Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[SaulToPaul 2]

But merely claiming that it is 100% inerrant doesn't make it so.

This is true.
But, what if it is inerrant?

Take the challenge, read it/study it for a few months, believe every word, and allow the Spirit to prove it to you.

:e4e:

 

[brandplucked]

More pious sounding Baloney

More pious sounding Baloney

As a matter of fact, we all believe that God's word is inerrant but some of us have been deceived into believing that this means there is a 100% inerrant translation in our own language."

Desert Reign. This is nothing more than pious sounding BALONEY. In fact, it is an outright lie. You are still promoting your Santa Claus Version. You keep using this present tense verb - IS - when you tell us that "we all believe that God's word IS inerrant", and yet you couldn't show us a copy (translated or Untranslated) of this inerrant words of God if your life depended on it, and you know you can't. So why do you keep lying about it?

Yeah, we KJB believers are "anti-intellectual", and you and your Fairy Tale, non-existent, phantom, never-seen by you "inerrant Bible" you don't have and can't give to anybody else is highly "intellectual" backed up by unassailable logic and reason, right?

"hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Cor. 1:20

You probably won't read it, but for those who want to see what it is that you and bible agnostics like you are really saying, see

Stop Lying About It!

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

 

[George Affleck]

Okay, seems you got me there. Apparently the science of determining gold's purity has advanced a bit since I was a kid. Be that as it may: why use language vis a vis purity that puts the word of God on par with silver rather than language that makes the word superlative to it? It seems to me that the problem still remains.

The KJB may be the purest we have, and it may be the purest we can attain. But there's still going to be that niggling .001 percent or better of impurities due to human involvement.

Let's celebrate loudly our agreements and talk quietly of our differences. Let's let God worry about the .001%.

I notice that it is "as silver tried in a furnace of earth". Can this be a reference to God's word being proven in the world even as it is settled in heaven?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I forsake other versions in favor of my KJV Bibles.

Even the Revised Standard Mayberry Version that Andy, Barn, and Gome believed?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Patrick, what was the single best argument Will Kinney gave in the debate to show that the KJV is the only inspired scripture on earth and all other Bibles are uninspired?

I've been wondering the same thing!

And separately, there's this:

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.

I retract this. We'll post our retraction in the BR XIV Supplemental Materials thread, along with an errata, which we have two items on so far.

With all that's happened, still there's no doubt that in heaven I will enjoy getting to know Will Kinney and I am looking forward to that. I even expect that, as I will be delivered from my flesh, that he will enjoy hanging out with me. What could be better?

- Bob E.

 

[patrick jane]

1 John 5:7 - 1 John 5:7 KJV -

 

[Shasta]

I've asked a couple of times, "What's it to you?" that I believe the KJB I hold in my hands and study from. I've yet to hear an answer as to how this is a bad thing. What harm does it cause to take God at His word believing every word as I 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV?

Anyone?

It means you will take what one translation says verbatim in English as infallible and you will not look deeper into the text by using some of the very easy-to-use language tools to confirm it. It may make you more secure to treat the KJV that way but it inhibits you from diligently searching for the truth as hidden treasures. It also gives you permission to ignore all other translations even when they might have more clearly and accurately represented the text. Aside from that, this whole story about the emergence of the Cambridge edition of the KJV is extra-Biblical. Nowhere is it alluded to in scripture and, at no time did the translators of any edition claim that it was infallible. That comforting story is nothing more than a myth discovered through personal revelation.

 

[brandplucked]

Typical Bible Agnostic Dodge

Typical Bible Agnostic Dodge

Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
I have a hard copy of the Geneva King James Version bible. Actually, it kept changing over the years, so they are not all the same, but though it was a pretty good bible it most certainly was NOT the finished product
I fixed that for you, and you are welcome.

I fixed that for you, and you are welcome.


(in case you ask whether I read the article, I just have to ask you whether you actually read the Battle Royale you participated in)

No, Will. You "fixed" nothing. I wrote Geneva bible and that is what I meant. I have a hard copy of the GENEVA bible and it kept changing over the years.

And all you are doing here is what all bible agnostics and pretenders do, you are dodging the question.

Here is the question you keep refusing to actually answer.


“Do you believe there IS such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language, translated or untranslated? If you do, can you show me a copy of it, or tell me exactly which one it is, so I can go out and get one too? Yes or No?
*
If you do not believe there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible, are you honest enough to admit it?”
*

Can you SHOW US A COPY of this "the Greek manuscripts" you keep telling us IS your final authority?

No, you can't and you won't. You guys are still referring to your Santa Claus version.

 

[Desert Reign]

Thanks D.R. for this, for your prediction, now fulfilled, and for your gracious words toward Heir and STP.

I'm on a phone that I don't quite know how to navigate on, but someone said I should see on of your previous posts analyzing the debate. Was it that prediction perhaps?

Bob, I am not sure how to answer that because I can't see what your phone looks like. In the post you responded to, you should see the link to the first post I made in the thread. There should be a blue button at the top of the citation which you can press to go to the post itself. But I have made a large number of posts in the grandstands so I wouldn't know which one the other person was referring to unless it was just that one. When you get to a proper computer, you can do a search on my recent posts by clicking on my name.

By the way, I decided to add a permanent link to a page of posts which I thought were interesting at the bottom of my signature on each post now. So you can click on that too if you want.

 

[George Affleck]

Even the Revised Standard Mayberry Version that Andy, Barn, and Gome believed?

:rotfl:

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, Will. You "fixed" nothing.

I am not Will.
That is your name, not mine.

I wrote Geneva bible and that is what I meant.

Yes, and I fixed the mistaken intention to disparage one translation of the Bible without applying the same measure to the one you use.
You have admitted that the KJV has changed over the years in the Battle Royale.
Do you need me to find the quote?

I have a hard copy of the GENEVA bible and it kept changing over the years.

Thank you for the clarification that you are talking about the one copy of the Geneva Bible that you have in your possession.
You need to take better care of that one hard copy since you claim that the words in that one copy keep changing over the years.
I have no way of confirming that the words in that one copy have been changing over the years.

However, if you are claiming that the different printings of the Geneva Bible have differences in the words, then the exact same complaint can be levied against the King James Bible.

After all, it was you that pointed out that "sinne" was changed to "sin" from one printing to the next.

 

[Shasta]

See, I'm not in the camp that no other Bibles are inspired, I believe they are inferior. To say the KJV is the ONLY God inspired bible today would be inaccurate, that's just my opinion. I forsake other versions in favor of my KJV Bibles. That's why I said the KJV won and not a person(s).

On what basis do you believe the KJV is the best translation? Have you investigated all reputed errors in the KJV and measured them against those in other translations - or do you believe it "by faith." It makes a difference. The first way of knowing is a conclusion reached through deliberation of the mind, The second, as far as I can tell, is a leap of faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God but there is nothing about the KJV in the word of God so the source of this idea must come from another origin.

 

[George Affleck]

It means you will take what one translation says verbatim in English as infallible and you will not look deeper into the text by using some of the very easy-to-use language tools to confirm it. It may make you more secure to treat the KJV that way but it inhibits you from diligently searching for the truth as hidden treasures. It also gives you permission to ignore all other translations even when they might have more clearly and accurately represented the text. Aside from that, this whole story about the emergence of the Cambridge edition of the KJV is extra-Biblical. Nowhere is it alluded to in scripture and, at no time did the translators of any edition claim that it was infallible. That comforting story is nothing more than a myth discovered through personal revelation.

Amazing how similar this way of thinking is to the atheist/agnostic argument.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Why would I want to argue with you for believing you had the pure words of the Lord? That's what an unbeliever would do.

Why would I want to attempt to talk you out of taking God at His word? Why would you? What's it to you if someone believes they have the pure words of the Lord?

So if a Christian says he believes his NIV contains the pure words of the Lord, you are content and happy?

 

[GodsfreeWill]

I wouldn't even try.

Why is that?

 

[Desert Reign]

On what basis do you believe the KJV is the best translation? Have you investigated all reputed errors in the KJV and measured them against those in other translations - or do you believe it "by faith." It makes a difference. The first way of knowing is a conclusion reached through deliberation of the mind, The second, as far as I can tell, is a leap of faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God but there is nothing about the KJV in the word of God so the source of this idea must come from another origin.

Saying that the KJB is better than other translations or that it even is the best translation is a tactical retreat to save face now that they cannot argue anymore that it is inerrant which has been disproved.

 

[Desert Reign]

This is true.
But, what if it is inerrant?

Take the challenge, read it/study it for a few months, believe every word, and allow the Spirit to prove it to you.

:e4e:

It has been shown to contain errors. I have also read it, athough I don't think it was cover to cover. The first Bible I read was probably the Douay-Reims or it might have been the Knox. I remember reading at least some quite long sections of the KJB and making a conscious decision that although it was a decent translation, if I was to get the best from reading the Bible then I should better read a more modern translation. And do take note that I am a very educated and fluent language speaker and I have no trouble reading the KJV or Chaucer and I will have no hesitation in seeing what a couple of different French translations had to say about some passage or the original texts or some other language if I felt I needed clarification. So my decision to read the Bible in the NASB or other translation had nothing to do with not being able to understand the KJB. I probably understand it better than most modern English speakers. But I'm afraid that knowing X version is inerrant or Y% better or more accurate than version C isn't what it is all about. What I wanted was interaction. Something can be perfect pristine clean and yet be lifeless.
The Spirit itself does not ask us to believe every word uncritically. Indeed it asks us to test the spirits and to hold fast to that which is good. This is why I read the New Testament in the original Greek and why I usually have a Hebrew Old Testament handy when reading that too.

I also have another issue generally about reading the Bible - unfortunately for the KJVO position it is one which constitutes yet another refutation of their belief.
It is this: that the Bible is not a set of doctrines or truths to be believed. It is a text to interact with. It is a text for the Spirit to give enlightenment through, it is a text which is useful for training in righteousness. Very occasionally something in it is explicitly stated to be an authoritative truth to be believed but this is really very rare. So the issue of it being inerrant is rather a red herring. It's a great fuss about nothing.

 

[George Affleck]

The "Like" button is my new freedom, my voting privelege. I will not relinquish my freedom of choice.

Don't tell me there is nothing new under the sun or that the word of God was settled in my language 400 years ago. I will make that determination for myself thank you very much. The very fact that you are telling me these things proves that you are wrong. The Like button does exist. My bliss is in my own opinions and techno-modernity is giving me the ability to validate myself effortlessly.

Discipline is nothing. Knowledge is overrated. There are Apps for that. All I need to know of English is wrapped up in one word: LIKE. Everything else is taken care of for me.
Oh, and thumbs up is good to.

 

[Bob Enyart]

On what basis do you believe the KJV is the best translation? Have you investigated all reputed errors in the KJV and measured them against those in other translations - or do you believe it "by faith." It makes a difference. The first way of knowing is a conclusion reached through deliberation of the mind, The second, as far as I can tell, is a leap of faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God but there is nothing about the KJV in the word of God so the source of this idea must come from another origin.

Good points Shasta. Thanks!

 

[Bob Enyart]

Saying that the KJB is better than other translations or that it even is the best translation is a tactical retreat to save face now that they cannot argue anymore that it is inerrant which has been disproved.

Yes. Perhaps eventually someone will make a list of the concessions/admissions made by the KJO side in the debate. Will Duffy and I would love to post that in the debate.

- Bob E.