is inspired.

    5. No other translation has received the care and attention to detail of the KJB. This is not surprising as they had nearly 400 years to work on it. This is a vital point because it is obvious that a work so inspired by God needs a great deal of fine-tuning by mere mortals to get it just perfect. Other Bibles such as the NIV, have not had 400 years of error correction and therefore they can be summarily dismissed; besides, it is probably better that such translations die an honourable quick death, rather than suffer the slow death of a thousand cuts as they advance into old age when their language and idiom is no longer in current use or even understood, unlike the 100% inerrant KJV itself.

    6. The KJB supersedes the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts from which it was translated. Even if such manuscripts were incorrect representations of the originals, this doesn't matter because the KJB now takes precedence. When new manuscripts are found which are deemed to be more authentic than the ones used by the KJB translators, these are of no importance and can be ignored.

    7. The KJB can be understood by any modern English speaker. Provided he puts in some effort and has a decent Shakespearian English dictionary handy. This is hugely more beneficial for modern Christians than it was for those living in, say, 1740, just a hundred or so years after Shakespeare, who thought that it was so incomprehensible and inconsistent that it needed those 24,000 changes. Native Mandarin speakers can read a Bible in their own language, but it is not as good as the KJB and will certainly lead them into some errors of faith and doctrine. This is completely logical and inevitable because the KJV is the only Bible in the whole world in any language that is 100% inerrant, such that any other translation in any other language, past, present or future, is guaranteed to have errors of one kind or another in it (especially if it's one of those nasty Catholic Bibles). It is preferable if their version is translated from the KJB rather than the original language texts.

    8. If you are an English speaker, it is better to read the KJB than any other translation because all the other translations are Roman Catholic, which automatically makes them works of the Devil.

    9. The assurance of the divine inspiration of the 100% inerrant KJB (the 1985 Cambridge edition of course) is something that can only come by faith. No amount of historical research will convince you of this, even though historical research always supports the KJVO position. (Yes, really, that wasn't a joke!) Anyone who doesn't have this faith assurance is a spiritually deficient person, usually termed 'Bible agnostic'. Historical research supporting the KJB consists of just one clear and precise fact worth mentioning and which is sufficient to controvert all the thousands of others: 'Errm, uh, Cambridge, blah, blah... any modern bookstore' (although KJVO adherents don't like to dwell on this important fact as it is really an issue of faith). Thus KJVO people will tend (I mean roughly 99.99% of the time) to steer clear of any actual history.

    See you in the next BR!
    Last edited by Desert Reign; November 23rd, 2015 at 01:30 PM.
    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.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Desert Reign For Your Post:

    musterion (June 6th, 2016)

  3. #1517
    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
    94475
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    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.
    A son of the gods would not be the the Lord Jesus Christ, I agree but we do not interpret the word with the intent of inserting our doctrines. The laws of hermeneutics dictate that, in order to understand the scriptures we must first read the words of a passage or verse in the ordinary sense they would have been understood at the time they were written or spoken. If you go in with an agenda as you have, you are certain to miss what it is saying.

    If you had bothered to read my posts you would know that I read the whole of what Jamieson, Faussett and Brown said about this verse though you apparently only read their statement of faith appended on the end.

    Let me attempt to communicate my thoughts more clearly. First here is what they said:

    …like the Son of God — Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. “Son of God” in his mouth means only an “angel” from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves. Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7; Psalm 34:7, Psalm 34:8; and the probably heathen centurion‘s exclamation (Matthew 27:54).

    The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods; thus the expression he meant: one sprung from and sent by the gods.


    Really it was the “messenger of the covenant,” who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.
    1. I find it fascinating that they would say Nebuchadnezzar was made to UNCONSCIOUSLY utter divine truths.

    This is an outright admission that he did not consciously mean what his words seemed to say in the English text. Leaving aside the issue of the UNconscious content of his words let us consider his CONSCIOUS understanding (of his own words)? After all, isn't the first responsibility of Bible student to try and understand what people in the scriptures meant rather than to impose our ideas into their heads and mouth?


    2. What the king meant is not hard to figure out. The commentators say that by “Son of God” he only meant AN Angel from Heaven. “AN” is an indefinite article implying he was not speaking of a specific angel, just an angel.


    3. Next, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown do what responsible interpreters of the Bible do. They explore the king’s cultural-religious background in order to understand in more detail the context of his king’s remarks. They explain:

    The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods; thus the expression he meant: one sprung from and sent by the gods.

    4. Based upon this, the commentators admit that “Son of Godin his mouth means only an “angel” from heaven (or, I might add, his equivalent of an “angel”)

    This being the case, would the best translation of his remark be “the fourth one is like THE Son of God?” The definite article “the”could imply that he was speaking of one particular “angel”that was in some way separate from and superior to all others. For a definite article to be implied the meaning would have to be unequivocally understood. Here it is not. The king knew of no such angel in what he would have imagined to be the pantheon of the Hebrew's God. When the commentators were speaking of the king's words they already said that he meant only “AN”angel

    I believe the commentators are correct in their assessment of the king’s words. As powerful as the messenger apparently was, no messenger was equal to the deity who had sent him. He would not have imagined that any god as powerful as that of Shadrack, Meshek and Abed-nego would carry his own messages. No, as far a Nebuchadnezzar was concerned, the fourth figure in the fire was not a major god but rather a “son,” a lesser deity or demi-god one appointed to go on missions: such as delivering messages or delivering favored mortals from firey furnaces. The fact that he believed it to be a messenger is revealed in.

    Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him (Daniel 3:28)


    5. I also agree with the commentators that the word “son” was a word that meant an angel. It was not meant to convey the same sense of sonship as Jesus meant when He said He was the “Son of God” The Jews rightfully took this be a claim of equality with God. In Daniel 2:25 “son” is equivalent to an angel, a divine being. By rendering the text “The Son of God”translators are importing theological terms that were unknown at that time in history.

    6. The interesting thing is that despite what their scholarly research has revealed, when it comes to drawing a conclusion they say:

    Really it was the “messenger of the covenant,” who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.
    In reality this is not a conclusion, that is, it does not naturally follow the flow of their reasoning. It is just a reiteration of their preexisting belief in a tradition that the figure in the fire was actually God, in the person of the pre-incarnate Christ. Though they assert this as a statement of faith they have done nothing to establish it in their exposition. The only “proof” is that the words of some translations seem to read that way which is the main part of what you call proof.

    In the end, all the research Jamison Fausett and Brown employed in to interpret this scripture could not override their pre-existing traditions. In the same way, no fact of history, culture, linguistics, employed in a reasoned argument can ever supersede the lettering of the KJB to someone who is a committed Translational Gnostic. for the basis of their belief is not grounded in reason, at least not primarily so but in faith, faith in personal revelation about the infallibility of the KJB. They are devoted to the letter first and to interpreting it properly second. The question of the KJVO position is not first “what do the scriptures say”but whose side are you on in this verse the KJB or one of the other ones. Hence they are committed to ongoing conflict with the majority of Christendom who are increasingly reluctant to learn to read archaic English.

    BTW here are Bibles who interpret the fourth being in the fire in a way that is more like what the king would have actually said consciously (Daniel 3:25)

    A SON OF THE GODS
    : New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, GOD'S WORD® Translation, JPS Tanakh 1917,New American Standard 1977, King James 2000 Bible, American Standard Version, English Revised Version, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation, The Bible in Basic English, American Standard Version, New Century Version, Hebrew Names Version, Revised Standard Version, Today's New International Version, A SON OF GOD: Darby Bible Translation New Living Translation, NET Bible, Common English Bible, New Revised Standard; THE SON OF A GOD: Lexham English Bible; LIKE ONE OF THE GODs: Common English Bible; THE APPEARANCE OF A GOD: New Revised Standard; LIKE AN ANGEL: Good News Translation; LIKE A DIVINE BEING International Standard Version

  4. #1518
    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
    94475
    I am through with this debate too.

  5. #1519
    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
    72219
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    I think I will make this my last post to this thread. With thanks to Bob, Will and Will for doing their bit. Especial thanks to Will Kinney for avoiding nearly all my questions in the grandstand and about half of BE's/WD's in the main debate. This really livened the debate up and ensured that there would be both a winner and a loser rather than terminating in a boring draw. We grandstanders would certainly have felt cheated unless there had been real blood spilt, teeth knocked out and permanent brain damage. Well, we were not disappointed! My thanks also to other KJVO participants in the grandstands, including George Affleck, for all the historical evidence, logical and linguistic arguments they didn't come up with.

    For posterity, I'd like to summarise my understanding of the KJVO position now, after reading all the contributions. Then I can go back home to the wife and kids with a good conscience, have a shower, and collect my winnings from the betting shop.

    1. The KJV is without error of any kind, whether translation error, printing error, original manuscript error or any other kind of error. Provided always that the KJVO adherent is the sole arbiter of what is an error and what is not. An objective definition of an error is unnecessary because the KVO adherent will still need to make a subjective judgement anyway. If anyone else points out any errors, it is either a printing error, an error in the original manuscript, not an error, doesn't matter or the person himself doesn't believe in any inerrant version anywhere.

    2. God inspired the translators in 1611 to be 100% accurate in their translations (or marginal notes where they stated that they didn't know what the proper meaning was) but he couldn't be bothered to inspire the printers with like accuracy, with the result that no one could read a fully inerrant version until 1985. The 1985 version is fully 100% inerrant with no printing errors or any other kind of error. Will Kinney guarantees this. Also, the translators were completely unbiased theologically, proven by their written promises to ensure that everything in the translation was consistent with reformed doctrine and the 39 articles.

    3. God chose early modern English as the language of the KJV. This was a mistake on God's part because the language was still very fluid and by the time the language had stabilised, over 24,000 changes needed to be made until 1769 to make the text readable. This gap of 150 or so years is nothing at all because with God even a thousand years is like one day.

    4. No other translation was inspired by God in this way. We know this because a) Will Kinney says so and b) because all other translations differ from the KJB. What the 1611 translators themselves said about this can be ignored as only the actual text of the KJB is inspired.

    5. No other translation has received the care and attention to detail of the KJB. This is not surprising as they had nearly 400 years to work on it. This is a vital point because it is obvious that a work so inspired by God needs a great deal of fine-tuning by mere mortals to get it just perfect. Other Bibles such as the NIV, have not had 400 years of error correction and therefore they can be summarily dismissed; besides, it is probably better that such translations die an honourable quick death, rather than suffer the slow death of a thousand cuts as they advance into old age when their language and idiom is no longer in current use or even understood, unlike the 100% inerrant KJV itself.

    6. The KJB supersedes the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts from which it was translated. Even if such manuscripts were incorrect representations of the originals, this doesn't matter because the KJB now takes precedence. When new manuscripts are found which are deemed to be more authentic than the ones used by the KJB translators, these are of no importance and can be ignored.

    7. The KJB can be understood by any modern English speaker. Provided he puts in some effort and has a decent Shakespearian English dictionary handy. This is hugely more beneficial for modern Christians than it was for those living in, say, 1740, just a hundred or so years after Shakespeare, who thought that it was so incomprehensible and inconsistent that it needed those 24,000 changes. Native Mandarin speakers can read a Bible in their own language, but it is not as good as the KJB and will certainly lead them into some errors of faith and doctrine. This is completely logical and inevitable because the KJV is the only Bible in the whole world in any language that is 100% inerrant, such that any other translation in any other language, past, present or future, is guaranteed to have errors of one kind or another in it (especially if it's one of those nasty Catholic Bibles). It is preferable if their version is translated from the KJB rather than the original language texts.

    8. If you are an English speaker, it is better to read the KJB than any other translation because all the other translations are Roman Catholic, which automatically makes them works of the Devil.

    9. The assurance of the divine inspiration of the 100% inerrant KJB (the 1985 Cambrige edition of course) is something that can only come by faith. No amount of historical research will convince you of this, even though historical research always supports the KJVO position. (Yes, really, that wasn't a joke!) Anyone who doesn't have this faith assurance is a spiritually deficient person, usually termed 'Bible agnostic'. Historical research supporting the KJB consists of just one clear and precise fact worth mentioning and which is sufficient to controvert all the thousands of others: 'Errm, uh, Cambridge, blah, blah... any modern bookstore' (although KJVO adherents don't like to dwell on this important fact as it is really an issue of faith). Thus KJVO people will tend (I mean roughly 99.99% of the time) to steer clear of any actual history.

    See you in the next BR!
    what he said
    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.

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

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  7. #1520
    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
    72219
    Quote Originally Posted by Shasta View Post
    I am through with this debate too.
    and what he said too

    unless of course Gail Riplinger or D.A. Waite or one of the other KJO promoters we offered an extended debate to steps up to the plate and answers the BR XIV questions. If that happens, then, yup, Will Duffy and Bob E. will be back on the clock.

    - Bob
    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.

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

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  9. #1521
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,788
    Thanks
    4,471
    Thanked 3,950 Times in 2,263 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147691
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart View Post
    and what he said too

    unless of course Gail Riplinger or D.A. Waite or one of the other KJO promoters we offered an extended debate to steps up to the plate and answers the BR XIV questions. If that happens, then, yup, Will Duffy and Bob E. will be back on the clock.

    - Bob
    I have been noodling with some others about taking up the questions posed and providing a more reasoned response. Not promising anything, but just having a conversation about it behind the scenes.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    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?



  10. #1522
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,102
    Thanks
    498
    Thanked 440 Times in 309 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    213201
    "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the early Jamestown settlers and of the Puritans and Pilgrims" (source).

    Does this mean that prior to the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible was God's perfect word in English?

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to User Name For Your Post:

    musterion (June 6th, 2016)

  12. #1523
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    33,404
    Thanks
    18,066
    Thanked 16,576 Times in 13,016 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the early Jamestown settlers and of the Puritans and Pilgrims" (source).

    Does this mean that prior to the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible was God's perfect word in English?
    Yes

  13. #1524
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,102
    Thanks
    498
    Thanked 440 Times in 309 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    213201
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the early Jamestown settlers and of the Puritans and Pilgrims" (source).

    Does this mean that prior to the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible was God's perfect word in English?
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post
    Yes
    Kewl! The Geneva Bible still exists today! Does that mean that the Geneva Bible is still God's perfect word in English today?

    Here's a link to the Geneva Bible online: http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html

  14. #1525
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3539

    The correctable 1611 KJV

    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    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.
    What is the real, tangible, 100% perfect Bible that has been used and is now used as the standard to correct any errors introduced by fallible men in KJV editions from 1611 until today?

    In which of the six varying editions of the KJV being printed by Cambridge University Press in 2011 are you saying that all the inerrant words are found?

    Those six varying present Cambridge KJV editions with differences between them are the Pitt Minion edition, the Concord edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. In addition, the 1873 Cambridge KJV edition edited by Scrivener is presently found in some KJV editions printed from 2000 and afterwards by Zondervan and Hendrickson.

    Are you arguing that what you claim was a 1611 inspired Bible was improvable, revisable, and correctable in later editions until the 1900's?


    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    It is the King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today.
    Beginning in the 1980's, some KJV editions were printed from a computer-based text. There are two or three varying texts of the KJV based on different computer-prepared texts in a number of present KJV editions. Whoever typed up these different texts introduced as many as 100 new differences including some errors in several present KJV editions printed by different publishers that followed these imperfectly prepared texts.

  15. #1526
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    166
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8365
    Yup kJvO lost and buried at sea with no Jesus to resurrect. Matter of fact KJVO committed hari Kari on itself with the noose around it's own neck. Long live King Jesus the Author and Perfector, the Holy Spirit who leads into all Truth and is the Spirit of Jesus, through whom we don't need man to teach us for He is our Teacher for those whom who have ears to hear, hear. May Jesus open your eyes and ears that you may repent and live.

  16. #1527
    Over 5000 post club CherubRam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,600
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 447 Times in 375 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1210
    Our bibles are copies of the copies of the copies. It is not logical to assume that Christ and the disciples spoke and wrote in Latin.

  17. #1528
    TOL Subscriber Zeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,573
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 397 Times in 365 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    150100
    Quote Originally Posted by Shasta View Post
    On what basis do you believe the KJV is the best translation? Have you investigated all reputed errors in the KJV and measured them against those in other translations - or do you believe it "by faith." It makes a difference. The first way of knowing is a conclusion reached through deliberation of the mind, The second, as far as I can tell, is a leap of faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God but there is nothing about the KJV in the word of God so the source of this idea must come from another origin.
    One area of importance that I would agree with the KJV on over many of the others is concerning Divine faiths location, Galatians 2:16 KJV, and where it dwells Galatians 4:6, which the Eternal mystery is about Christ within us Colossians 1:27 KJV the Temple of the Living God, as where many suggest this Faith is in a flesh and blood persona named Jesus which in spiritual reality is OK if the "in" means you're the Son of God crying Abba by Divine faith within you're heart Galatians 3:25, when we are born from above Galatians 4:24-28, Luke 17:20-21, 2Cor 3:6.
    Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

  18. #1529
    TOL Subscriber Zeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,573
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 397 Times in 365 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    150100
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeke View Post
    One area of importance that I would agree with the KJV on over many of the others is concerning Divine faiths location, Galatians 2:16 KJV, and where it dwells Galatians 4:6 KJV, which the Eternal mystery is about Christ within us Colossians 1:27 KJV the Temple of the Living God, as where many suggest this Faith is in a flesh and blood persona named Jesus which in spiritual reality is OK if the "in" means you're the Son of God crying Abba by Divine faith within you're heart Galatians 3:25, when we are born from above Galatians 4:24-28, Luke 17:20-21, 2Cor 3:6.
    Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

  19. #1530
    TOL Subscriber Zeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,573
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 397 Times in 365 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    150100
    Duplicated.
    Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

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