Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[brandplucked]

700 or 7000 or both? A bible agnostic wonders.

700 or 7000 or both? A bible agnostic wonders.

(2 Sam 8:4 KJV) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

(1 Chron 18:4 KJV) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

Error?

I guess by your question mark you are revealing you basic bible agnosticism, right?

The King James Bible is right and others read this way too. Your modern versions don't even agree among themselves.

Here are several possible ways to explain this apparent contradiction.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/howmanyhorsemen.htm

 

[tetelestai]

The King James Bible is right and others read this way too.

The KJV can't be right. Both verses describe the same event.

Your modern versions don't even agree among themselves.

The NIV doesn't contradict itself like the KJB does with the two verses

(1 Chron 18:4 NIV) David captured a thousand of his chariots, seven thousand charioteers and twenty thousand foot soldiers. He hamstrung all but a hundred of the chariot horses.

(2 Sam 8:4 NIV) David captured a thousand of his chariots, seven thousand charioteers[a] and twenty thousand foot soldiers. He hamstrung all but a hundred of the chariot horses.

The footnote above [a] states the following:

2 Samuel 8:4 Septuagint (see also Dead Sea Scrolls and 1 Chron. 18:4); Masoretic Text captured seventeen hundred of his charioteers

http://brandplucked.webs.com/howmanyhorsemen.htm

Apparently, even you can't tell us which verse from the KJV is correct.

You state the following on your site:

"I will present five possible explanations."

Seriously? That's the best you can do?

 

[tetelestai]

The King James Bible is always right.

Which King James Bible?

 

[brandplucked]

More of Bob Enyart's misinformation

More of Bob Enyart's misinformation

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

Uh, Bob. Not sure what you have been looking at but The debate is on my website, my Facebook homepage and the Facebook King James Bible Debate.

King James Bible Debate with Bob Enyart and Will Duffy *November 2, 2015 at Theologyonline.com *

http://brandplucked.webs.com/enyartduffykjb.htm

Will Kinney Facebook homepage

https://www.facebook.com/willjkinney

King James Bible Debate on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/

 

[brandplucked]

When are you going to tell us, Bob?

When are you going to tell us, Bob?

Hey Bob. When are you going to tell us? Is 1 John 5:7 original Scripture and belongs in your "perfect word of God" and your infallible Standard, or is it not?


1 John 5:7-8 KJB - "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."



1 John 5:7-8 - ESV, NIV, NASB - "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree."

You have spoken out of both sides of your mouth and directly contradicted yourself. "Not inspired Scripture in the NKJV, but inspired Scripture in the Hungarian Karoli bible"

So I was wondering if you ever got that straightened out in your mind so you can let us know one way or the other.

Or will you just continue to dodge this question and hope that nobody else notices?

 

[brandplucked]

2 Samuel 8:4 and tetelestai's NON- inspired bibles

2 Samuel 8:4 and tetelestai's NON- inspired bibles

The KJV can't be right. Both verses describe the same event.



The NIV doesn't contradict itself like the KJB does with the two verses

(1 Chron 18:4 NIV) David captured a thousand of his chariots, seven thousand charioteers and twenty thousand foot soldiers. He hamstrung all but a hundred of the chariot horses.

(2 Sam 8:4 NIV) David captured a thousand of his chariots, seven thousand charioteers[a] and twenty thousand foot soldiers. He hamstrung all but a hundred of the chariot horses.

The footnote above [a] states the following:

2 Samuel 8:4 Septuagint (see also Dead Sea Scrolls and 1 Chron. 18:4); Masoretic Text captured seventeen hundred of his charioteers



Apparently, even you can't tell us which verse from the KJV is correct.

You state the following on your site:

"I will present five possible explanations."

Seriously? That's the best you can do?

Telelestai. You are like so many today. You would rather believe that there is no inerrant bible and that the Hebrew texts themselves have been corrupted, rather than believe that "just maybe" God got it right and there really is an inerrant Bible.

Your NIV tells us that they rejected the Hebrew text, and are not even sure what or how it reads (the NASB is different from both the NIV and the KJB) and the NIV tells us that they followed the so called Greek Septuagint for their reading in 1 Samuel 8:4. THAT'S why the NIV "matches".

ALL the editors of the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman and NET versions (which continually disagree even among themselves) ---the ALL believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted. None of these guys believes there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible and neither do you.

So instead of believing that the Hebrew text may be right and there are possible ways to explain these apparent contradictions, you prefer to believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted and that there IS no such thing as an inerrant bible and it is up to "every man for himself experts" like you to give us what you think it should be.

You didn't even bother to read the article I gave you with the possible solutions to this apparent problem. You just mocked.

 

[George Affleck]

Hey Brandplucked,

I wonder what those who say they don't expect to find God's inerrant words compiled anywhere on earth would have to say to the translators of the NIV?

"From the beginning the translators have been united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form." (TNIV, 2005)

"Our work as translators is motivated by our conviction that the Bible is God’s Word in written form." (NIV, 2011)

 

[Desert Reign]

Thanks for answering. After I wrote this post, I checked to see what Bible it was I had and it said that it was the Cambridge 1885. It was given to me by a friend a long time ago and was his study Bible and it does look sort of old, the way KJV Bibles should look like, if you see what I mean, so it looks like it is authentic. Is that the right one I have got there? From what you say it sounds like it but on the other hand you said that it most likely doesn't have a date on it whereas mine does. I feel in a bit of a quandary because if a Bible has no date on it, how can I be sure that it is the one you are thinking of? Couldn't you just send me a link or something like that? (See my edited original post.) Oh, and the Bible I have does say that it is authorized, which further leads me to think it must the 100% inerrant one.

EDIT: OK, now you've got me really confused. Because I just looked up on the internet about what Bible was in all the bookshops and it said that it was the Oxford Bible of 1769 that was in all the bookstores and that there wasn't actually a Cambridge Bible of that date but that the Cambridge Bibles afterwards just followed what was in the Oxford 1769 one (barring a few changes in spelling and stuff like that). Does that mean that my one, which says Cambridge 1885, is better than the ones I can get in a bookstore? Do you think it might be valuable?
Although I can see why Cambridge wouldn't want to put a date in their Bibles if they were really just plagiarising from the Oxford Bible. Well, not just plagiarising but taking the whole thing lock, stock and print drum. I'd be interested to know what you think about that. Could it be that if they put a date to it, people would know that they were just stealing it from Oxford? It seems a funny thing to steal a Bible!

EDIT: As you aren't there, I thought I'd just talk to myself a bit because I am beginning to feel really wonderful at the thought of getting the 100% inerrant version of the Bible. And I feel quite privileged because no one before 1769 (or whenever - I'm sure you know more exactly?) had this 100% version. It was the first time in all of history that a fully complete inerrant Bible was available! We are so privileged because most Christians down the ages didn't have what we now have. And to think God chose our own language - English - to produce it in! Even though there were vastly more people who spoke Chinese or whatever. (And even today there are more native Chinese speakers than there are native English speakers.) Do you think God sees us in a special way?

Anyway, sorry for extending this post, but I hope you can answer everything in good time.

Hi Will Kinney,
I am still trying to find somewhere to buy a 100% inerrant Bible. Without a date on it or a version number it is hard to be sure. I was horrified to learn that even Cambridge Bibles aren't the same as they were just a few years ago. Have a look at this: I checked my 1885 Bible and it doesn't have any of the changes listed in this article so it could be the authentic one, could it? Maybe you should check your own Bible and see if it passes the test?

Having said that, my Bible doesn't have the bit at the beginning with the pretty picture and the notes from the translators. It just starts with Genesis 1.

I know a lot of people keep talking about the Cambridge 1769 version as the final 100% inerrant version but when I looked this up on Wikipedia it said:

Quote:
By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of twenty-years work by Francis Sawyer Parris,[92] who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 [93] and in John Baskerville's fine folio edition of 1763.[94] This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney,[95] though with comparatively few changes from Parris's edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.

I've bolded the relevant parts. So it seems that the Cambridge 1769 version is really the Cambridge 1760 version with a few changes and called the Oxford 1769 edition. Confusing, I know, but you are the expert so I presume you know which is which.

There is one thing that bothers me a lot and that is the words 'almost unchanged' in the bolded part above. Can you tell me if Cambridge are in the habit of making small changes here and there in their undated KJV texts? I mean surely, that would mean it was no longer 100% inerrant, wouldn't it?

I am hoping you can sort this out for me because I would be bitterly disappointed if it turned out that Cambridge are changing the text of the Bible without telling anyone.

In a similar vein, the Wiki article says

Quote:
By the mid-19th century, almost all printings of the Authorized Version were derived from the 1769 Oxford text

This is comforting in a way because it means there is a gold standard readily available. But it all goes sour when they say 'derived from'. And I am sure you know that you only need a tiny amount of sour milk to make the whole urn sour.

It then says:

Quote:
By the early twentieth century, editing had been completed in Cambridge's text, with at least 6 new changes since 1769, and the reversing of at least 30 of the standard Oxford readings.

I must admit, this makes me feel even more special as it seems that it was only in the 20th century that anyone had a 100% inerrant Bible. Although, a thought occurs to me that perhaps all these different versions were inerrant and that whatever CUP produce, it is automatically guaranteed to be 100% inerrant simply because CUP are God's divine instrument for inerrancy. So even though the versions might change, they are still inerrant. In other words inerrant just means whatever CUP Bible is current? Would you have an opinion on this idea? I know it sounds a bit zany, but how else am I to make sense of it? Look at this for example:

Quote:
Cambridge University Press introduced a change at 1 John 5:8 in 1985, reversing its longstanding tradition of printing the word "spirit" in lower case by using a capital letter "S".[116] A Rev. Hardin of Bedford, Pennsylvania, wrote a letter to Cambridge inquiring about this verse, and subsequently received a reply from Dr. Cooper on June 3, 1985, admitting that it was a "matter of some embarrassment regarding the lower case 's' in Spirit".

This would mean that if I went out and bought a Cambridge Bible, it would not be the same as your one. Please, Will, can you give me a detailed and clear answer to these concerns and my last post. I am relying on you as the expert to clear it all up.

Hello again Will Kinney. You may not have noticed I wrote you some posts on pages 73 and 74. Posts numbers 1084 and 1096. I'm really looking forward to your answer so that I can get a 100% inerrant Bible for myself. I am certain that you are the expert on this subject so I am sure you can answer my questions in detail.
Thank you for spending the time.
DR

Will Kinney/Brandplucked,

Hello again. I am not sure whether you have seen my posts above and don't want to answer, or whether you have just missed them. If you don't want to answer, just say so and I won't mind and it will save me chasing you up again. (I appreciate you are very busy.) Just to recap, you said I could buy one of these inerrant Bibles in any bookshop but as they don't have a date on them I wasn't sure if they were the same as the one you had yourself which you said was inerrant. (Or did I get that bit wrong?) I was a bit worried that the one I can now buy is definitely not the same as the one you have because the current ones have a capital letter for the Holy Spirit whereas your one apparently doesn't. That's a big difference in my view because as you know it is important to ensure that the Bible translation upholds all the doctrines of the church and the trinity and so on. I seem to remember you said that yourself a couple of times.
Anyway, here's hoping you will be able to answer this and my other questions. I really want to hear the answer from you as you are obviously the expert on this 100% inerrancy thing and I have given up listening to those horrible Bob Enyart and Will Duffy who have nothing good to say about it at all and who only want to pour cold water on the whole idea.

 

[Shasta]

So, why don't you give us your Number One All Time Big Hits "translation error" you think you have found in the KJB and prove that it is wrong. By the way, what is this absolute Standard you consult when you look at and compare the King James Bible?
This is just one answer to your list of objections to other versions.

# 11. Who was with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace, “the Son of God” or “a son of the gods”?

Daniel 3:25 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

“The Son of God” Wycliffe, Bishops’ bible, Geneva Bible, Douay-Rheims, Lamsa’s Syriac Peshitta, NKJV, Third Millenium Bible

Daniel 3:25 - “and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

“a son of the gods” - NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic Jerusalem bible, Jehovah Witness New World Version

http://brandplucked.webs.com/dan325thesonofgod.htm

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God (Daniel 3:14 KJV).

He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods”(Daniel 3:14 ESV)

A number of points need to be made about this verse before it can be interpreted.

1. When I first saw the defense of the KJV’s translation of Daniel 3:25 I immediate thought that it was in error. I could not imagine the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar comparing the fourth figure in the fire to THE son of the Jewish God about whom he knew little to nothing. Even if he knew about the Hebrew’s God what would lead him to believe that He had ONLY ONE Son[/YELLOW] rather than many? No, whatever Nebuchadnezzar had to say would have been spoken from the context of the Babylonian language, culture and religion.

Of course the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is the same the word the Jews used for the one true God. However, since the word is plural it was also used for the multiple deities of the many religions that existed in the ancient Middle East. I thought at first that the "son of God" probably could also read "son of the gods" because both words were plural. When I read further I found that the case against the KJV’s translation of Daniel 3:25 is even stronger because the language of Daniel 3 is not Hebrew but Aramaic. Though both languages are similar the Jews used somewhat different conventions when writing in Aramaic.

2. For one, unlike the Hebrew word Elohim which means either “God or “the gods” the plural Aramaic word for God elahin does NOT refer to God but to a pantheon of pagan deities. Likewise, the singular Aramaic word Elaha was ONLY used by the Jews to refer to their God.

The plural form elahin is used only of false gods, especially in the phrase, “the spirit of the holy gods” (Daniel 4:5; 4:6; 5:11; etc.), words spoken by pagan polytheists from their perspective. The use of the plural form with reference to the one true God does not occur in the Aramaic portion of the OT.

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_son_of_god.htm

When we look at the interlinear translation of Daniel 3:25 the English reading agrees with KJV“…and the form of the fourth is like the son of God.”

A close examination of the Aramaic words contradicts the traditional rendering. To see this it is necessary to look at the verse word-by-word. This is a good page to use for this purpose:

http://biblehub.com/text/daniel/3-25.htm

3. We see first that the word translated “the son” is lebar. Le means “to.” The sentence says “the form of the fourth is like TO….”

4. Next, we observe that there is NO ARTICLE in front of the word “son” (bar). In both Hebrew and Aramaic the omission of the definite article (“the”) requires the insertion of the English INdefinite article (“a”), Therefore the verse should read “A son” and not “THE son” To confirm this scroll down and hover your cursor over the word lə-ḇar- and it will read “a son.”

5. The Aramaic word for (the true) God is Elaha which is a SINGULAR word. The plural form of god, elahin, refers to a pantheon of pagan deities To see this scroll down and hover over the word ’ĕ-lā-hîn to see that it is plural.

6. Putting all these facts together, the proper rendering of Daniel 3:25 is found to be:

He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

The KJV’s rendition of the verse:

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Is incorrect in that in that it:

(a) inserts a definite article (the) where there should be an indefinite article,
(b) makes the plural Aramaic word for (pagan) “gods” (elahin) into the singular English word for God
(c) it capitalizes “gods” futher giving the impression that this unbelieving king is referring to the God of the Jews.

Now if I were reading the KJV and came across these facts it would not be a problem to me. I would probably just say to myself “well it looks like the translators missed it on this one.” It would certainly not shake my faith. The challenge would have resulted in my understanding the verse even better. I can be open to correction in these matters because I do not expect any particular translation to be right 100% of the time. If I need to verify the accuracy of any verse I can do so by utilizing the tools that are abundantly available to us today.

On the other hand, those who hold dogmatically to a strict KJVO view do not have such flexibility. They must always accept the wording of the KJV verbatim and defend it all points even when history, logic, language and culture are against them. This can drive a person to go to go to absurd lengths in order to vindicate the KJV and to discredit all other translations. It must be this way, since, if even one verse can be shown to be mistranslated, the case for the infallibility of the KJB will collapse. Reason and Biblical scholarship must be sacrificed for that sense of certainty people get when they hold a paper copy of a particular edition of a revision of a certain 1611 English translation in their hands. This position (imo) is extreme and can engender a spirit of fanaticism.

 

[brandplucked]

NIVs pious but empty words

NIVs pious but empty words

Hey Brandplucked,

I wonder what those who say they don't expect to find God's inerrant words compiled anywhere on earth would have to say to the translators of the NIV?

"From the beginning the translators have been united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form." (TNIV, 2005)

"Our work as translators is motivated by our conviction that the Bible is God’s Word in written form." (NIV, 2011)

Hi George. LOTS of Christians make a pious profession of believing in the infallibility of the Bible, but none of these modern version users will EVER actually show you a copy of an inerrant Bible in any language. The NIVs continue to change their texts, and the Critical text they use is the Vatican supervised Nestle-Aland/UBS/Vatican critical text.

Not even the people who put this thing out believe it is the inerrant words of God. Here are their own words:


I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".


IF the NIV is the inerrant words of God, then WHICH NIV? The 1973 or 1977 or the 1984 or the 2011 editions?

IF the NIV is the inerrant words of God, then no other bible in all of history was, because no other bible in history reads like the NIV.

Here are just a few examples where not even your ESV, NKJV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. agree with the latest NIV


Article about the soon to be released 2011 NIV from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY - The scholars and publishers behind the world's leading English language evangelical Bible announced Tuesday that they would publish a updated translation in 2011.
"And we'll make sure we get it right this time," says Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society.

Well, let’s see if they did indeed “Get it right this time”


Mark 1:41 “Jesus moved with compassion” or “Jesus was indignant”?

In Mark 1:40 - 41 we read: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, the Greek Lectionaries, the Old Latin Italic aur, c, e, f, l and q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. It is even the reading found in the UBS IV critical Greek text.

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in Wycliffe 1390, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Douay, Darby, Young’s, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the RSV, NRSV, 1989, ESV 2001, NASB 1963 - 1995, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2003, the International Standard Version and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 to name but a few.

The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “FILLED WITH COMPASSION, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

And even the Spanish version of the NIV reads the same. Marcos 1:41 (Nueva Versión Internacional 1999) “Movido a compasión, Jesús extendió la mano y tocó al hombre, diciéndole: — Sí quiero. ¡Queda limpio! “ As does also the NIV Portuguese edition Nova Versão Internacional of 1999 - "Cheio de compaixão, Jesus estendeu a mão, tocou nele e disse: “Quero. Seja purificado!”

Well, the 2011 NIV finally did it!

Here it is - Mark 1:41 (New International Version, ©2011)

41. "Jesus WAS INDIGNANT.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”


Every changing NIVs

Acts 10:30 KJB - “And Cornelius said, FOUR days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing.”

NIV - 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions - “Cornelius answered: “FOUR days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me”

NIV 2011 edition - “Cornelius answered: “THREE days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me”

So, was it FOUR days ago, or THREE days ago?


NIVs

Matthew 27:16-17 KJB - “And they had a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ.”

NIVs 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions - “At that time they had a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called CHRIST?”

NIV 2011 edition - “At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was JESUS Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: JESUS Barabbas, or Jesus who is called THE MESSIAH?”



Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"? Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.


King James Bible - Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1963-1977 editions - “But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1995 edition - “But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?

 

[brandplucked]

Shasta Strikes Out Again - Daniel 3:25

Shasta Strikes Out Again - Daniel 3:25

Shasta, who himself has NO inerrant Bible in any language to believe is, but is a typical bible rummager who pieces together his "bible" as he goes along according to his own understanding, criticizes the KJB reading of "the Son of God" and he even uses notorious bible agnostic Doug Kutilek to try to back up his claims.

Bible agnostics have to help one another out, don't ya know.

The KJB is right, as always, and here is why.

"The Son of God" or "a son of the gods"?


Daniel 3:25 "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

When the God fearing Hebrew children, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down and worship before the image king Nebuchadnezzar made, he had them cast into a burning fiery furnace.

These three bold believers confessed: "If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king." These three believers in the one true God were cast into the flames and yet they were not harmed. King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and said: "Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." (Daniel 3:25).

"Then in Nebuchaddnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the kings word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28)

When we read the entire historical event in the King James Holy Bible, we see that their God did indeed deliver them. However this truth of the true God working salvation for His people is obscured and perverted in numerous modern versions.



"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 - "the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.", the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.", the King James Bible 1611, The Bill Bible 1671, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, Webster's translation 1833, the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD", the Douay of 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "the fourth is like that of the Son of God.", the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the NKJV of 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF ELAH", the 2009 Bond Slave Version, the Asser Septuagint 2009 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

It is also the reading of the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin (Ben Elohim, Hebrew).", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God", Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD." and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God!”



It is even the reading found in the so called Greek Septuagint copy I have which is translated as "the fourth is like the Son of God."

Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”



Foreign language translations that say the fourth is like the Son of God are the French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy - " le quatrième est semblable au Fils de Dieu.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez - "y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al Hijo de Dios.", the Check BKR Bible - "jest synu Božímu.", the Lithuanian Bible - "kaip Dievo sūnus!”, the Russian Synodal Version - "подобен сыну Божию.", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bbile - "ca a Fiului lui Dumnezeu. "

and the Modern Greek Bible -"ου τεταρτου ειναι ομοια με Υιον Θεου."

The NKJV 1982 also reads: "the fourth is like the Son of God" but then it has a footnote that reads: "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace.



The Second Person of the divine Trinity often appeared in the Old Testament as "the angel of the Lord" and was worshipped as God. (See the references below in Poole's Synopsis.)

"A son of the gods" is the reading of the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and many other modern versions. You cannot believe nor teach the same truth using these conflicting versions.



Daniel Wallace and company's ridiculous NET version goes off virtually all by itself and actually says: "And the appearance of the fourth is like that of a god!"



And the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible and the critical text 2011 Common English Bible actually say: "and the fourth looks like one of the gods!”


Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - “And the form of the fourth is like the son of a god.”

And not to be outdone for novelty, the brand new 2012 International Standard Version says: "and the appearance of the fourth resembles a divine being."

The 2004 Judaica Press Tanach says - "and the form of the fourth one is like [that of] AN ANGEL."

God’s First Truth 1999 - “and the fourth is like AN ANGEL to look upon. “

The Ancient Roots Bible 2008 has - “and the form of the fourth is like A DESCENDANT OF God.”



All of these last mentioned modern versions reject the clear Hebrew reading of SON - Hebrew bar.



The Catholic Connection


The Catholic Versions are, as always, in disagreement with each other. Not only do the Catholic versions continually disagree with each other, but if you look at Daniel chapter 3 in the Catholic bible versions you will see that they have all added some 66 entire verses allegedly taken from the Aramaic and some Greek copies to this single chapter. The older Catholic translations like the 1610 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read like the King James Bible - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

But the 1968 Jerusalem bible says "the fourth looks like a son of the gods", the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible has "the fourth looks like a son of God" and the 1985 New Jerusalem has "a child of the gods!". And the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has - "the fourth is like a son of God.”

Coverdale of 1535 and Matthew's Bible of 1549 were off the mark with: "and the fourth is like an angel to loke vpon."

Bible commentators like bible versions are all over the board when it comes to understanding Who this fourth Person was who appeared with the three Hebrew believers. However there are several that support the reading found in the King James Bible and many other translations that this Person was none other than the Son of God.



At our Facebook King James Bible Debate forum, and common sense Bible believer posted this simple and logical explanation - "Look at a verse previous to Daniel 3:25, which is Daniel 2:47 “The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.”


It seems king Nebuchadnezzar learned a lesson at this point and when another miracle took place, the deliverance from the fiery furnace, that he recognized the power of Almighty God, and said in Daniel 3:25 ... Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."



John Gill - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God; many of the ancient Christian writers interpret it of Christ the Son of God, whom Nebuchadnezzar, though a Heathen prince, might have some knowledge of from Daniel and other Jews in his court, of whom he had heard them speak as a glorious Person; and this being such an one, he might conclude it was he, or one like to him; and it is highly probable it was he, since it was not unusual for him to appear in a human form, and to be present with his people, as he often is with them, and even in the furnace of affliction;to sympathize with them; to revive and comfort them; to bear them up and support them; to teach and instruct them, and at last to deliver them out of their afflictions."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "like the Son of God--Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas, and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.

Matthew Henry - "Some think it was the eternal Son of God, the angel of the covenant, and not a created angel. He appeared often in our nature before he assumed it in his incarnation, and never more seasonable, nor to give a more proper indication and presage of his great errand into the world in the fulness of time, than now, when, to deliver his chosen out of the fire, he came and walked with them in the fire."

John Wesley - " The Son of God - Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, did sometimes appear before his incarnation."

Matthew Poole - " Like the Son of God; a Divine, most beautiful, and glorious countenance; either of a mere angel, or rather of Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, who did sometimes appear in the Old Testament before his incarnation, Gen. xii. 7; xviii. 10, 13, 17, 20, &c.; Exod. xxiii. 23; xxxiii. 2; Josh. v. 13—15 ; Prov. viii. 31; in all which places it is Jehovah; Gen. xix. 24; Exod. iii. 2 ; Acts vii. 30, 32, 33, 38."

Was it an angel, or was it the second person of the Trinity, "the" Son of God? That this was the Son of God - the second person of the Trinity, who afterward became incarnate, has been quite a common opinion of expositors. So it was held by Tertullian, by Augustine, and by Hilary, among the fathers; and so it has been held by Gill, Clarius, and others, among the moderns. Of those who have maintained that it was Christ, some have supposed that Nebuchadnezzar had been made acquainted with the belief of the Hebrews in regard to the Messiah; others, that he spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit, without being fully aware of what his words imported, as Caiaphas, Saul, Pilate, and others have done. - Poole's "Synopsis."

The King James Bible is always right and it exalts the Lord Jesus Christ like no other bible translation. Friends don't let friends use the modern versions.

Notes from the Internet on Daniel 3:25


Who is the Fourth Man of Daniel 3:25?
A Paper Presented at the Toronto Baptist Church
Third Annual King James Bible Conference
By Pastor Hugo W.K. Schönhaar
http://www.torontobaptist.org/kjb_material/daniel3.htm


Daniel 3:25, He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

There is no question in the minds of Bible believers who this Person is. The debate rages over whom Nebuchadnezzar believed he saw. The reasoning goes like this; since Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan king he would have had no way of identifying this Person as the Son of God. Is this supposition true?

The King James Bible should be enough evidence for the Bible believer. Unfortunately, few people read a KJB today and are left holding a modern perversion (Excuse me, I meant to say satanic counterfeit).

Daniel 3:25 (NIV), He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

With this kind of blatant attack on the words of the living God it is important to back up what was really said in Daniel 3:25. I will bring a four-fold refutation on the readings found in the NIV and all other new bible versions (Excuse me, I meant to say New Age bible versions.[Just in case the "brethren" get upset; the NIV backs up David Spangler’s statement of faith: "Christ is the same force as Lucifer" cf. Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16b in an NIV]).

This quadripartite argument will deal with: philology, prophets, pedagogues and philosophy.

Philology:

The Aramaic used does not lend itself to the readings in the modern versions. Dr. Thomas Strouse has explained the situation well in the space of one paragraph:

Grammatically, the Aramaic words for son ( var or bar) and God

(elahin) form a word pair. When the second word of a word pair is definite ("God"), then the first word is definite ("the Son").

Dr. Strouse states in a footnote that, "Modern translations fail to state this common Hebrew/Aramaic grammatical idiom. Translations such as the NIV’s "a son of the gods" "are wrongheaded, grammatically and theologically".

So much for retaining the "poetic language" of the "time honoured" KJV. So much for "vigorously adhering to the original languages". So much for the "scholarship" that is tainted with modernism.

The words of the NIV in Daniel 3:25 are defined - not by the rules of grammar, but by the warped theology of the translators. To be fair, the NIV translation committee did not have the intellectual rigor of the KJB translators. They have been weighed in the balances for well over a quarter of a century and have been found woefully wanting; both intellectually and spiritually." (end of comments by Pastor Hugo W.K. Schönhaar )



Get yourself the King James Bible and stick to it. It is God's Book and the complete and inerrant, 100% true, Christ exalting words of the living God.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Would like to see BE tackle sola Scriptura next.

Ha! BV, I need time to recover from travel, research, expenses, writing, neglecting my family and work, etc. as does Will D., putting in the time so that we could get up to speed to enable us to debate a KJO leader who had already invested many years and tens of thousands of hours into defending the claim. Until the debate was arranged in mid-August, neither of us had ever read a book on the topic; I had never studied it at all; had never read, watched or listened to any of the online debates or arguments from proponents or opponents, at all, and Will D. had only lightly familiarized himself with the arguments while occasionally sparring with KJOers online.

But enough of the whining. What Is It BV that we're supposed to tackle about ss?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Hey guys, wouldn't it be great if one of the other named KJO leaders, like Riplinger, Waite, etc., would accept our offer to extend the debate? That'd be so cool.

Also, just fyi, prior to the question above about Kinney posting the debate on his website, the Google site search command:

site:brandplucked.webs.com duffy

returned no results, and neither did...

site:brandplucked.webs.com enyart

and neither did...

site:brandplucked.webs.com theologyonline

Shortly AFTER that question was posted, Google did find the debate posted on Kinney's site. But not on the home page; not on his second priority Links page, but buried near the bottom, but not quite at the bottom, of a list of hundreds of links to his own articles. Of a thousand visitors to his site, it is possible that not even one person would notice that there even was a debate. Compare that to our site with a banner advertisement across the top, for many weeks now! We're even preparing a press release to alert the wider Christian community about the debate.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Ha! BV, I need time to recover from travel, research, expenses, writing, neglecting my family and work, etc. as does Will D., putting in the time so that we could get up to speed to enable us to debate a KJO leader who had already invested many years and tens of thousands of hours into defending the claim. Until the debate was arranged in mid-August, neither of us had ever read a book on the topic; I had never studied it at all; had never read, watched or listened to any of the online debates or arguments from proponents or opponents, at all, and Will D. had only lightly familiarized himself with the arguments while occasionally sparring with KJOers online.

But enough of the whining. What Is It BV that we're supposed to tackle about ss?

I'd like to see you debate vs. any opponent of sola Scriptura, covering determination of canon, the place (if any) of tradition and church authority vis a vis Scripture, the perspicuity of Scripture, and its proper interpretation.

 

[Bob Enyart]

I'd like to see you debate vs. any opponent of sola Scriptura, covering determination of canon, the place (if any) of tradition and church authority vis a vis Scripture, the perspicuity of Scripture, and its proper interpretation.

Wow BV, that's a tall order. Thanks for laying out the scope of it. There are a handful of topics remaining that we've discussed one day debating. Our current listing of debates, more or less informal though, is at http://kgov.com/debates

Because of how vindictive, superstitious, and divisive the KJO movement is, I'm glad that we've finally debated that topic. We've wanted to for years, and after Michael Pearl turned us down, I did go ahead, per their recommendation, and prepare a detailed debate invite for Ruckman, which is still sitting in my email archives, but which we never ended up sending for various reasons, including that for the last ten years we've been overwhelmingly busy fighting to protect the children being killed by Planned Parenthood's abortionists with the billions of dollars given them, literally, by the Bush family, George, W., and Jeb, as documented at http://kgov.com/pp-funding

https://youtu.be/wykXVQsiHno

 

[chrysostom]

Because of how vindictive, superstitious, and divisive the KJO movement is, I'm glad that we've finally debated that topic.

this is true
but
the debate does bring out the differences
and
some of them are serious differences
and
we should all be aware of them

 

[brandplucked]

Hey Bob Enyart. ANSWER THE QUESTION, please. OK?

Hey Bob Enyart. ANSWER THE QUESTION, please. OK?

Hey, Bob. When are you going to get around to finally answering the question I keep asking and you keep dodging? You know...The one about 1 John 5:7 where on the one hand you tell us that it is not original scripture and should not be in the Bible - even the one you yourself use - and then you told us that your Standard of an infallible Bible is the Hungarian Karoli bible (that you yourself can't even read) and it HAS 1 John 5:7 in it. So how does your sound reasoning skills and unassailable logic explain this to us? Is it not inspired scripture when it is found in the KJB and the NKJV, but it IS inspired scripture when found in the Hungarian Karoli Bible?

Is that what you believe? Inquiring minds want to know. Please answer the question, sir. Thank you.

 

[Yorzhik]

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.

And it goes even further. There was a pastor that would use whatever translation the receiving pastor preferred. But, just because he did this, and even though he would use the KJV at a KJVO church, the KJVO church withdrew their invitation. Would you do that? Invite a pastor to speak, but if you found out he is willing to use other translations in his message at other churches, would you withdraw your invitation?

This is not the kind of division that should be taking place among the brethren.

 

[brandplucked]

Bob Enyart once again dodges the question

Bob Enyart once again dodges the question

Bob Enyart will never come right out and identify any specific Bible, translated or untranslated, as being this "perfect word of God" he professes to believe in, because the moment he does, he will be shown to be a complete fool - like his utterly bizarre attempt to tell us with a straight face that the Hungarian Karoli Bible (which he himself cannot even read) is the inspired and infallible words of God.

And yet it contains the very verses he either called into question (Matthew 23:14) or told us outright are not original Scripture (1 John 5:7) which is even found in his own NKJV that he "uses" and teaches from.

The only things Bob and his fellow bible agnostic Will Duffy brought up against the KJB was the whole issue of minor printing errors that have occurred over the years by various publishing houses, which he claims are deliberate changes in the text. He did not prove his case at all, but is boasting that he did and has won the day for the Bible Agnostics United Against the King James Bible, who tell us they are not bible agnostics, even though they do not know where to find an inerrant Bible, and they claim to be Bible believers, even though they will never show us any actual copy of this complete and inerrant Bible they profess to believe in.

And Bob thinks he "won the debate", even though the only thing he proved was that he is a very confused individual, who when hard pressed to actually identify what his "infallible Standard" is, comes up with one of the goofiest answers ever - a 1590 Hungarian bible that hardly anybody ever heard of, that Bob himself can't even read, and that contains verses he himself tells us are not inspired Scripture.

And we are supposed to "reason" with people like this?

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

1 Corinthians 1:20

 

[brandplucked]

what would you do?

what would you do?

And it goes even further. There was a pastor that would use whatever translation the receiving pastor preferred. But, just because he did this, and even though he would use the KJV at a KJVO church, the KJVO church withdrew their invitation. Would you do that? Invite a pastor to speak, but if you found out he is willing to use other translations in his message at other churches, would you withdraw your invitation?

This is not the kind of division that should be taking place among the brethren.

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.