User Tag List

Page 4 of 103 FirstFirst 12345671454 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1543

Thread: Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

  1. #46
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,659
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 348 Times in 324 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    312852
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    It is utterly unsupportable in every aspect.
    I know.

    Yet, they exist.

    IMO, this article HERE gives the best explanation for KJVO, and how it all started.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  2. #47
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,662
    Thanks
    2,718
    Thanked 2,483 Times in 1,541 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2064314
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I see your point, but you have to understand that most KJVO people actually believe the KJV is the only inspired bible on the planet. They don't care about the other bibles in different languages.

    Speaking of English, just ask a KJVO what inspired bible English speaking people had before 1611. They usually have no answer.
    Brandplucked (Will Kinney) will have no shortage of an explanation, such as it is:

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/wordofgodbefore1611.htm

    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
    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?



  3. #48
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,659
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 348 Times in 324 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    312852
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Brandplucked (Will Kinney) will have no shortage of an explanation, such as it is:

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/wordofgodbefore1611.htm

    AMR
    I guess it can be called an explanation.

    Here is his "explanation":

    "God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth."

    IOW, he is claiming that English speaking people did not have the perfect infallible word of God before 1611.

    It's arrogance, and conflicts with what the Bible actually says:

    (Psalm 12:6-7) The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

    KJVO's claim the words of the Lord weren't preserved until 1611.

    Your WCF says the following:

    "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them" - 1.8a

    What's the Reformed position on KJVO?
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  4. #49
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,367
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 182 Times in 115 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    451545
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    IOW, he is claiming that English speaking people did not have the perfect infallible word of God before 1611.

    It's arrogance, and conflicts with what the Bible actually says:

    (Psalm 12:6-7) The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever
    I think you are being led astray here. The position is worse (for KJVO) than you think because the verse is being taken out of context. The 'them' is in reference to the poor and needy whom God will protect, not the words of the Lord. read a few more verses and it is perfectly clear.

    5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, Now I will arise,” says the Lord;
    “I will set him in the safety for which he yearns.”
    6 The words of the Lord are dpure words,
    Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
    Purified seven times.
    7 You shall keep them, O Lord,
    You shall preserve them from this generation forever.
    8 The wicked prowl on every side,
    When vileness is exalted among the sons of men.
    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. #50
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,662
    Thanks
    2,718
    Thanked 2,483 Times in 1,541 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2064314
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post

    Your WCF says the following:

    "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them" - 1.8a

    What's the Reformed position on KJVO?
    The Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157 also states, "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God."

    For the Reformed, if one cannot approach their particular translation with this conviction, then their view of the translation in their hand is obviously at odds with the confessional view. We do not come to worship and hear the Word of God if we are standing in judgement of the very word of God.

    The conservative Reformed view in general is as stated in the WCF portion you quoted above. Some within the Reformed community, myself included, will also note that the Scripture proofs used in the WCF are clearly from the AV and that since the underlying TR of the NT is the "received text" by the Reformed church that confesses the WCF, then the AV is the very word of God. Admittedly, not all Reformed churches follow this approach, yet all Reformed churches do not denounce those that do.

    More on my view is found here:

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...64#post4458764

    Accordingly, I believe there should be one official Bible in the Reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place among English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language. Children of the Reformation should use the Scriptures of the reformation. The AV was made by men who each and every one upheld the Thirty-Nine Articles. They acknowledged versions that were made by "men of their own profession" as the Word of God. Can anyone point to a modern version to be made by men who upheld the Reformation standard? The fact that so much of the earlier versions is in the AV should demonstrates how much continuity existed between the reformation versions. The fact that so little of the AV is to be found in the modern versions is clear evidence of a departure that ultimately leads to dilution and division within the Reformed churches.

    Nevertheless, I readily concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" using the Byzantine manuscript tradition can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

    So for those that are churchmen who have covenanted with a visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride, it is the church that has spoken about what it considers the very word of God. For many within my Reformed tradition, the text that has been received by the church relies upon the TR within the Byzantine tradition of manuscripts. For those adrift outside church membership, the translation being used is but a personal choice, or for those outside the church that use the AV, a choice that borrows from the intellectual and spiritual capital of the Reformed kinsmen who translated the AV.

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; October 31st, 2015 at 01:08 AM.
    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
    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?



  6. #51
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,755
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 461 Times in 350 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    444103
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    The AV was made by men who each and every one upheld the Thirty-Nine Articles.
    Nineteen of the thirty-nine articles contain questionable doctrine that relies on marginal "proof" from scripture (contrary to the majority of verses on the subject) or are completely without scriptural support.

    That alone can disqualify the use of the thirty-nine articles from being considered when identifying an inspired scripture.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  7. #52
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,659
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 348 Times in 324 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    312852
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    More on my view is found here:
    Thanks AMR, that was interesting, and informative.

    In studying the history of the KJV, I have come across numerous opinions from people who claim the KJV was an anti-Puritan Bible and King James only had it made because he hated the Geneva Bible.

    Moreover, there are claims that King James commissioned the bible due to the Millenary Petition given to him by the Puritans. Part of the petition was that the king commission a new English Bible.

    However, that doesn't make sense because:

    The Puritans came into power in the mid 1600's. The last Geneva Bible was printed in 1616 (5 years after the KJV), but the Puritans were more receptive to the KJV when they had the power.

    If there is any truth to these claims, why did the Reformers incorporate the language of the KJV into the WCF instead of the Geneva Bible?
    Last edited by tetelestai; October 31st, 2015 at 07:40 PM.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  8. #53
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 485 Times in 445 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147689

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    So.... thoughts???

    I think this should be interesting.
    Since I believe that language and it's meaning evolves through history I shall be interested to hear the rationales for KJV being the only valid scripture.
    I love it. It is beautiful and it is the language with which I grew up, but, it is not today's language.
    Good topic for debate.

  9. #54
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    100
    Thanked 6,974 Times in 5,621 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147785
    Quote Originally Posted by bybee View Post
    ...evolves...


    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  10. #55
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 485 Times in 445 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147689

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post


    Um, unfolds, I meant unfolds!

  11. #56
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 485 Times in 445 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147689

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Nineteen of the thirty-nine articles contain questionable doctrine that relies on marginal "proof" from scripture (contrary to the majority of verses on the subject) or are completely without scriptural support.

    That alone can disqualify the use of the thirty-nine articles from being considered when identifying an inspired scripture.
    I certainly don't agree with you. You are one man questioning the work of many dedicated and theologically sound persons throughout the history of Anglicanism.
    I believe (and of course support your right to disbelieve) the 39 Articles of Faith to be found printed at the back of every Episcopal Prayer Book are a firm foundation for faith and practice.
    It is my chosen path. I firmly believe that the Lord God Almighty hears our prayer from wherever we live.

  12. #57
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 485 Times in 445 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147689

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    The Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157 also states, "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God."

    For the Reformed, if one cannot approach their particular translation with this conviction, then their view of the translation in their hand is obviously at odds with the confessional view. We do not come to worship and hear the Word of God if we are standing in judgement of the very word of God.

    The conservative Reformed view in general is as stated in the WCF portion you quoted above. Some within the Reformed community, myself included, will also note that the Scripture proofs used in the WCF are clearly from the AV and that since the underlying TR of the NT is the "received text" by the Reformed church that confesses the WCF, then the AV is the very word of God. Admittedly, not all Reformed churches follow this approach, yet all Reformed churches do not denounce those that do.

    More on my view is found here:

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...64#post4458764

    Accordingly, I believe there should be one official Bible in the Reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place among English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language. Children of the Reformation should use the Scriptures of the reformation. The AV was made by men who each and every one upheld the Thirty-Nine Articles. They acknowledged versions that were made by "men of their own profession" as the Word of God. Can anyone point to a modern version to be made by men who upheld the Reformation standard? The fact that so much of the earlier versions is in the AV should demonstrates how much continuity existed between the reformation versions. The fact that so little of the AV is to be found in the modern versions is clear evidence of a departure that ultimately leads to dilution and division within the Reformed churches.

    Nevertheless, I readily concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" using the Byzantine manuscript tradition can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

    So for those that are churchmen who have covenanted with a visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride, it is the church that has spoken about what it considers the very word of God. For many within my Reformed tradition, the text that has been received by the church relies upon the TR within the Byzantine tradition of manuscripts. For those adrift outside church membership, the translation being used is but a personal choice, or for those outside the church that use the AV, a choice that borrows from the intellectual and spiritual capital of the Reformed kinsmen who translated the AV.

    AMR
    Thanks AMR! I always read your thoughts on things theological and actually understand them!

  13. #58
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    100
    Thanked 6,974 Times in 5,621 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147785
    Quote Originally Posted by bybee View Post
    Um, unfolds, I meant unfolds!
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  14. #59
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,755
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 461 Times in 350 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    444103
    Quote Originally Posted by bybee View Post
    I certainly don't agree with you. You are one man questioning the work of many dedicated and theologically sound persons throughout the history of Anglicanism.
    I do not doubt that they are dedicated, but their theology is not sound.

    Quote Originally Posted by bybee View Post
    I believe (and of course support your right to disbelieve) the 39 Articles of Faith to be found printed at the back of every Episcopal Prayer Book are a firm foundation for faith and practice.
    It is my chosen path. I firmly believe that the Lord God Almighty hears our prayer from wherever we live.
    All the Episcopal believers that I have met are devout Christians.

    That does not mean that the 39 Articles of Faith are theologically correct.

    My reasoning comes from the Bible itself, which states that the entire Old Testament is to be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

    All of the 39 Articles of Faith that cannot pass the test given by Paul are of questionable doctrine.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  15. #60
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In front of the strange glowing screen of an inexplicable mechanism.
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 43 Times in 43 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173060
    A recent discovery of an ancient draft of the King James Bible is overturning our understanding of how the text was actually translated.

    The King James Bible was actually the work of 47 translators working in teams, or “companies”, in London, Oxford and Cambridge. They had been charged by King James I to produce an authorized version of the bible that would support the Church of England over Puritan influence in earlier texts.

    The different translations were all voted upon by the translators and the true expression of "God's Word" was arrived at by a consensus of all-too-human opinion.

    There has been an incomplete understanding by scholars of the composition process. Following this discovery, a number of gaps can at last begin to be filled.

    The true value of the newly-discovered draft lies in what it helps to reveal about one of the 17th century’s most extraordinary cultural achievements," wrote the American scholar Jeffrey Miller.

    "It points the way to a fuller, more complex understanding than ever before of the process by which the KJB, the most widely read work in English of all time, came to be." Miller writes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/bo...olar-says.html
    ____________________________________
    ...terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich...




    (STILL trying to set up conservatives and fundamentalists on blind dates with Jesus...)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 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