User Tag List

Page 94 of 104 FirstFirst ... 448491929394959697 ... LastLast
Results 1,396 to 1,410 of 1546

Thread: Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

  1. #1396
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    12,038
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 403 Times in 367 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    330179
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    May I politely suggest that you all discuss MAD in another thread. There are plenty to choose from.
    It was heir and STP that brought up MAD, not me.

    Here:

    Quote Originally Posted by heir View Post
    Do versions like the NIV facilitate that Paul preached a different gospel as the 12 or do they make it appear as if it is the same, just to different people?

    Galatians 2:7 NIV
    And Here:

    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    Does MAD cause division among the brethren? Are you MAD?

    I never mentioned MAD until these two brought it up. Go back and look at every post I made in this thread, I never brought it up until STP and heir did.

    heir thinks all non-KJB bibles are perverted because Gal 2:7 in the KJV allegedly proves her two gospel theory.

    I showed that KJVO was invented by an SDA, and like SDA's do, Hyper-Dispensationalists have used KJVO to advocate their Hyper-Dispensationalism.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  2. #1397
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    12,038
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 403 Times in 367 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    330179
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    Answer #3 (more silliness will be proposed for this one)

    Excerpts from The Revision Revised, a critique of the Revised Version
    John William Burgon

    "It is clear therefore that Caprice, not Necessity, — an itching impatience to introduce changes into the A.V., not the discovery of ‘plain and clear errors,’ — has determined the great bulk
    of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance."

    "Shame, — yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, — yes, shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men who, finding themselves (in an
    evil hour) appointed to correct ‘plain and clear errors’ in the English ‘Authorized Version,’ occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame, —
    yes, shame upon them! "

    "But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because HOLY SCRIPTURE is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet inflict irreparable injury."

    "Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented."
    Once again, you fail to show King James Onlyism before 1930.

    That's 3 times now.

    So far, you and Will are 0 for 5

    And, not only have you failed, most of the articles the two of you linked actually favored a new bible version.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  3. #1398
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    19,158
    Thanks
    3,427
    Thanked 21,530 Times in 12,495 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147811
    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.

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

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  5. #1399
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    12,038
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 403 Times in 367 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    330179
    Go back and look at the date and time of my post, then go back and look at the date and time of heir's post.

    heir's post about two gospels and Gal 2:7 is BEFORE my post.

    I responded to her post. She brought it up, not me.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  6. #1400
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    19,158
    Thanks
    3,427
    Thanked 21,530 Times in 12,495 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147811
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Go back and look at the date and time of my post, then go back and look at the date and time of heir's post.

    heir's post about two gospels and Gal 2:7 is BEFORE my post.

    I responded to her post. She brought it up, not me.
    Her post is in regards to the KJB, and how other versions distort the verse.

    You know this.

    You could not resist a Bullinger cheap shot.

    Isn't that true? Fess up.
    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.

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

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  8. #1401
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    12,038
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 403 Times in 367 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    330179
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    Her post is in regards to the KJB, and how other versions distort the verse.
    It's her opinion about other bible translations because Gal 2:7 in modern versions completely destroys her Hyper-Dispensationalism.

    She, and you, do the exact same thing as the SDA's.

    MAD's proof text, and the SDA's proof text fall apart in modern translations.

    Thus the link between King James Onlyism, MAD and SDA

    For example, with Gal 2:7 in the NIV, there is no MAD. With Acts 13:42 in the ESV, there is no SDA.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  9. #1402
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    19,158
    Thanks
    3,427
    Thanked 21,530 Times in 12,495 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147811
    Quote Originally Posted by GuySmiley View Post
    Its a nice suggestion, but did you realize tet is here?
    Yes, since john w hurt his feelings, every thread Tet is in becomes about the evils of dispensationalism, the evils of Darby/Bullinger, or the evils of the KJB.
    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.

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

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  11. #1403
    Over 1500 post club GuySmiley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,829
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    160621
    So . . . KJVO . . .

    I don't see it as a big deal, if someone wants to stick to the KJVO. From this debate I've learned some of my favorite people on TOL are KJVO. Although I do see why it's a big deal from the other side.

    brandplucked, I just don't like your style. You are so exaggerated in criticism of Original Onlyists (new term lol) when you admit to believing the same things about the KJV. Its just completely irrational.
    "I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

    "Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot

  12. #1404
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    12,038
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 403 Times in 367 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    330179
    Quote Originally Posted by GuySmiley View Post
    I don't see it as a big deal, if someone wants to stick to the KJVO.
    Not one non-KJVO cares if people want to be KJVO.

    However, the KJVO's can't help themselves from insulting anyone who isn't KJVO, and can't help themselves from insulting every bible that isn't a KJB.

    Will Kinney is Exhibit A. Almost every post of his has an insult.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  13. #1405
    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
    94469
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick M View Post
    How do you answer those that question the NT and the obvious contradictions between the red letters, the 12 and what Paul taught? Do you really try and tell them it is the same and they just don't understand? Or do you point out the truth of one thing is for one group, and another thing is for the other group?
    Well, I would rather not turn yet another thread into a discussion of MAD but I will answer your question. For one thing, Christ did at times deal with the Law since that covenant was still in effect but that was not His gospel. His Gospel was that which He directly taught His Apostles when He told them to "Go to all nations teaching them to observe whatsoever I command YOU." His teachings superseded the law and replaced it with something that would fulfill the essence of it. Part of His message was the promise of the Holy Spirit and the New Birth. He also promised eternal life if people believed in Him. All of this could not be brought to pass until He died but though He spoke from time to time about this and that He would be resurrected He did not explain how that would accomplish the redemptive purpose. Doing that would have given the secret away to the Enemy.

    After the Resurrection He walked the disciples and the disciples who were headed to Emmaus through the whole of the Bible: The Torah, The Psalms and the Prophets, showing them how His death had been foretold and explaining the purpose of it. The reason He did not reveal it before was strategic and did not make His previous teachings part of another dispensation.

    In Jesus life He revealed truths that are essential to the Gospel. For one, He revealed that He was the perfect representation of the Divine nature. He revealed His perfect humanity, divine origin and unique relationship to the Father. He even revealed that He existed with the Father before the world began. Paul mentions all these things in His letters because they are part of the gospel. Only Jesus could have been the sacrifice, mediator and, ultimately, only He is worthy to be the King of all.

    Paul uses different terminology to express the Gospel because of his background. For instance he uses the word "justification" which is a legal term but, as far as I can tell, this is simply another way of looking at what the disciples and Jesus called "forgiveness." Forgiveness means the past sins are "released" and "let go." If our sins are "taken away" by the Lamb then we stand in righteous before God. "

    Without the revelation of Who Christ is there is no basis for His work. The disciples learned about Christ through living with Him, observing Him and listening to His teaching. Paul encountered Jesus by revelation and learned that way. When he says "my gospel" he wasreferring to what was revealed to him. The scripture never says outright "there are two gospels. Here is what each is about." Rather that conclusion has arisen by making inferences. Every time I have asked for explicit statements of this sort I end up snipe hunting. I have also found no evidence that those that followed the Apostles had any knowledge of more than one gospel. Their extensive citations of the NT reveal that they thought all of it was equally inspired and relevant to believers.

    I understand you are committed to this belief system and would rather not start another round of discussion about it since so much of TOL is already devoted to it.

  14. #1406
    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
    94469
    The last exchange I had with Will Kinney showed how a belief in the inerrancy is used to settle matters of scripture interpretation. In our discussion translators, not all translators just those who produced the KJV are given final say in determining the meaning of scriptures. They are like the Supreme Court which can make rulings that will from thenceforth render THE ORTHODOX VIEW for all Christendom. Unlike the Supreme Court their translation is like "the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not."

    In this case we were talking about Daniel 3:25, the issue being whether the "fourth personage in the fire" was an angel or a Christophany. In case you ever wondered, the issue was settled when the Cambridge edition of the KJV translated this key phrase "and the appearance of the fourth is like the Son of God." For those who believe in the perfection of the KJV this should be enough. "The KJV says it. I believe it. That settles it."

    Never mind that the word "son" does not have an article "the" preceding it or that the word "God" is not capitalized (since in the original text all letters were capitalized). Furthermore the word God is plural. Unlike the Hebrew word Elohim this word is the Aramaic Elahin which, unlike Elohim, is always used for multiple pagan deities.

    I found much more linguistic support than this. I am just making a point. Other translation were said to be in collusion with the Church of Rome. Only the KJV was holding to the divinity of Christ. When I examined the link that was provided I found that while the words were many, the evidence was scant. At any rate, if the modern translation have strayed so far from the Truth why did men like Calvin and Luther believe this figure in the fire was an angel?

    Of course I have always heard both views of Daniel 3:25 and it never made a difference as far as having fellowship with another believer. Such a difference of opinion is like throwing down the gauntlet to KJVO crowd (at least those who hold to inerrancy) because for them to be "wrong on a
    single point of the law" makes them wrong on all of it. When something perfect is flawed in any way it is no longer perfect. Thus it is necessary to go to battle on any verse that questions the flawless KJV.

    There is no need to explore lexicons or the writings of other scholars. "If the KJV says it, I believe it and that settles it." The English words of the KJV are believed to be perfect expressions of the Greek and Hebrew texts they came from so to read the English version is no different than reading the original text(which is somehow not supposed to exist anymore).

    I grew up reading the KJV and when I quote the Bible I end up saying it in King James English. Many preachers I listen to quote from the KJV. It is a reasonably good translation however, that is different than claiming that it is inerrant in every verse and about every word. I think that position is extreme, divisive and discourages a person from searching the scriptures.

  15. #1407
    Journeyman GodsfreeWill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

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

    Rep Power
    17308
    I wonder who the first KJO believer will be to answer our 27 questions. Will Kinney might end up being the first, as he's already answered half of them. He has quite the head start on the rest.
    "Ignorance sustained by denial is crippling this nation's response to abortion. When something is so horrifying that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps we shouldn't be tolerating it." -Gregg Cunningham (Center for Bio-Ethical Reform)

  16. #1408
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,907
    Thanks
    150
    Thanked 258 Times in 205 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    375396
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    Would this be making "the originals" an idol?
    The question requires that we define what is meant when either side accuses the other of making an idol. An idol is putting something above God. In the same way that permitting what God forbids is creating a law above God’s law, so too is forbidding what God permits for the same reasons. You didn’t answer the question about creating division in the church, but Will Kinney did:

    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked
    I can see their point. This "pastor" would be preaching from a Bible he did not really believe is the authoritative and inerrant words of God. He would be a chameleon bible believer. And if you approved of his teaching, and he then goes on to promote the corrupted versions at other churches, it reflects back on the Bible believing church.

    Why would you have a man like Bob Enyart teach the Bible at your church, when he doesn't believe it is the inerrant words of God? Maybe he should stick to that Hungarian Karoli bible thingy he told us is his infallible Standard. Even though he can't read it, maybe he could try to phonetically sound it out in front of the congregation. He would be making as much sense doing it that way as he is now with his evasive double-speak nonsense he has been giving us.
    What Will Kinney is trying to do is pressure people to forbid what God permits with insults and disfellowship. So you can see why people that aren’t KJVO, seeing the focus on why the particular version matters to such a great deal that insults and disfellowshipping are deemed necessary, point to the version as a manifestation of law above God’s law.

    Now, going on to your question about original autographs being made an idol. Original autographs are unique in that they cannot be changed even if they are wrong. DR has made this clear and I cannot state it better:
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign
    I do not believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs. Not because I don't think they were of the highest quality but because inerrancy simply doesn't apply to them. Whatever these original manuscripts said, that is what they are. They are to be interpreted as such. If a text indicates that Pi = 3 then that is what the text is. You can call it inerrant, you can call it errant, you can call it sausages - I don't really care what you call it. That is what God inspired it to be; it is not really my prerogative to judge it. Rather, let it judge me! It is there as a tool to teach and to train.

    But the concept of inerrancy does apply to the copies of the original manuscripts because these can be compared (conceptually) to the originals. I am not saying that practically they can be compared but conceptually it makes sense to ascribe a greater or lesser degree of inerrancy to them in terms of how close they are to those originals. Hence, a manuscript that says words to the effect that Pi =3 could be said be said to be 100% inerrant in the sense that it is a 100% accurate reflection of what was in the original manuscript, regardless of whether you consider the original as in some way incorrect factually (or even theologically).

    This is an important principle because it promotes discipline in the church. You can't go around altering the manuscripts just because you think there is a mistake in them. You have to copy exactly what is there. And spiritually speaking, you have to submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit through what is there and not what you think should be there. The alternative is just a recipe for a disaster.
    Thus, an additional question you should ask yourself is: would it be right to create another language translation *from* the KJV without referring to the best copies of the original languages we have today? If you say “no” to that question, your accusation that people that view the original autographs as inerrant have the same position as KJVO is wrong.

    So I hope you see that my answer is calm and straightforward. Here are my questions for you:
    What constitutes an error in a translation? Wouldn’t a printing error count? If it doesn’t, then define what would constitute an error. And please note, that you can say “it matters to what degree the error is” as Will Kinney has implied in both the BR-XIV and this thread. And if it matters to what degree an error is, then quantify the amount of error required to bring an error up to the level of “real error” as opposed to “minor error that doesn’t count.”
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

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

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

    Tambora (July 12th, 2017)

  18. #1409
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    12,038
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 403 Times in 367 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    330179
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    What constitutes an error in a translation?
    Good luck with that question.

    I have asked STP over a dozen times in this thread what his definition of "error" is.

    He hasn't come close to answering the question.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

  19. #1410
    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
    94469
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    The question requires that we define what is meant when either side accuses the other of making an idol. An idol is putting something above God. In the same way that permitting what God forbids is creating a law above God’s law, so too is forbidding what God permits for the same reasons. You didn’t answer the question about creating division in the church, but Will Kinney did:



    What Will Kinney is trying to do is pressure people to forbid what God permits with insults and disfellowship. So you can see why people that aren’t KJVO, seeing the focus on why the particular version matters to such a great deal that insults and disfellowshipping are deemed necessary, point to the version as a manifestation of law above God’s law.

    Now, going on to your question about original autographs being made an idol. Original autographs are unique in that they cannot be changed even if they are wrong. DR has made this clear and I cannot state it better:


    Thus, an additional question you should ask yourself is: would it be right to create another language translation *from* the KJV without referring to the best copies of the original languages we have today? If you say “no” to that question, your accusation that people that view the original autographs as inerrant have the same position as KJVO is wrong.

    So I hope you see that my answer is calm and straightforward. Here are my questions for you:
    What constitutes an error in a translation? Wouldn’t a printing error count? If it doesn’t, then define what would constitute an error. And please note, that you can say “it matters to what degree the error is” as Will Kinney has implied in both the BR-XIV and this thread. And if it matters to what degree an error is, then quantify the amount of error required to bring an error up to the level of “real error” as opposed to “minor error that doesn’t count.”
    The question to answer is what was Paul talking about when he said "all scriptures are God-breathed?" Was he talking about the OT only or did that extend to the Apostolic writings as well? Further, can it be said that translations are "God-breathed?" Historically the goal of translators was simply to give an accurate rendering of the original writings in the languages of the nations. I do not think they thought "we are producing something equal to the original text." This is why KJVO did bit arise when the translation was written. Only after a number of generations had looked to that book to supply truth was the translation given the respect of antiquity that people thought of that - the translation - as being synonymous with The Word of God. Familiarity and history lent it a certain degree of the respect the KJV has. When other versions showed up they seemed to be invaders by many.

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