genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, nobody uses the word "houghed" anymore.
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Yes, nobody uses the word "houghed" anymore.
Yes. I'm not sure t, but I think that point is also made in the debate.
Hey, which side, do you predict, the KJVOnlyists or our side, will do more in the coming days to promote this debate?
At BEL and here on TOL, we've long pointed out that one way to find out which side or sides think that they won the debate is to see which side(s) promote the debate. We've been talking up the debate almost daily on our BEL radio program, and on last Friday's and today's Real Science Radio show. And atop KGOV still, as for the last month, we have this:
So far Will Kinney's site has nothing. He mentions a dispute from my debate with James White, but still has no link or even a mention to TheologyOnline.com. And what do you think, will other leaders, or rank-and-file KJO promoters, link to this debate?
- Bob
Last edited:
I highly doubt Will Kinney will link the debate to his site. Unless of course, he wants to be embarrassed.
You guys did an excellent job.
Because, in general, those that view all translations as imperfect, but some better than others, have no problem with KJVO as long as the KJVO people have no problem with them in return.
But that isn't the case. The KJVO people have all kinds of problems with, for instance, a pastor with an important message that might use the NIV in his message. The KJVO people will break fellowship with that pastor even though the passages that pastor uses in his message are perfectly sound translations.
I'm saved. And I'd love to get a chance to talk with you in heaven if we never get a face-to-face here on earth.
MAD could cause division, but, again, it depends on who won't accept who because of the belief. As I've observed, and I'm thinking MAD is the same for nearly the same reasons, that Open View Christians can be friends with Settled View Christians, but more often than not it's not true the other way around.
Right Divider
Body part
Call yourself an "executive summary" kinda guy. It sounds way cooler.... :cigar:
Last edited:
I finally got the image link right...
Yes. I'm not sure t, but I think that point is also made in the debate.
Hey, which side, do you predict, the KJVOnlyists or our side, will do more in the coming days to promote this debate?
At BEL and here on TOL, we've long pointed out that one way to find out which side or sides think that they won the debate is to see which side(s) promote the debate. We've been talking up the debate almost daily on our BEL radio program, and on last Friday's and today's Real Science Radio show. And atop KGOV still, as for the last month, we have this:
So far Will Kinney's site has nothing. He mentions a dispute from my debate with James White, but still has no link or even a mention to TheologyOnline.com. And what do you think, will other leaders, or rank-and-file KJO promoters, link to this debate?
- Bob
Yes. I'm not sure t, but I think that point is also made in the debate.
Hey, which side, do you predict, the KJVOnlyists or our side, will do more in the coming days to promote this debate?
At BEL and here on TOL, we've long pointed out that one way to find out which side or sides think that they won the debate is to see which side(s) promote the debate. We've been talking up the debate almost daily on our BEL radio program, and on last Friday's and today's Real Science Radio show. And atop KGOV still, as for the last month, we have this:
So far Will Kinney's site has nothing. He mentions a dispute from my debate with James White, but still has no link or even a mention to TheologyOnline.com. And what do you think, will other leaders, or rank-and-file KJO promoters, link to this debate?
- Bob
Why do you open so many responses with an insult?
I asked him that earlier too, no response.
Seems he just wont answer anything he doesn't like.
Well, at least the KJV was advanced when it came to selfies. No?
Good questions Tico. Also, how did Cambridge beat out Oxford on this? Was it by mere human striving? Or by supernatural intervention? That's another question, I presume, that your typical KJO leader would be afraid to answer.
Oh yeah, and Tico, did you notice the offer that Will Duffy and I presented in Round Five, to expand the debate if any of the other KJO leaders, like Waite, Moorman, Schnoebelen, Riplinger, etc., want in? Think any of them will take us up on the offer?
- Bob E.
DR, we have a bit of left over sp in a syringe if you need it.
Great point GO about the translators admonition. -Bob E.
Wow, you're on a roll GO. Insightful. And there's a finality to your challenge. - Bob E.
Brother Vinny
Active member
Would like to see BE tackle sola Scriptura next.
GS was posting a reply to someone else, but then applied this to the debate itself...
Who was it earlier, GS, that was talking about a nail in the coffin... gold gilding on the lid, etc.? Was that Tambora?
- Bob E.
Who was it earlier, GS, that was talking about a nail in the coffin... gold gilding on the lid, etc.? Was that Tambora?
- Bob E.
Last edited:
Thank you tetelestai for the assessment and the encouragement! It means a lot.
- Bob
brandplucked
New member
Everybody's an expert. Just ask "genuine original"
Everybody's an expert. Just ask "genuine original"
Hi go. You are neither genuine and much less original. As we have already seen so many times here, you are your own authority. You've got no inerrant Bible to give us, and you don't even believe such a thing exists. But you are more than eager to give us your own personal opinions about what the Bible should say if you were to write it.
You are just another frustrated wannabe who thinks way too much of himself.
"RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth"
Some bible critics have further criticized the King James Bible in this verse by telling us that "rightly dividing" is a wrong translation. One such man is pastor John Carpenter, who is one of the new Vatican Version users. The ESV has "rightly handling the word of truth". The NASB says: "accurately handling the word of truth" and the NIV has: "who correctly handles the word of truth."
Agreeing with the King James Bible's "rightly dividing the word of truth" are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza New Testament 1599 - "dividing the word of truth aright", the Bills Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, the Worsely Version 1770, Wesley's N.T. 1755, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, the Newcome N.T. 1796, The Revised Translation 1815, The Wakefield N.T. 1820, The Kneeland N.T. 1823, The Family Paraphrase Bible 1831, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, Webster's Translation 1833, The Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Longman Version 1841, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Calvin Version 1856, The Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, The Emphatic Diaglott Bible 1865, The Noyes Translation 1869, The Davidson N.T. 1876, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885, The New Covenant N.T. 1888, Darby 1890, The New Dispensation N.T. 1897, Young's translation 1898, the Godbey N.T. 1902, The Worrell N.T. 1904, The Coptic Version 1905, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Improved Bible 1913, The Sinaitic N.T. 1918, The Montgomery N.T. 1924, the NKJV 1982, The Recovery N.T. 1985, The Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, The 21st Century KJV 1994, the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglott Bible 2003, The Evidence Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Non-Ecclesiastical N.T. 2008, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Faithful N.T. 2009, the Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Disciples' Literal N.T. 2011, The Concordant Version 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The English Majority Text 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Mitchell N.T. 2014, and the Modern English Version 2014 all say "RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth."
The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.
Everybody's an expert. Just ask "genuine original"
Hi go. You are neither genuine and much less original. As we have already seen so many times here, you are your own authority. You've got no inerrant Bible to give us, and you don't even believe such a thing exists. But you are more than eager to give us your own personal opinions about what the Bible should say if you were to write it.
You are just another frustrated wannabe who thinks way too much of himself.
"RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth"
Some bible critics have further criticized the King James Bible in this verse by telling us that "rightly dividing" is a wrong translation. One such man is pastor John Carpenter, who is one of the new Vatican Version users. The ESV has "rightly handling the word of truth". The NASB says: "accurately handling the word of truth" and the NIV has: "who correctly handles the word of truth."
Agreeing with the King James Bible's "rightly dividing the word of truth" are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza New Testament 1599 - "dividing the word of truth aright", the Bills Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, the Worsely Version 1770, Wesley's N.T. 1755, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, the Newcome N.T. 1796, The Revised Translation 1815, The Wakefield N.T. 1820, The Kneeland N.T. 1823, The Family Paraphrase Bible 1831, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, Webster's Translation 1833, The Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Longman Version 1841, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Calvin Version 1856, The Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, The Emphatic Diaglott Bible 1865, The Noyes Translation 1869, The Davidson N.T. 1876, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885, The New Covenant N.T. 1888, Darby 1890, The New Dispensation N.T. 1897, Young's translation 1898, the Godbey N.T. 1902, The Worrell N.T. 1904, The Coptic Version 1905, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Improved Bible 1913, The Sinaitic N.T. 1918, The Montgomery N.T. 1924, the NKJV 1982, The Recovery N.T. 1985, The Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, The 21st Century KJV 1994, the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglott Bible 2003, The Evidence Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Non-Ecclesiastical N.T. 2008, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Faithful N.T. 2009, the Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Disciples' Literal N.T. 2011, The Concordant Version 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The English Majority Text 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Mitchell N.T. 2014, and the Modern English Version 2014 all say "RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth."
The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.
brandplucked
New member
Division?
Division?
It causes division between those who really believe God has given us a complete and inerrant Bible and those who do not. It's really just that simple.
By the way, truth always divides.
Division?
It causes division between those who really believe God has given us a complete and inerrant Bible and those who do not. It's really just that simple.
By the way, truth always divides.
