User Tag List

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1421222324
Results 346 to 358 of 358

Thread: Companion Thread for KJV only debate

  1. #346
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175

    the point of desperation

    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked
    By the way, is this one of Muz's " only 13 places" where the text crits differ?
    Hi Will,

    That type of amazing comment from muzicman really leaves one a bit puzzled. Obviously he wants to fight against the possibility that the Bible in our hands, the King James Bible, really represents the authority of God. Many folks take that view, I did myself for awhile before my head cleared out.

    However, how can there be a dialogue, a debate, a discussion, a sharing, if even the most basic issues are not even remotely understood by one side in the discussion ? If the most absurd and inane statements can be given as a throwaway line, and where there is no accountability whatsoever. Change the topics, count points, play politics, look for rah-rahs, and don't worry one whit about consistency, accuracy and truth applied to the study of the scriptures, the word of God.

    That level of deep confusion and words spoken brashly and wrongly cannot be rooted just in logical and scholastic difficulties, there must be much deeper forces at play.

    What you see is a type of irrational despising of the pure word of God, even against the concept that God may have inspired and preserved His word tangibly and really. We know that the only real claimant for the pure word of God is the King James Bible, yet they get to the point of desperation that they even have to attack the very concept of God's word being available, tangible, pure and perfect.

    On another forum Will discussed very sharply about how finding that pure word is supposedly the desire of all the sci-techni-crit searching. Yet is anybody really believing that God's word is pure ?

    Only my brethren who read, accept, receive and believe the King James Bible is the pure word of God, the scriptures, the Holy Bible.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  2. #347
    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
    8031
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Just another proof that the ESV is a fake bible. Back in the days spoken of when the LORD brought the people out of the land of Egypt, there was no Jesus. He had not yet been incarnated. His human name is Jesus. "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:20-21.

    The Lord Jesus Christ is never referred to as Jesus until after his incarnation when He took on Him the seed of Abraham and was made in the likeness of men.

    By the way, is this one of Muz's " only 13 places" where the text crits differ? (Just kidding of course)

    Will K


    Good morning,

    Interesting... Does the New Testament interpret the Old Testament?

    KJV
    Exodus 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

    ESV
    Exodus 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. 22 "But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.

    KJV
    1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
    ESV
    1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

    KJV
    1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
    ESV
    1 Corinthians 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

    KJV
    Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
    ESV
    Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.


    "I will guard my ways That I may not sin with my tongue; I will guard my mouth as with a muzzle While the wicked are in my presence." I was mute and silent, I refrained even from good, And my sorrow grew worse. My heart was hot within me, While I was musing the fire burned; Then I spoke with my tongue:"LORD, make me to know my end And what is the extent of my days; Let me know how transient I am. NASB

  3. #348
    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
    8031
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post

    Hi Folks,

    Thanks.

    Shalom,
    Steven

    PS
    The earlier discussions about Warfield and inerrancy and John 1:18 and gnosticism might be nice to continue, preferably in a venue where the focus could go a bit deeper. We succeed quite well on WhichVersion on that type of back and forth. Any posting here would most nicely address the paradigmic and verse issues about the purity and perfection of the Bible as a whole, its identity, and particular verses and sections.
    .



    So... the Alexandrian text is now gnostic? Not Arian and a Jehovah's Witness' perversion?
    see your previous post #196 or thereabouts.
    "I will guard my ways That I may not sin with my tongue; I will guard my mouth as with a muzzle While the wicked are in my presence." I was mute and silent, I refrained even from good, And my sorrow grew worse. My heart was hot within me, While I was musing the fire burned; Then I spoke with my tongue:"LORD, make me to know my end And what is the extent of my days; Let me know how transient I am. NASB

  4. #349
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    So... the Alexandrian text is now gnostic? Not Arian and a Jehovah's Witness' perversion?
    see your previous post #196 or thereabouts.
    Hi Bereancam,

    A lot of this is discussed in the article I recommended by Tim Warner.

    http://studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/john1n18.html
    The Gnostic & Arian Corruption of John 1:18

    Arians are happy to use a gnostic corruption if it fits their theory of a lesser god.

    As I indicated, we could take the discussion deeper, comparing the usages of the verse and the terminology in three, actually four, distinct periods. The apostolic writings of the New Testament, the Ante-Nicene writers around the 200s, the later 400's and 500s Creedal and Catholic age, and the Reformation. I recommended WhichVersion for such a discussion, which should best be done with heart and a desire to learn and understand. I'm sure I would learn a lot looking at it deeper.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  5. #350
    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
    8031
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    Hi Bereancam,

    I recommended WhichVersion for such a discussion, which should best be done with heart and a desire to learn and understand. I'm sure I would learn a lot looking at it deeper.

    Shalom,
    Steven

    TOL commandment #11
    11. Thou SHALL NOT attempt to redirect members to another forum. (Profile and signature links may be allowed with administrator approval.) Using our PM system to redirect members to other forums is also a banable offense.
    "I will guard my ways That I may not sin with my tongue; I will guard my mouth as with a muzzle While the wicked are in my presence." I was mute and silent, I refrained even from good, And my sorrow grew worse. My heart was hot within me, While I was musing the fire burned; Then I spoke with my tongue:"LORD, make me to know my end And what is the extent of my days; Let me know how transient I am. NASB

  6. #351
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam
    TOL commandment #11 11. Thou SHALL NOT attempt to redirect members to another forum. (Profile and signature links may be allowed with administrator approval.) Using our PM system to redirect members to other forums is also a banable offense.
    Pretty strange policy. On the forums I moderate we are frequently discussing that type of other forum is best for what type of discussion, we don't have a "this is the only place" mentality.

    Anyway, I will be happy to avoid such discussion in the future here. As I indicated I only came to Theology Online for this discussion, I had left some time ago. Perhaps I will see some others to participate in, now that I have returned. However I like conceptual and paradigmic discussions of some depth, as well as detailed studies, e.g. on Bible verses.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  7. #352
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175

    13 places where text crit scholars cannot make a clear assertion

    Hi Folks,

    Even if muzicman doesn't really want to discuss in detail, it would be proper for him to share with us his source for:

    "there are 13 places where text crit scholars cannot make a clear assertion as to the correct reading"


    As I indicated above, this is a rather amazing statement, and it needs a source, along with a list of the verses.

    (My conjecture is that muzicman is repeating, or misrepeating, something he heard en passant in seminary. And that there simply is no written source for this at all. If that is the case, muzicman should forthrightly say so, it is only proper discussion etiquette to retract a false statement.)

    And whether he tries to defend the statement or note, I would like him to apply the concept to one specific section, the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus by Mark. In other words, is muzicman actually saying the only accurate Bibles would have these 12 verses (snipped) out, and thus there is no accurate Bible available in English today anywhere ? If some textcrits have so declared, is that really his view ?

    Shalom,
    Steven

  8. #353
    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
    68558

    Christ revealed in the O.T.; Jesus is not.

    Hi B. I thought you might come up with something like this. The true Bible shows that Christ was revealed in the Old Testament. However the human part or nature of the Son of God, that is, Jesus, was not. Scripturally there was no Jesus until after the incarnation. The ESV got it wrong. Not even Westcott-Hort, nor the RV, ASV, NRSV, NASB, NIV went for that errant reading of Jesus in Jude 5. But of course since you guys don't have nor believe in an inerrant Bible in any language, then you are free to pick and choose among the thousands of variant readings and make up your own bible version as you go along your merry way.

    Happy hunting,

    Will K

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post


    Good morning,

    Interesting... Does the New Testament interpret the Old Testament?

    KJV
    Exodus 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

    ESV
    Exodus 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. 22 "But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.

    KJV
    1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
    ESV
    1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

    KJV
    1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
    ESV
    1 Corinthians 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

    KJV
    Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
    ESV
    Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.



  9. #354
    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
    8031
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Hi B. I thought you might come up with something like this. The true Bible shows that Christ was revealed in the Old Testament. However the human part or nature of the Son of God, that is, Jesus, was not. Scripturally there was no Jesus until after the incarnation. The ESV got it wrong. Not even Westcott-Hort, nor the RV, ASV, NRSV, NASB, NIV went for that errant reading of Jesus in Jude 5. But of course since you guys don't have nor believe in an inerrant Bible in any language, then you are free to pick and choose among the thousands of variant readings and make up your own bible version as you go along your merry way.

    Happy hunting,

    Will K

    Ah... I'll choose the meat understanding for 1000 Alex...
    The sown seed cannot produce fruit unless it is nourished, watered & receives the Light.

    Good luck!
    "I will guard my ways That I may not sin with my tongue; I will guard my mouth as with a muzzle While the wicked are in my presence." I was mute and silent, I refrained even from good, And my sorrow grew worse. My heart was hot within me, While I was musing the fire burned; Then I spoke with my tongue:"LORD, make me to know my end And what is the extent of my days; Let me know how transient I am. NASB

  10. #355
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175

    1000 Alex

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam
    Ah... I'll choose the meat understanding for 1000 Alex...
    Hi Bereancam, this reference is a bit confusing. Is there somebody here named Alex ? I know there are not 1000 Alexandrian MSS. Although the counts vary, you could say not even 10, and they are wildly divergent from each other, so that the number can be trimmed simply to basically Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both scribally corrupt, and the basis, due to very mistaken concepts, of the modern versions.

    Anyway, if you can explain the comment, it would be helpful.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  11. #356
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    18,210
    Thanks
    3,012
    Thanked 18,879 Times in 11,067 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    Hi Bereancam, this reference is a bit confusing. Is there somebody here named Alex ? I know there are not 1000 Alexandrian MSS. Although the counts vary, you could say not even 10, and they are wildly divergent from each other, so that the number can be trimmed simply to basically Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both scribally corrupt, and the basis, due to very mistaken concepts, of the modern versions.

    Anyway, if you can explain the comment, it would be helpful.

    Shalom,
    Steven
    I think he was referring to the tv show, Jeopardy, and Alex Trebek...

    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.

  12. #357
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I've read through the whole debate and just wanted to post my own conclusions...

    it should be abundantly clear to those who have been reading our discussion that your side has no inerrant Bible and no Final Written Authority, whereas the King James Bible believer does.
    I have been reading through the debate and so far I have to say that BrandPlucked is dead wrong on this point. He/she has given NO positive reason of its own why the KJV is the only inerrant Bible and Final Written Authority and therefore has given us no reason to believe that he/she or anyone on that side has something the other side does not. BrandPlucked has failed in demonstrating why his/her side does have reason beyond that of the opponent and therefore has lost the debate. themuzicman's comments here are apropos of the entire exchange:

    The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.

    The simple and undeniable fact is - Neither do you.
    If you think the debate is over because you do not accept my ‘proof’ and abundant evidence for the King James Bible being the only true Standard of the inspired words of God, then that is fine with me. I do not expect you to believe what I do about the King James Bible.

    I think the debate is over because you've admitted that you cannot provide evidence that it is inerrant.
    From the other side, this really sums up the exchange:

    I am totally accurate when I label your position as being one who does not believe that any such thing as an inspired, complete and inerrant Bible exists in any language. I am a Bible believer who actually believes that God has given to the world a real and tangible Book that is the preserved and infallible words of God in printed form, and in the closest thing to a universal language
    So BrandPlucked is different in that he/she has a belief. He/she has a belief in the KJV that others like themuzicman do not. Everyone at the outset knew this was the case. The fact that one person believes that there is “a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language” and someone else does not was not in contention anywhere. And yet this is the sum total of BrandPlucked's argument—that he/she has a belief and someone else doesn't. Well, if that's really all BrandPlucked set out to show, fine and dandy. But BrandPlucked has utterly failed in showing that he/she actually does have “a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language” outside his/her own mind. The pathetically ironic thing is that even though BrandPlucked showed us no reason whatsoever for “a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language” outside his/her own proclaiming that he/she does have such a thing, he/she then goes on to criticize themuzicman opponent saying “Your merely telling us that we do not have an inspired Bible does not make it so.” Does BrandPlucked not realize that he/she just contradicated his/her entire argument?

    BrandPlucked says over and over again that his/her purpose was not to prove the KJV inerrant, but to “present the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today.” Though he/she may believe he/she has done so by merely and only stating a few reasons in the first post, since every one of those reasons have been shown to NOT support the case “for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today” and that, in fact, such a belief fails by those very reasons, one wonders why BrandPlucked thinks he/she still has a basis for the belief. The only reason I can see is that given by themuzicman—despite not having any reason for the belief, he/she still continues to uphold it, which is fine for him/her, but means nothing to anybody else except, perhaps, that people who hold to KJV priority simply because they want to are better to be pitied than believed.

    I and many thousands of other Christians believe we have such a book.
    Well, good for you, BrandPlucked. Too bad you have given no one who didn't already believe any reason to believe your belief and made them think twice about believing you since you don't seem to have any evidential or rational reasons for what you think.

  13. #358
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    While it does nothing to present a case for the KJV's inerrancy which BrandPlucked set out to do (and failed), he/she does point out two inconsistencies of themuzicman. BrandPlucked is right when he/she says there is nothing in scripture which says a canon or the Bible as we have it in any form since ancient times is something the Church should or would establish, let alone be purposed to establish:

    Then you retreat to the UNBiblical idea that God has charged the church to discover the originals from the scribal manuscripts,
    One might as well believe in the divine authority of the Magisterium and Tradition and become Catholic as believe in that—both are without any scriptural support.

    BrandPlucked is also correct in pointing out the logical inconsistency of saying that the originals were the inspired, inerrant word of God without having any idea what those are nor being able to test them to verify them to see that they are what they should be. It is as baseless a proposition as the KJV's inerrancy and can only be believed by someone who wants to believe it, not by someone who has previous reason to.

    There was, however, one grotesquely false argument made by BrandPlucked that needs to be addressed:

    Only by producing such a Book [one that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language] and comparing it to the King James Bible could you even hope to show that the King James Bible is not the inspired and inerrant words of God.
    This is about as foolish a statement as one can get (apart from saying there is no god). One doesn't need a “King James Bible” in order to disprove the King James Bible. That is circular reasoning and fallacious logic. AND it even directly contradicts scripture, which tells us that ANYTHING which happens in space and time which conflicts with something that is supposedly from God means that such a thing is not from God. Thus, for just a few examples out of multitudes, we have things like this:

    If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.
    --Deuteronomy 18:22
    When all this comes true - and it surely will - then they will know that a prophet has been among them.
    --Ezekiel 33:33
    The Lord was with Samuel as he grew up, and he let none of his words fall to the ground.
    --1 Samuel 3:19
    Thus, for instance, if Yeshua was NOT resurrected in space-time history, this literally means that the entire New Testamebt must be thrown away, whether KJV or otherwise—it is errant. If any part of scripture has no continuance with what has happened in history and in space and in time, it must be discarded as errant. It must be seen as something God has not done or said. Therefore one does not need an inerrant bible to show that the KJV is errant, one only needs to show in one place that the KJV does not agree with the reality of things and the KJV can be shown thereby to be errant. You will find that situation in all translations—KJV or otherwise.

    In support of neither side, it appears to me as if the proponents of the KJV as being inerrant and the only complete Word of God and also those who hold to a Sola Scriptura position which requires treating the scriptures as if they were any kind of final authority, divine of themselves even if only in the originals, have both deified the text and fallen into the heresy of Docetism.

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