Interesting that admit that King James had authority to translate to English.
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Interesting that admit that King James had authority to translate to English.
Hello heir! I don't dislike the KJB. Overall, it's a great translation. Also, the KJB inconsistently uses the word "murder" when Jesus quotes this same commandment in Matthew.
So which is correct, the KJB translation in Exodus, or the one in Matthew?
Also, just as all (true) crimes are sins but not all sins are crimes, likewise all murder is killing but not all killing is murder.
When a man is accused of murdering his wife and denies being anywhere in the vicinity when she was stabbed to death, but then evidence shows that he was there, it is normal usage to say that it turns out that he did kill his wife.
There is no requirement to say "murder" every time when describing a murder. But when God gave a prohibition against murder (His law, not man's law; just like with adultery, stealing, and bearing false witness), He was not saying, "Do not kill", for that would also mean (as interpreted by millions of Christians now) don't even kill a convicted murderer. However, God commands the execution of murderers in the very next chapter (but NOT of executioners of course). So God's meaning is perfectly clear, and the nicer-than-god tendency that softens translations has done great harm.
After all, as documented at AmericanRTL.org/abortion-and-the-death-penalty, banning the death penalty has often preceded decriminalizing abortion, and for very understandable reasons.
- Bob
Hello AMR. Tactical use is great. Breaking the rules is not.
Here's how Will broke the rules (which gave him that tactical advantage):
Will Kinney has ignored the moderators instructions to "Please take more time" and to "respond to the questions" "BWQ4b BWQ9 BWQ10 BWQ11 BWQ18". Kinney simply ignored the rules and the moderator, even though Knight went on to say, "You had plenty of time (which you didn't use)... Take more of your allowed 48 hours between posts..."
Not only did the KJO proponent not answer those questions, just from our 4th round post he also (mentioned but) did not answer BWQ24, and did not even quote, which is required by the rules, nor answer, which is also required, BWQ25, BWQ26, BWQ27.
Last night Kinney posted five hours after we did, with him not using 43 more hours available to him, because he doesn't care that he is a rule breaker and being unresponsiveness.
So it's not a valid tactical maneuver, AMR. Our pre-debate agreement called for either side to be able to have published the final result. Kinney knows that his (bad) behavior makes that much more difficult for us because our side is deprived of time to proofread, etc., and his side is evidently sloppy and extensively cutting and pasting pre-written material, which also violates the rules.
The BR XIV rules state: "Responsiveness: Each side will... interact... and not simply post material written for other purposes..."
For the whole debate Kinney has been slapping on the walls his pre-written material, in violation certainly to the spirit of that rule, if not the letter, and so often giving extensive replies from articles he wrote years ago while ignoring so much else asked of him in the form of numbered questions that the rules require him to answer.
(In contrast, in good faith and for the readers, Will D. and I have written every word, and created every graphic, specifically for this TOL debate.)
- Bob
Last edited:
George, I'm sure we must have been unclear, because we were making no guilt by association argument. (I asked you before, are you sure you read that correctly?)
The Revelation verses were intended to rebut your argument. It doesn't matter if man changes the law against "adultery" to permit adultery, it is God's law, and meaning, that matters.
The same with stealing, bearing false witness, etc.
And, as I just wrote to "heir"...
the KJB inconsistently uses the word "murder" when Jesus quotes this same commandment in Matthew.
So which is correct, the KJB translation in Exodus, or the one in Matthew?
Also, just as all (true) crimes are sins but not all sins are crimes, likewise all murder is killing but not all killing is murder.
When a man is accused of murdering his wife and denies being anywhere in the vicinity when she was stabbed to death, but then evidence shows that he was there, it is normal usage to say that it turns out that he did kill his wife.
There is no requirement to say "murder" every time when describing a murder. But when God gave a prohibition against murder (His law, not man's law; just like with adultery, stealing, and bearing false witness), He was not saying, "Do not kill", for that would also mean (as interpreted by millions of Christians now) don't even kill a convicted murderer. However, God commands the execution of murderers in the very next chapter (but NOT of executioners of course). So God's meaning is perfectly clear, and the nicer-than-god tendency that softens translations has done great harm.
After all, as documented at AmericanRTL.org/abortion-and-the-death-pe
George Affleck said:
Yes, thank you.
George, you say that God likes to do things that way (as with Erasmus) "to keep us humble", but if in fact, God did not do things as you assume "faith" as you've acknowledged, then perhaps it would not be humility that this belief of yours has engendered but stubbornness and pride.
And this "faith" that you have of course is not based on Scripture, because the Bible doesn't say that God is going to funnel centuries of His written revelation, and millennia of its transmission, down through one man.
So, wouldn't you agree that the true facts of the matter would determine whether it is humility, or pride?
- Bob
I wondered that too.
1Way1Truth1Life
New member
I would like to thank God for speaking through Bob Enyart and Will Duffy to show that KJVO is wrong and not of Him.
Thanks D.R. Great points.
Would you agree also that there are times, as we've seen going through our verse-by-verse study of the whole Bible at DBC, when a difficult text becomes understandable through some kind of insight, or perhaps something that has recently come to light? So when translating something that a 700 B.C. reader may have immediately understood, but which seems impossible to us today, if there is an insight that makes it understandable, like a new understanding of an idiom, etc., then translating that text into something an English speaking person could relate to, seems acceptable, especially if the literal rendering is put in the margin, perhaps with an explanatory note about what was rendered in the main text.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I am not sure how believing that God preserved all of his words in a book is ungodly.
heir
TOL Subscriber
What have you/do you tell your assembly about the King James Bible?
Both are correct!
I'm quite confident that God will have no problem sorting it all out no matter what the "as interpreted by millions of Christians now" are of the words found in a King James Bible. Their interpretation does not at all take away from the fact that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. The words of the Lord mean what they say as they say it and to whom they say it.
Have you ever read and studied the King James Bible with an attitude of believing every word is all scripture that will throughly furnish you or have you always sought to attempt to correct it rather than it correcting you?
If you don't believe all scripture is the KJB, where is your "all scripture that "is given by inspiration of God"?
Last edited:
Which King James bible are you referring to?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Apparently, taking God at His word is a problem for some.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, I do agree with that. You use everything available within the context of the passage to ascertain its meaning. The context can be quite broad (as I explained in my 1-1 which I sent you a link to) including a study of the language and idioms in use. The problem with this particular verse is that no research has found anything that could possibly shed light on it - other than the ironic fact that there is a long history of making wild guesses at it.
On a practical note, for me at least, here is what I know for sure. God doesn't need a perfect printed version of His Word in every tongue to reach a lost world with the Gospel to get people saved, before or after the printing of the KJV Bible. In the scope of the history of man there is only a very small percent of the Human Race that will ever see that perfect printed Word before or after the KJV. So, what good is a perfect printed translation if most of Humanity will never hold it in their hands?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
brandplucked's posts sew confidence and faith, the opponents' posts sew uncertainty and doubt...in my opinion.
I've been using the KJV for over thirty-five years and it's a Cambridge as well.
I don't see how it's possible to translate the KJV into a completely different language and still call it the KJV.
tetelestai, Kinney said that the Oxford 1769 is not God's complete word, and indicated that there were errors in the 1769, and it is these two that a major percentage of all KJBs ever printed were based upon, probably also stecko's.
Oh, and the voice of the turtle was heard throughout the land. Hmm. Kinney's defense of that was about as loud as that turtle's.
There are peoples that do not have the word of GOD in their own language.
That is why Wycliff Bible translators have been doing the very thing that I described, which is, learning to speak the language of people who have no written language, then developing a written language for them,
translating the Bible into that new written language and then teaching that people to read it.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
It looks like confidence and faith built on sand to me. The KJV cannot be the inerrant version based on comparisons to other versions. That is begging the question. The only attempt at a positive argument for KJO is that it is revealed to some people that the KJV is inerrant. Why cant that be said for any version and the same arguments used?
Of course my confusion is compounded by WK's admission that there are errors in the KJV! I've never really gotten into the details of this topic before but is this really it?