Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
A few years ago, you stated the KJB was without error.

It is without error.

However, you have to study and do research or you will be misled by just using it and nothing else.

For example, you think "Easter" in Acts 12:4 refers to a pagan festival, while Brandplucked thinks it refers to the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ.

If both of you would do some research, you both wouldn't be wrong.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The KJV teaches against the immortality of the soul:
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Ezek 18:4
They jump to their own translation (NWT) to say: For the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead; they are conscious of nothing at all.
Is it right to build a doctrine off of a verse of scripture. Are the essential doctrines also built on a verse of scripture.
Thank you for your comment on my appropriate name title. A Jewish guy gave it to me when he said that Jesus was not in the Old Testement, so I said, "What about Isaiah 53?" The Jewish guy called me a false prophet, and the name stuck!
"Other"

Sigh.

AMR
 

genuineoriginal

New member
It is without error.

However, you have to study and do research or you will be misled by just using it and nothing else.

For example, you think "Easter" in Acts 12:4 refers to a pagan festival, while Brandplucked thinks it refers to the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ.

If both of you would do some research, you both wouldn't be wrong.

brandplucked did a lot of research, but it all came to nothing because of his beliefs.

He believes "The King James Bible is always right." (quoted from his article on Easter)
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
Will Kinney will always have my thumbs up in everything he says.
That's a stupid thing to say.
I will not read anything but a KJV for serious study. I read it daily for hours sometimes.
That's good.
I will enjoy this debate.
It's much too long winded for me.
I believe the KJV to be the only way to salvation.
And I, that the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (eventually going to all men 1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV and not just to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16-17 KJV).
 

Tweety134

New member
That's a stupid thing to say. That's good. It's much too long winded for me.And I, that the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (eventually going to all men 1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV and not just to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16-17 KJV).
I do not think what I said was stupid. I have been reading and following him for about 5 years now. I believe that the KJV bible is truly the only true bible. There should be no other translation out there!
 

Shasta

Well-known member
Hi Shasta. Your thinking is decidedly carnal and antibiblical, if not anti-God.

The Bible itself claims to be the inspired words of the living God who cannot lie and has promised both to preserve His words and that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

This "all or nothing" view may set the bar too high for your scholars and translators, but it is not too high for the sovereign God of the universe.

You even answered your own question when you said: "After all "when the perfect is come" why is there a need to search for a clearer more accurate translation?"

Your problem is that you don't believe the perfect words of God have come and you don't know where to find them because you don't know what they are for sure.

"In order for the KJV to be the inspired version the hand of God would have had to be in this multi-staged revision process..."

Imagine that. Ya think maybe our God is capable of such a thing? He took a 7 days process to finish creation, didn't He? Why didn't He do it in just one day and be done with it?

You are still thinking the Bible is a human book and God is somehow outside of the picture when it comes to preserving His words and giving us "the book of the LORD" (Isaiah 34:16)

Think about it.

God bless.

No, what I believe is that the inspired scriptures are those which God "breathed" in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Historically that is exactly what Paul's statement was about. He was not the multitudes of translations that would come along later (including the KJV). You believe an extra-Biblical meta-narrative about God producing a perfectly translated version of the Bible in English at a particular time in history. Not even the translators of the time saw it that way.

This view is not based on scripture. Your ideas about the perfection of the KJV remind me of the attitude the Catholic Church once had about the Latin Vulgate...but the Vulgate turned out not to be flawless. Ironically, had the early translators of the Bible into English had the same reverence for the Vulgate they never would have produced the KJV.

If my thinking on this subject is carnal then I am in agreement with such "carnal" men as Wycliff, Tyndale and Erasmus who were not afraid to bypass the Vulgate and refer directly to the Bible as it was originally written. After the brave example they set are we now supposed to restrict our focus to understanding the KJV?

Yes God COULD have inspired a three-stage process of translation and correction to arrive at a plenary inspired, flawless translation of the Bible in English but you have no objective basis for saying that He did. Your claim is merely an assertion, an opinion. You cannot even say you learned that opinion from some divine revelation.

Yet you treat it just as if it were divine revelation and then accuse me of being carnal because I do not accept it. Personally, I prefer to search out the original words of scripture and compare all the versions to that rather than make one translation my sole source of knowledge.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Are all versions without error?

I don't know, it depends how you would define error.

Are both of the following statements true:

"The Dutch were the first to settle in New York City."

"The Dutch were the first to settle in New Amsterdam".

Does one statement contain an error?

Let's say the KJV used NYC, and the NIV used New Amsterdam. What you guys do is argue that New Amsterdam and the NIV are wrong because the KJV says NYC.

I could show you Wikipedia quotes saying NYC used to be called New Amsterdam, and other secular sources showing it was called New Amsterdam, and you would just keep saying "Nope, it's NYC, the KJV says NYC, I believe the KJV, it's NYC...."
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I am not sure how a pastor can get up and preach from a Book he isn't sure about.

You and Brandplucked are both KJVO.

He thinks "Easter" in Acts 12:4 refers to a celebration of the resurrection of Christ, you think "Easter" in Acts 12:4 refers to a pagan holiday.

Don't you see how this proves KJVO wrong?
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
A thought on your “We don’t speak like that anymore.”

In the medical profession the Latin is used for prescriptions because it is basically a dead language; therefore remains the same, meaning there is less likelihood for the misinterpretation of prescription by Pharmacists.

This part of their “world” has worked out rather well throughout “the world” in general.

But, they are a Profession, with very strict guidelines; laws and penalties against screw ups given that physical life is at stake.

Not so the Scripture – any amateur can read a few “books about” pull out a soapbox and set themselves up as an expert.

There is no standard but what the various sides of what has ended up an endlessly muliti-sided fence end up agreeing on against some, if not all the other sides, more or less.

And yet, in this; it appears the translators of the KJV accomplished Tyndale’s stated hearts’ desire – the Bible in the hands of the common man.

And a thought in general - as with Grace, such a freedom will invite its fair share of problems; especially where the dogmatist is found asserting that he alone is right.

The dogmatist cannot but end up being more of the same: a liar. It is par for the course: as its very origin is found in its conclusion that it; and it alone, is right.

A mere “Hello,” sets such off and their kind. Out comes the red marker of their hypocrisy “So, tell us, what is the this, the that; we want to see if you have it right by our standard, so we can vomit it all over you if you do not; all the while pointing our finger at you!”

Matthew 23:
15. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Doctors and Pharmacists study and train for years to learn the language of their trade. People just pick up a KJV and start reading and assume that in the last 300 years or so the meanings of words have not changed. They have. That is just a simple fact of language.
 

Danoh

New member
Doctors and Pharmacists study and train for years to learn the language of their trade. People just pick up a KJV and start reading and assume that in the last 300 years or so the meanings of words have not changed. They have. That is just a simple fact of language.

Consider that, more often than not; how a word is used gives you its intended sense.

What did the word "mouse" come to mean - by how it was used by the late Steve Jobs (may he have known and or found the Lord)?

The KJB is often much like that.
 

Shasta

Well-known member
KJVism is so bizarre, so idolatrous, so absurd, that only a true bibliophile could've thought of it.

I think our guest has set the bar too high for himself when he says that "the King James Bible is the ONLY complete and INERRANT Bible because of it’s purity of doctrinal truth." The absolute nature of this claim means that any error of translation that alters the meaning of the original Greek text will cause his entire case to collapse. All I have to do to overthrow this view is to cite a single example. He is staking his claim on a hill that is impossible to defend.
 
Top