User Tag List

Page 1 of 24 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 358

Thread: Companion Thread for KJV only debate

  1. #1
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,597
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 719 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1013409

    Thumbs up Companion Thread for KJV only debate

    This thread is designed so that those interested can discuss the One on One debate between Brandplucked and themuzicman entitled: Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  2. #2
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Hi everyone,

    What is inerrancy?

    I would like to know. If it is preserving the pure words of God-word for word, then we would have to judge the KJV including any other version in any language as errsnt. Here is the reason why: Everyone can agree the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek(with a bit of Aramaic.)

    take the word agape, translated charity and love in some places.

    is agape the same word as love and charity? Lemme see.

    agape has an A, G, A,P,E love has L,O,V,E wow, these two do not even have the same letters.

    In matter of fact, they are not even the same language.

    I always understood inerrancy was about the bible telling the truth, not error. In other words, when we read about a literal 6 day creation, we who beleive in the inerrancy of the bible beleive in a 6 day creation as opposed to evolution or the big bang theory.

    Inerrancy is about what the bible teaches as being true. The bible is the truth
    17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
    The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Jn 17:17). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

    infallability is very related to this. It means that the bible is unable to teach falsehood.

    in•fal•li•ble \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\ adj
    [ME, fr. ML infallibilis, fr. L in- + LL fallibilis fallible] 15c
    1 :*incapable of error :*unerring 〈an infallible memory〉
    2 :*not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint :*certain 〈an infallible remedy〉
    3 :*incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals — in•fal•li•bil•i•ty \-ˌfa-lə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ n — in•fal•li•bly \-ˈfa-lə-blē\ adv

    Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

    This being a debate, Wil should define what he means by infalibil and inerant. What is his definition of preservation? I think Wil means one thing when he says infalible, inerrant, preserved word of God and probably most understand it differently.

    God bless
    God's Other Son
    a.k.a. Dave Emme

  3. #3
    Over 2000 post club Mr. 5020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,368
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 60 Times in 41 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    22147
    Quote Originally Posted by daveme7 View Post
    take the word agape, translated charity and love in some places.

    is agape the same word as love and charity? Lemme see.

    agape has an A, G, A,P,E love has L,O,V,E wow, these two do not even have the same letters.

    In matter of fact, they are not even the same language.
    That, however, does not change the meaning.

    For example, I can tell my significant other "te amo," "je taime" or "I love you," but the all mean the same thing.

  4. #4
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    So then is inerrancy about meanng or "Preserving God's pure words"?

  5. #5
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,833
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 9,174 Times in 6,337 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147792
    the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today.
    That right there is easy to show wrong. The Red Sea was not crossed, but a sea of reeds.
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  6. #6
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    18,456
    Thanks
    3,096
    Thanked 19,608 Times in 11,389 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2146725
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick M View Post
    That right there is easy to show wrong. The Red Sea was not crossed, but a sea of reeds.
    I believe the KJB gets Gal 2:16 KJV right. Faith "of" Christ. I think there
    are 5-6 examples of this "faith of Christ" in Paul's letters.

    If the KJB is right, all others are in error. If the KJB is wrong, all others are not in error. The only problem, all the others differ from each other in many places.
    Then, we must conclude that God didn't preserve his Word as he promised!
    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. #7
    Over 2000 post club Mr. 5020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,368
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 60 Times in 41 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    22147
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick M View Post
    That right there is easy to show wrong. The Red Sea was not crossed, but a sea of reeds.
    Based on what evidence?

  8. #8
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,833
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 9,174 Times in 6,337 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147792
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. 5020 View Post
    Based on what evidence?
    Ask somebody that reads hebrew. They can't all be wrong about "suphs".

    And I think his word is preserved. A translator doesn't get everything right all the time. And then you have Mormons and Islam that really twist his word. His word is still preserved. They are just perverting it.

    I wouldn't be suprised to find skeptic pages that are only trying to discredit his word, but here is some reading.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  9. #9
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8033
    Quote Originally Posted by daveme7 View Post
    So then is inerrancy about meanng or "Preserving God's pure words"?


    Evening Dave,

    Using the definition you provided:

    in•fal•li•ble \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\ adj
    [ME, fr. ML infallibilis, fr. L in- + LL fallibilis fallible] 15c
    1 :*incapable of error :*unerring 〈an infallible memory〉
    2 :*not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint :*certain 〈an infallible remedy〉
    3 :*incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals — in•fal•li•bil•i•ty \-ˌfa-lə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ n — in•fal•li•bly \-ˈfa-lə-blē\ adv
    Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.


    then let's start with definition #1:
    *KJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    *(1) Geneva: 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    *(2) Bishops Bible: 1 John 5:7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.
    *(3) KJV 1611: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    "in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one " is an addition to the early autographs, thus errant under definition #1.
    This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.


    So the issue is? Not to worry, the fallibility of man in his err's is corrected by God's infallibility when it comes to the transmission of HIS Word.


    humbly in Christ,
    bereancam

  10. #10
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68560

    1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

    [QUOTE=bereancam_46151;1733363]Evening Dave,

    *KJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    *(1) Geneva: 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    *(2) Bishops Bible: 1 John 5:7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.
    *(3) KJV 1611: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    "in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one " is an addition to the early autographs, thus errant under definition #1.
    This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.


    Wrong. 1 John 5:7 is true Scripture

    Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

    Cyprian - 250 AD, Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.

    "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 4 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the Russian, Portuguese, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, the French bibles, and all English versions till 1881.

    1 John 5:7 was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version of 1611. The whole passage was included in the Mace New Testament of 1729, and John Wesley strongly believed it was genuine Scripture and included it in his own translation in 1755. It is still found in the NKJV 1982 Young's, the New Life Bible 1969, Green's 'literal' translation of 2000, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. It was even included in the Catholic Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the English Revised Version of 1881, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek texts, omitted it.

    It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church's New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The passage is also included in the following foreign language Bibles today: Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Afrikaans 1957, the Basque N.T.; Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish 1776, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, the Italian Diodati, Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T.; Maori, Lithuanian, Romanian Cornilescu, Russian Synodal, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout Mexico, Central and South America 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Thai Bible, Tagalog bible, Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible, and the Xhosa language Bible.

    Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide.

    For more on 1 John 5:7 see - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html

    Will Kinney

  11. #11
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8033
    [quote=brandplucked;1733397]
    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    Evening Dave,

    *KJV: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    *(1) Geneva: 1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    *(2) Bishops Bible: 1 John 5:7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.
    *(3) KJV 1611: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    "in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one " is an addition to the early autographs, thus errant under definition #1.
    This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.


    Wrong. 1 John 5:7 is true Scripture

    Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

    Cyprian - 250 AD, Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.

    "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 4 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the Russian, Portuguese, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, the French bibles, and all English versions till 1881.

    1 John 5:7 was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Authorized Version of 1611. The whole passage was included in the Mace New Testament of 1729, and John Wesley strongly believed it was genuine Scripture and included it in his own translation in 1755. It is still found in the NKJV 1982 Young's, the New Life Bible 1969, Green's 'literal' translation of 2000, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. It was even included in the Catholic Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the English Revised Version of 1881, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek texts, omitted it.

    It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church's New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The passage is also included in the following foreign language Bibles today: Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Afrikaans 1957, the Basque N.T.; Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish 1776, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l'Epée 2005, the Italian Diodati, Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T.; Maori, Lithuanian, Romanian Cornilescu, Russian Synodal, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout Mexico, Central and South America 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Thai Bible, Tagalog bible, Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible, and the Xhosa language Bible.

    Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide.

    For more on 1 John 5:7 see - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html

    Will Kinney


    Hmmmm...... So you have time from your one on one to venture into the peanut gallery? Huh....... since Wyclif used the Vulgate as his source of translation, as did the Bishop's Bible use the Vulgate as a primary source this proves what exactly. The Vulgate is the perfectly preserved Word of God? The perfectly preserved inerrant translation which you state is only the King James 1611, (with apocrypha I might add) itself being a revision of the Geneva and Bishops. The apocrypha removed later by the way, as the King James translation has been revised several times. Oh right, I think the Anglican Church uses the apocrypha too. Remind me again why the Reformation saints were in Geneva? It's not rocket science. Your point is?


    Or is it the Textus Receptus that is the only perfectly preserved and inerrant Word of God.
    There are no manuscripts prior to Erasmus +/- 50 years that support your position. That's 15th century. No amount of revisionist history can change the fact that it is not in the autographs. Erasmus himself commented on the unsubstantiated validity of the verse. Oh wasn't he Catholic? I have heard no credible scholar say otherwise. Your own source material supports one family of translation using this verse.

    Here's the English translation from Codex Sinaiticus that I have:
    1John 5:7 For they that testify are three, 8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.

    That the early church father's write notes of the trinity in the margins shouldn't suprise anyone, esp. after Nicea. If there were 3rd century evidence as you state, Athanasius surely would have used this passage in defense of the Arian heresy. He did not because it was not there. The passage would be a vital piece of Scripture to use in the defense of the Word, wouldn't you say?

    Or is the a revelation of some kind that the rest of God's children have missed out on?

    So the issue is? Not to worry, the fallibility of man in his err's is corrected by God's infallibility when it comes to the transmission of HIS Word. His Words are not stopped nor muted by errors of men.

    Ah, maybe it should be left as your personal preference to read the King James, and not hold other believers in bondage to your fanatical myths. The Word of God in His Holy Scriptures are read by millions in all languages, and they too have the claim of being saved, just like anyone else through FAITH in Jesus Christ.

    Sorry Will, I will not bow to your golden calf ideals. Just think, this is just about an addition to a verse. Better get ready for muz.


  12. #12
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,397
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    227503
    I have heard much about the Authorized King James Version. By whom was it authorized?
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  13. #13
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    The KJV was authorized by King James.

  14. #14
    Over 3000 post club Lucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    south Texas
    Posts
    3,238
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    607
    What's the KJV?
    grace & peace

  15. #15
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Twin Falls, ID
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    Evening Dave,

    "in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one " is an addition to the early autographs, thus errant under definition #1.
    This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.
    Wow!

    Were you there?

    You actually saw the original autographs?

    No? OH...! You're just mimicking what the liberal godless scholars have determined. Sad to say, too many Bible-believing Christians have been snookered into listening to these wolves in sheep's clothing.

    What it really boils down is, what authority do you place your view of Scriptures? Do you believe God when He promised to preserve His Word, or do you really think that man, in all of his intellect, can determine what God really has said?

    Spirituality and faith are totally and completely separate from intellectual scholasticism. This is why a little grey-haired granny, who has no formal education can be such a great prayer warrior for Christ, while some great and learned professors (like Bart Ehrman, Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, etc.) can totally miss the target, no matter how much education they have.

    Intellectualism is great! But ONLY when it is subjugated by true Biblical faith.
    Last edited by johncalvinhall; April 21st, 2008 at 10:37 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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