SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Since that is settled, tell us which versions are without error, and which ones have errors.
We need to know which ones are safe to "use".
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Since that is settled, tell us which versions are without error, and which ones have errors.
We need to know which ones are safe to "use".
Using your ridiculous answer, they all have errors.
journey
New member
All translations of the Holy Bible into any language have errors (mistakes). The KJV obviously has errors, but I use it because I grew up with it and am the most comfortable with it. I know that the KJV is NOT the most accurate word for word translation of the Holy Bible. Regardless of my personal preference, I am totally opposed to the KJV Only movement. Bashing good translations of the Holy Bible is NOT God's Work.
:thumb:
brandplucked
New member
Fake bible believers who profess to believe The Book
Fake bible believers who profess to believe The Book
Sir, you don't really believe that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. You may "use" the King James Bible, but (like so many others) you don't really believe it is God's inerrant words.
If you did, then you would clearly understand why we "bash" all those fake and inferior imitations that all fall way short.
Now, if you think you have found a legitimate, provable error in the King James Bible, then give us your Number One All Time Biggest Hits example and we can take a look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your own limited understanding. Don't give us the usual laundry lists I have seen a dozen times. Just your number one best example.
At this point you are a partial bible believer. You believe parts of some, but all of none of them.
Let's see what you've got. OK? Thanks.
Fake bible believers who profess to believe The Book
Sir, you don't really believe that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. You may "use" the King James Bible, but (like so many others) you don't really believe it is God's inerrant words.
If you did, then you would clearly understand why we "bash" all those fake and inferior imitations that all fall way short.
Now, if you think you have found a legitimate, provable error in the King James Bible, then give us your Number One All Time Biggest Hits example and we can take a look at it to see if the error is in the Book or in your own limited understanding. Don't give us the usual laundry lists I have seen a dozen times. Just your number one best example.
At this point you are a partial bible believer. You believe parts of some, but all of none of them.
Let's see what you've got. OK? Thanks.
A correct translation:
Rom 8:28 For [the Spirit] intercedes on behalf of the saints, and we know that [the Spirit] is working together all things for good with those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose
The KJV doesn't translate it correctly, but I have not found a bible that does. What is great is how robust the bible is in that even this error does not stop people from being saved.
So can you give us an example of an error?
How about this?: NIV John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Since it is not inspired and does not match what either of us would say is inspired, by your definition it would be wrong.
Last edited:
I've seen enough comparisons and notes of errors and the KJV is the most accurate Bible that I have ever read. There is no need for further investigation save the Holy scriptures, I am satisfied that the Holy King James Bible is the best for me, and i'm a genius. :chuckle: A master of the English language
Doctrinal errors and errors of Biblical proportions.
genuineoriginal
New member
Have you figured out yet why you don't believe the part that says, let God be true, but every man a liar?
brandplucked
New member
They just keep getting loopier and loopier
They just keep getting loopier and loopier
You bible agnostics and "every man is his own authority" guys just keep getting loopier and loopier.
Interesting that you use Bob Enyart's goofy word "robust" to describe this "bible" you guys never can identify for us.
Go write your own bible version Yorzhik. That is the only way you guys will be happy.
They just keep getting loopier and loopier
You bible agnostics and "every man is his own authority" guys just keep getting loopier and loopier.
Interesting that you use Bob Enyart's goofy word "robust" to describe this "bible" you guys never can identify for us.
Go write your own bible version Yorzhik. That is the only way you guys will be happy.
This is why most people really have no patience for King James Onlyists.
brandplucked
New member
tetelestai is a bible agnostic who is too dishonest to admit it
tetelestai is a bible agnostic who is too dishonest to admit it
tetelestai, You yourself have told us that you do not believe that any Bible is inerrant. The fact is, you do not have an inerrant Bible to believe in, and thus you are a bible agnostic - you do not know for sure what God's inerrant words would look like.
Did you ever take The Bible Agnostic Test? Of course not. It would expose your biblical agnosticism, and you don't read my articles anyway. Your mind is already made up about what you believe (or rather, do not believe) and you will probably remain that way till the Lord comes back or you die - which ever comes first.
The Bible Agnostic Test
You will find it in my article about the Mumbo Jumbo Chicago Statement on Inerrancy that most "Evangelicals" out there in Bible Babble Buffet Land are now professing.
http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm
Just for fun, tete, take the test and see how you do.
tetelestai is a bible agnostic who is too dishonest to admit it
tetelestai, You yourself have told us that you do not believe that any Bible is inerrant. The fact is, you do not have an inerrant Bible to believe in, and thus you are a bible agnostic - you do not know for sure what God's inerrant words would look like.
Did you ever take The Bible Agnostic Test? Of course not. It would expose your biblical agnosticism, and you don't read my articles anyway. Your mind is already made up about what you believe (or rather, do not believe) and you will probably remain that way till the Lord comes back or you die - which ever comes first.
The Bible Agnostic Test
You will find it in my article about the Mumbo Jumbo Chicago Statement on Inerrancy that most "Evangelicals" out there in Bible Babble Buffet Land are now professing.
http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm
Just for fun, tete, take the test and see how you do.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Can you explain why 'bible agnostic' does not apply to you?
"bible agnostic" is an oxymoron.
It's a phrase made up by King James Onlyists that makes no sense. Thus, an oxymoron.
Look up the definition of the word "agnostic", stick the word "bible" in front of the definition, and tell me how it makes sense?
brandplucked
New member
Why tetelestai is a bible agnostic
Why tetelestai is a bible agnostic
Hey, tete, check out this quote from one of your fellow bible agnostics.
I know the term "bible agnostic" is accurate though confrontational. I use it because I want people to realize that that is in fact what they are - Bible Agnostics. They do not know what the Bible is or where to get one. In fact, I found out later that the "great" Bruce Metzger himself put out a Textual Criticism book in which one of his contributors used this word.
In his book titled, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, a collection of essays by various textual critics. In an essay on the textual variants concerning the doxology in Romans, and the writer concluded with these words: "In short, THE SITUATION CALLS FOR A SCHOLARLY 'AGNOSTICISM' AND CONTINUING RESEARCH." (p. 199).
This comes straight from the mouth of a textual critic.
American Heritage Dictionary - Agnostic -
NOUN:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
ONE WHO IS DOUBTFUL OR NONCOMMITTAL ABOUT SOMETHING.
ADJECTIVE:
Relating to or being an agnostic.
DOUBTFUL OR NONCOMMITTAL: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).
Merriam-Webster's dictionary
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : A PERSON UNWILLING TO COMMIT TO AN OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING <political agnostics>
A well known modern day Evangelical - John MacArthur. Here is just one of many examples of John MacArthur's Biblical Agnosticism. In one of his sermons about Matthew 6:13 he has this to say: "The doxology is simply this; “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, the glory forever, Amen.” That’s a doxology. You just say it, you just think it, you just offer it to God, you don’t dissect it. And by the way, there’s manuscript evidence that Jesus didn’t even say this, that’s why it’s not included in some of your versions of the Bible. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE SAID IT OR NOT. Some manuscripts have it, some don’t."
Agnostic = One who does not know for sure.
And I'll bet you didn't bother to take The Bible Agnostic Test either, did you.
Happy Trails,
Why tetelestai is a bible agnostic
Hey, tete, check out this quote from one of your fellow bible agnostics.
I know the term "bible agnostic" is accurate though confrontational. I use it because I want people to realize that that is in fact what they are - Bible Agnostics. They do not know what the Bible is or where to get one. In fact, I found out later that the "great" Bruce Metzger himself put out a Textual Criticism book in which one of his contributors used this word.
In his book titled, New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, a collection of essays by various textual critics. In an essay on the textual variants concerning the doxology in Romans, and the writer concluded with these words: "In short, THE SITUATION CALLS FOR A SCHOLARLY 'AGNOSTICISM' AND CONTINUING RESEARCH." (p. 199).
This comes straight from the mouth of a textual critic.
American Heritage Dictionary - Agnostic -
NOUN:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
ONE WHO IS DOUBTFUL OR NONCOMMITTAL ABOUT SOMETHING.
ADJECTIVE:
Relating to or being an agnostic.
DOUBTFUL OR NONCOMMITTAL: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).
Merriam-Webster's dictionary
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : A PERSON UNWILLING TO COMMIT TO AN OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING <political agnostics>
A well known modern day Evangelical - John MacArthur. Here is just one of many examples of John MacArthur's Biblical Agnosticism. In one of his sermons about Matthew 6:13 he has this to say: "The doxology is simply this; “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, the glory forever, Amen.” That’s a doxology. You just say it, you just think it, you just offer it to God, you don’t dissect it. And by the way, there’s manuscript evidence that Jesus didn’t even say this, that’s why it’s not included in some of your versions of the Bible. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE SAID IT OR NOT. Some manuscripts have it, some don’t."
Agnostic = One who does not know for sure.
And I'll bet you didn't bother to take The Bible Agnostic Test either, did you.
Happy Trails,
journey
New member
You twist and slither like a corrupt politician. The Clintons could take lessons from you. I've followed YOUR bad works for years and have noticed some changes - first being the VERSION of the KJV that you claim is without errors. You already have tons of KJV errors that you haven't and can't deal with and still claim that ANY VERSION of the KJV is without errors.
One of the first things you can't deal with is the notes and preface made by the translators of the KJV. They REFUTE your claims. I think that you attack and insult because you know that you don't have a stance that can be defended. The laundry list you speak of is a growing list, and you can't deal with it. NOW - you choose an 1850 Cambridge VERSION of the KJV as the one without errors. I know what happened with your claims about the 1611 KJV - they fell apart. Everything you claim about translations other than the KJV are just as accurate or more so when used against the KJV.
I know a LOT about the KJV, but I still like and use it most of the time. I know that it's JUST an English translation of the Holy Bible. I also know quite a bit about the difficulty and variations involved with the translation of ancient languages. I'm not going to lower myself to your level and bash the KJV. I'll just say that there are better English translations than the KJV.
I've heard and read all of your bashing garbage and am no longer interested in your opinions. Folks like you drive people away from the KJV because they don't want to be associated with NUTS. You're now on my permanent ignore list because I've had all the KJV only garbage I can stomach for a lifetime.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
A reading error is an error by the reader.
An interpretation error is an error by the interpreter.
A printing error is an error by the printer.
A translation error is an error by the translator.
A writing error is an error by the writer.
If you want to start a separate thread on the meaning of Rom 8:28 then I would be happy to contribute. Or I could resurrect my 'Big Picture' thread in the open theology section, where it is likely to be more permanent and the discussion congenial. In my view, it is definitely an openness issue, hence it would fit in the open theology section.