Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[Desert Reign]

As usual, Shasta is wrong.

Revelation 19:8 KJB - "The fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" or

ESV - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints"?

Jehovah Witness New World Translation - "the fine linen stands for THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the holy ones."

Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "The linen dress is THE VIRTUOUS DEEDS of God's saints."

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "because her linen IS MADE OF THE GOOD DEEDS of the saints."

The Last Days N.T. 1999 says: “…because fine linen REPRESENTS THE GOOD LIVES LIVED by those who belong to the Lord.”

A Criticism of Revelation 19:8 by a version rummager with his “school boy Greek”

One King James Bible critic I ran into, who himself does not have or believe that any Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God writes: “One way of collapsing the card house built KJV Onlyism, is to show KJV's deviations from the Textus Receptus, its reported base text for the New Testament. Here some examples of NT-specific translational decisions of the KJV translators, the rationale of which I don't understand. Why, in Rev. 19:8, did KJV render "righteousness", singular? Which presupposes the noun dikaiosunê in singular. The Greek texts all have a plural number noun, δικαιωματα. Which noun is not the same as the cognate dikaiosunê. Many ancient versions correctly render as plural, Vulgate, Beza's 1556 Latin NT, Wycliffe NT 1394, Spanish de Reina 1569, Rheims NT 1582, to name a few. Although some of them may miss somewhat as to the word meaning. Dikaiôma is basically "a righteous act", while dikaiosunê is commonly understood to be "righteousness".” [End of Bible critic’s comments]


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: "granted--Though in one sense she "made herself ready," having by the Spirit's work in her put on "the wedding garment," yet in the fullest sense it is not she, but her Lord, who makes her ready by "granting to her that she be arrayed in fine linen." It is He who, by giving Himself for her, presents her to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, but holy and without blemish.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown continue: "righteousness - Greek, "righteousnesses"; distributively used. Each saint must have this righteousness: not merely be justified, as if the righteousness belonged to the Church in the aggregate; the saints together have righteousnesses; namely, He is accounted as "the Lord our righteousness" to each saint on his believing, their robes being made white in the blood of the Lamb."

The King James Holy Bible gives us the correct doctrine of the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We are clothed in HIS righteousness, not our own "righteous acts".

For another article I have written about the religion of works being promoted by all modern versions, including the NKJV, see:

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

All of sovereign grace and mercy, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, my Lord and Saviour,

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

Will Kinney takes a thousand words to make a simple point: he doesn't agree with the Greek text of Revelation 19:8. He then resorts to cheap ad hominem accusations of 'schoolboy Greek' to cover up his obvious mistake in supporting such a biased translation.

 

[Tambora]

WOW!

The coffin was already nailed shut.
Now Bob & Will are gold plating it!!!

 

[Desert Reign]

Have just read BE/WD latest response. It was excellent. Especially the offer to to WK to name a specific Bible edition that is 100% inerrant and authoritative. I am looking forward to hear WK's response and if positive which error-ridden version he will claim to be inerrant and also which version BE/WD will claim to be the best.

For me, I consider Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R&P 2005 to be the most authentic versions of the scriptures available. For translation, I go with the NASB, even though it is based on NA/UBS. I am not too bothered with NT translations as my Greek is pretty advanced but I like the NASB for OT reading.

 

[brandplucked]

Every bible agnostic thinks he's an expert

Every bible agnostic thinks he's an expert

Will Kinney takes a thousand words to make a simple point: he doesn't agree with the Greek text of Revelation 19:8. He then resorts to cheap ad hominem accusations of 'schoolboy Greek' to cover up his obvious mistake in supporting such a biased translation.

Desert Reign. You too have a fairly appropriate name tag. Sir, how utterly absurd of you reduce this whole argument on how Revelation19:8 should be translated to "he doesn't agree with the Greek text of Rev. 19:8."

This is pure hubris on your part, sir.

You are your own authority, and you certainly have no inerrant Bible to believe in yourself, much less to give to anybody else.

I suppose then that all these men who translated Revelation 19:8 and defended this reading in their commentaries - "didn't agree with the Greek", right?


"THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS"




Versions that read just like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535 - "And to her was graunted, that she shulde be arayed with pure and goodly sylke. (As for the sylke, it is the rightewesnes of sayntes.)", the Great Bible 1540, Matthews Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587, The Beza New Testament 1599 - "for the fine linnen is the righteousnesse of Saintes.", The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation - "the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Worsley Version 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thompson N.T, 1816, Daniel Webster's of 1833, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Murdoch's Translation of the Syriac 1852 - "for fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", Etheridge's Translation 1849, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised New Testament 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, The Anderson N.T. 1865, the Ainslie N.T. 1869, Noyes Translation 1869, The Alford New Testament 1870 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", The Revised English Bible 1877 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", Darby's translation 1890, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.



Others Bibles that read "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" are The Coptic Version of the New Testament (Memphitic and Boharic) A Literal English Translation 1904 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Sinaitic New Testament 1918, The Plain English N.T. 1963, The Basic English Bible 1965, The Fenton Bible 1966, The Recovery New Testament 1985, the Word of Yah 1993, the 21st Century KJB version 1994, The Revised Webster's Bible 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the set apart ones.", Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green’s interlinear and Green's 2005 Literal Translation, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message which reads: "She was given a bridal gown of bright and shining linen. The linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Bond Slave Version 2012, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", the BRG Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 and the Modern Literal Version 2014 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the holy ones."

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Cor. 14:38

 

[Desert Reign]

You are your own authority, and you certainly have no inerrant Bible to believe in yourself, much less to give to anybody else.

The difference between us being that I don't claim to believe in one. Go figure.

And for the record, if you are interested in serious Greek comment on the NT instead of picking and choosing the theologians you prefer, you should go to the b-Greek forum. Best in the world in my view. The experts there are primarily linguists. Ask a theologian and you will get a theologian's viewpoint and most theologians in my experience are not experts in NT Greek and even if they are, they are often biased and you can see them working the material round to their pre-formed conclusion. It's really quite simple: dikaioma means righteous deed. There is no need to invent a great theological discourse here - such things are only a diversion. You can smell it a mile off. The harder you try, the worse it looks for you.

 

[brandplucked]

What a shocker! ;-)

What a shocker! ;-)

The difference between us being that I don't claim to believe in one. Go figure.

I'm shocked that you do not believe in an inerrant Bible :shocked:......shocked

 

[dreadknought]

All these years later and Will Kinney hasn't yet realized the KJV authors didn't get the translation right. Biblioidolotary and semantics, not faith.

 

[Brother Vinny]

This is pure hubris on your part, sir.

You are your own authority. . ..

This is the logjam in the KJVO's eye that they don't see as they try to clear the specks from the eyes of others. They--on their own authority and quite arbitrarily--have settled upon a translation that they have deemed to be inerrant. But the plumb lines for determining inerrancy are uncertain. Sometimes the translation of certain words is called into question, but doesn't this make the original wording, the dictionaries and lexicons used, all authorities in and of themselves? Unless the texts and reference works are themselves inerrant, they don't make a trusty guide to inerrancy, and we'd be relying on our own judgment as to their inerrancy anyhow. Sometimes the plumb line used is merely an argument from moral outrage, that the Bible can't say what some translations say merely because a prima facie understanding of the text offends them somehow, and when this is the case we're back to fallen man being his own authority.

Perhaps KJVOnlyism is a natural outgrowth of the Protestant pillar sola Scriptura. We believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, so we seek an ideal Scripture to use. It's interesting to note how close "ideal" and "idol" are; maybe the only difference is the former is what e should all be questing after, while the latter comes about when we think the quest is finished.

 

[Desert Reign]

I'm shocked that you do not believe in an inerrant Bible :shocked:......shocked

I don't care what you think. You have been doing nothing but emotional blackmail on your opponents ever since this debate began so I guess your claim to be shocked now is completely predictable and expected. Especially since I explained my position clearly in earlier posts which you apparently saw no reason to comment on. Your shock is all you have to comfort you; the last thing anyone can expect from you is a reasoned response. Your argument amounts to: I want there to be a text which I don't have to check out by normal methods of hard work and study because I am above that, therefore the KJB is what I will take. You have no other argument. As BE/WD say, you are expecting God to prove himself by a miracle and are putting him to the test, which scripture expressly commands against. Save your shock for that.
Anyway, I've added you to my signature so that your shock can be recorded for posterity.

 

[patrick jane]

I don't care what you think. You have been doing nothing but emotional blackmail on your opponents ever since this debate began so I guess your claim to be shocked now is completely predictable and expected. Especially since I explained my position clearly in earlier posts which you apparently saw no reason to comment on. Your shock is all you have to comfort you; the last thing anyone can expect from you is a reasoned response. Your argument amounts to: I want there to be a text which I don't have to check out by normal methods of hard work and study because I am above that, therefore the KJB is what I will take. You have no other argument. As BE/WD say, you are expecting God to prove himself by a miracle and are putting him to the test, which scripture expressly commands against. Save your shock for that.

Are there doctrinal errors in the KJV ? In your opinion ?

 

[George Affleck]

Sir, did you actually read my article?...


...Did you by any chance read the Bible commentators I included in my article?

Nobody reads any more! If you want me to read it, keep it under 15 words and make sure there's no Big ones. Like 140 carackters - MAX! That way I can disagree quickly.

 

[George Affleck]

But the plumb lines for determining inerrancy are uncertain...
...It's interesting to note how close "ideal" and "idol" are; maybe the only difference is the former is what e should all be questing after, while the latter comes about when we think the quest is finished.

Now that's a plumb line to believe in.

 

[Desert Reign]

Are there doctrinal errors in the KJV ? In your opinion ?

I'm not really into doctrine. I'm into what does the text say. You can get a detailed idea of how I handle this in my 1-1 with Lon. So long as you respect the intention of the original author of a text, I am not too worried what doctrine you make of it. Your respect of the original author is sufficient to gain my respect too.

And I think this is a sane view, though some might consider it liberal. Because respecting the original author is a discipline which results in wisdom. You can tell the really good academics from the ones with vested interests by this principle. That's why I sometimes call in on b-Greek.

As regards the present mini-subject, there is no way that righteousness is a correct translation of Rev 19:8. As to the KJB generally, just remember that the KJB translators were given instructions on how to carry out their translation work and what they did was not original work. I don't blame them for any of that but I do blame Will Kinney for his insistence on their inerrancy, a thing that they themselves would never have proposed. They were more humble and self-disciplined about these things.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Uh...Docta, those are called minor printing errors. Guys like you and Bob Enyart who do NOT believe that any Bible is or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God will hang on to this flimsiest of excuses in order to maintain that NO Bible in history has ever been God's inerrant words.

I see you do not believe in an inerrant Bible.
That makes you a hypocrite.

It wouldn't matter to either of you if every single printing of the King James Bible in history had been letter perfect in every detail. Guys like you would STILL not believe that it is God's inerrant Book.

Actually, it would.
The King James Bible being the only one in all of time to not suffer from any translator or printer error, and never having to be revised from the first printing to the last, would have given you a basis for believing in the KJV as the only complete and inerrant Word of God instead of what you have now which is an unsupported opinion.

 

[chrysostom]

the word test is not in the kjv
and
we are being tested every day

 

[genuineoriginal]

This last phrase is consistent with the rest of Scripture that it is not our righteousness that makes us acceptable unto God, but the imputed righteousness of Christ.

You read your Bible backwards (from the back of the book to the front).
Those of us that read the Bible from the front to the back encounter the answer to this question very early on.

Here is the first verse in the Bible that deals with what makes us acceptable unto God.

Genesis 4:7 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Desert Reign. You too have a fairly appropriate name tag. Sir, how utterly absurd of you reduce this whole argument on how Revelation19:8 should be translated to "he doesn't agree with the Greek text of Rev. 19:8."

This is pure hubris on your part, sir.

What is utterly absurd of you is to reduce this whole argument about KJV on whether other translations agree with the KJV text.

That is pure hubris on your part, mister.

 

[genuineoriginal]

the word test is not in the kjv
and
we are being tested every day

KJV uses trial instead of test.

1 Peter 1:7 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:​

A trial by fire seems much harder than a test.

 

[patrick jane]

I know I'm being whiny but on the Battle Royale Thread, the screen got blown up too big to fit on my monitor. I guess I can shrink my screen and make the print really small.

 

[genuineoriginal]

(Previous)

Second post in Round 3

Unofficial analysis of Bob Enyart & Will Duffy's response to brandplucked's third round questions.

Your results may vary.

WKQ3b: “Is any in print Bible you can show us God’s perfect, complete and inerrant words either today or before the King James Bible? If Yes, can you tell us which one it is? If No, are you honest enough to admit it? [We numbered that 3b because Will Kinney changed his original WKQ3 question.]
- answer: you show us yours and we will show us ours
Points go to brandplucked

WKQ13: Are you both Bible Agnostics (you don't know for sure) and unbelievers in the existence of a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language (translated or untranslated) NOW? Yes or No? If not, then can you please tell us exactly what this inerrant Bible is you supposedly believe in and where we can get a copy of it? Yes or No?
- answer: We know for sure, accept our offer to compare specific printings to find out
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy


WKQ14: Since neither of you gentlemen actually believes that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God (you have so far avoided telling us which one it is) then how do you evaluate whether or not you have His true words?
- answer: You evaluate using traditional methods.
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

tally for second half of the third round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 2
brandplucked - 1

Running total at end of third round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 18
brandplucked - 13

Your results may vary.
_____
Note, since the questions and answers only comprise part of the debate posts, the scores given for questions and answers does not necessarily indicate who is ahead in the debate.
The opening statements of the posts will be given points in a wrap up analysis of the entire debate where I will announce my opinion on who won the debate and why they won.
_____

(Next)