Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
and what he said too :)

unless of course Gail Riplinger or D.A. Waite or one of the other KJO promoters we offered an extended debate to steps up to the plate and answers the BR XIV questions. If that happens, then, yup, Will Duffy and Bob E. will be back on the clock.

- Bob
I have been noodling with some others about taking up the questions posed and providing a more reasoned response. Not promising anything, but just having a conversation about it behind the scenes.

AMR
 

User Name

New member
"The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the early Jamestown settlers and of the Puritans and Pilgrims" (source).

Does this mean that prior to the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible was God's perfect word in English?
 

User Name

New member

Logos1560

New member
The correctable 1611 KJV

The correctable 1611 KJV

But we King James Bible know where God's complete and inerrant words are found - the present day printings of the King James Bible Cambridge editions.

What is the real, tangible, 100% perfect Bible that has been used and is now used as the standard to correct any errors introduced by fallible men in KJV editions from 1611 until today?

In which of the six varying editions of the KJV being printed by Cambridge University Press in 2011 are you saying that all the inerrant words are found?

Those six varying present Cambridge KJV editions with differences between them are the Pitt Minion edition, the Concord edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. In addition, the 1873 Cambridge KJV edition edited by Scrivener is presently found in some KJV editions printed from 2000 and afterwards by Zondervan and Hendrickson.

Are you arguing that what you claim was a 1611 inspired Bible was improvable, revisable, and correctable in later editions until the 1900's?


It is the King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today.

Beginning in the 1980's, some KJV editions were printed from a computer-based text. There are two or three varying texts of the KJV based on different computer-prepared texts in a number of present KJV editions. Whoever typed up these different texts introduced as many as 100 new differences including some errors in several present KJV editions printed by different publishers that followed these imperfectly prepared texts.
 

1Way1Truth1Life

New member
Yup kJvO lost and buried at sea with no Jesus to resurrect. Matter of fact KJVO committed hari Kari on itself with the noose around it's own neck. Long live King Jesus the Author and Perfector, the Holy Spirit who leads into all Truth and is the Spirit of Jesus, through whom we don't need man to teach us for He is our Teacher for those whom who have ears to hear, hear. May Jesus open your eyes and ears that you may repent and live.
 

CherubRam

New member
Our bibles are copies of the copies of the copies. It is not logical to assume that Christ and the disciples spoke and wrote in Latin.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
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.

One area of importance that I would agree with the KJV on over many of the others is concerning Divine faiths location, Galatians 2:16 KJV, and where it dwells Galatians 4:6, which the Eternal mystery is about Christ within us Colossians 1:27 KJV the Temple of the Living God, as where many suggest this Faith is in a flesh and blood persona named Jesus which in spiritual reality is OK if the "in" means you're the Son of God crying Abba by Divine faith within you're heart Galatians 3:25, when we are born from above Galatians 4:24-28, Luke 17:20-21, 2Cor 3:6.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
One area of importance that I would agree with the KJV on over many of the others is concerning Divine faiths location, Galatians 2:16 KJV, and where it dwells Galatians 4:6 KJV, which the Eternal mystery is about Christ within us Colossians 1:27 KJV the Temple of the Living God, as where many suggest this Faith is in a flesh and blood persona named Jesus which in spiritual reality is OK if the "in" means you're the Son of God crying Abba by Divine faith within you're heart Galatians 3:25, when we are born from above Galatians 4:24-28, Luke 17:20-21, 2Cor 3:6.
 

robycop3

New member
The truth is simple: THE KJVO MYTH HAS NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Tomorrow, God Willing, I'll post its cultic, dishonest, man-made origin.
 

robycop3

New member
As promised, here's the origin of the current KJVO myth:

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in npublic libraries, many religious book stores, or are for sale at various websites of religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.
 

robycop3

New member
BTW, I see Mr. Kinney quickly posted the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" in his OP in the debate, an idea taken straight outta Dr. Wilkinson's book mentioned in my above post.

That idea is phony as a Ford Corvette, proven so by the AV 1611 itself, among others. In the AV 1611, there's a little dagger beside the 2nd them in Psalm 12:7, indicating a marginal note. that note reads "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them.". This proves the AV men believed V7 is about PEOPLE. Most other translations read similarly.

Even if V7 was about God's words, (which it isn't) this begs the question: "Where does it mention the KJV?"

So Mr. kinney presents a goof, right off the bat.
 

robycop3

New member
I see Mr. Kinney has failed to respond. We must conclure Mr. Enyart and we Freedom Readers have won this "battle royale".
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As promised, here's the origin of the current KJVO myth:

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he...

Or you could have just pointed us all here:
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_unlearned_men.htm

Are you Doug Kutilek, the actual man behind "the skinny" you have posted? If you are not, then you do know anything at all about him?

By the way, here are some of Wilkinson's own words from the book in question on the matter of the use of the English translation:
Spoiler

God who foresaw the coming greatness of the English-speaking world, prepared in advance the agent who early would give direction to the course of its thinking. One man stands out silhouetted against the horizon above all others, as having stamped his genius upon English thought and upon the English language. That man was William Tyndale. (pg. 33)

The hour had arrived, and from the human point of view, conditions were perfect, for God to bring forth a translation of the Bible which would sum up in itself the best of the ages. The heavenly Father foresaw the opportunity of giving His Word to the inhabitants of earth by the coming of the British Empire with its dominions scattered throughout the world, and by the great American Republic, both speaking the English language. Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would be again, but the Hebrew and the Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of giant minds, supported by excellent physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship. (pg. 42)

The birth of the King James Bible was a death stroke to the supremacy of Roman Catholicism. The translators little foresaw the wide extent of circulation and the tremendous influence to be won by their book. They little dreamed that for three hundred years it would form the bond of English Protestantism in all parts of the world. One of the brilliant minds of the last generation, Faber, who as a clergyman in the Church of England, labored to Romanize that body, and finally abandoned it for the Church of Rome, cried out, ”Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvelous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country?”

Yes, more, it has not only been the stronghold of Protestantism in Great Britain, but it has built a gigantic wall as a barrier against the spread of Romanism.

”The printing of the English Bible has proved to be by far the mightiest barrier ever reared to repel the advance of Popery, and to damage all the resources of the Papacy.”

Small wonder then that for three hundred years incessant warfare has been waged upon this instrument created by God to mold all constitutions and laws of the British Empire, and of the great American Republic, while at the same time comforting, blessing, and instructing the lives of the millions who inhabit these territories. Behold what it has given to the world! The machinery of the Catholic Church can never begin to compare with the splendid machinery of Protestantism. The Sabbath School, the Bible printing houses, the foreign missionary societies, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Protestant denominational organizations, these all were the offspring of Protestantism. Their benefits have gone to all lands and been adopted by practically all nations. Shall we throw away the Bible from which such splendid organizations have sprung? (51-52)


The point being that this work is not advocating KJBOnlyism at all versus the writer's pointing out that the translation was serving a mighty good purpose for an empire upon which the sun never set at the time. Who can deny as such? That others come along later and co-opt the written material, turning it into something more than for which it was originally intended is no warrant to lay their acts at Wilkinson's feet.

Actually I have no dog in this KJBOnlyism fight, but if I did, I would not be using sourced materials from folks that could so easily be shown to be very shallow in their scholarship (e.g., Doug Kutilek) by the more reasoned. I am just suggesting that when you gleefully tee up this type of material as a "gotcha!" item, you really need to have done your homework, else you end up looking, er, well, like you do now....

AMR
 

robycop3

New member
Actually, in some 35 years of working against false doctrines such as the KJVO myth, I've read the boox in question as well as articles by Kutilek, Hudson, and others. I know Dr. W wasn't trying to start a new doctrine with his book, but, beginning with "J. J. Ray" in 1955, others picked it up & ran with it to start the current myth.

I have had discussions with Mr. kinney on many other sites, and he always dodges the fact there's no Scriptural support for KJVO. And at times I post that little reminder of the origin of the current KJVO myth, as Kutilek's articles are no longer as near-viral as they once were. Not tryint to plagiarize, etc. whatsoever, but to educate and remind people that KJVO is phony as a Chevy F-150.
 

Sherman

I eat Trolls, Spammers, and Loons
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am now going the weigh in on how this debate was conducted.

Brandplucked ignored the moderators instructions to 'Please take more time' and to respond to the questions 'BWQ4b BWQ9 BWQ10 BWQ11 BWQ18'.
Brandplucked just refused saying he had, when he hadn't. And Knight had said, "You had plenty of time (which you didn't use)... "rules violation" ... and again, "Take more of your allowed 48 hours between posts..." on one of the nights brandplucked posted five hours after Enyart and Duffy did, with much of his final unresponsiveness being because he didn't use 43 hours he had available.

So I am declaring the winners of the debate Enyart and Duffy.

His hurried posting caused the posts to pop up at the odd hours and rob Enyart and Duffy of precious sleep. Brandplucked's material did not answer many of the questions posted and was hurriedly put up. The whole medodlyology was underhanded as hasty. As a penalty to brandplucked I allowed Duffy and Enyart extra time.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
I am now going the weigh in on how this debate was conducted.

Brandplucked ignored the moderators instructions to 'Please take more time' and to respond to the questions 'BWQ4b BWQ9 BWQ10 BWQ11 BWQ18'.
Brandplucked just refused saying he had, when he hadn't. And Knight had said, "You had plenty of time (which you didn't use)... "rules violation" ... and again, "Take more of your allowed 48 hours between posts..." on one of the nights brandplucked posted five hours after Enyart and Duffy did, with much of his final unresponsiveness being because he didn't use 43 hours he had available.

So I am declaring the winners of the debate Enyart and Duffy.

His hurried posting caused the posts to pop up at the odd hours and rob Enyart and Duffy of precious sleep. Brandplucked's material did not answer many of the questions posted and was hurriedly put up. The whole medodlyology was underhanded as hasty. As a penalty to brandplucked I allowed Duffy and Enyart extra time.

I noticed that along with everybody and it was underhanded of BP to do that. Even if one thinks they answered, just answer again to make doubly sure. He was doing it on purpose to mess with E & D's schedule.
 

robycop3

New member
Typical KJVO tactic. As they have NO Scriptural support for their doctrine, they must resort to subterfuge, tall tales, "political-type" doubletalk, and plain ole fables to attempt to justify their doctrine.

Again, Mr. Kinney reveals one of his sources for his KJVO myth by citing the false "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" from Dr. Wilkinson's book in one of his responses.

Conclusion: the KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette.
 

Nameless.In.Grace

BANNED
Banned
It's been a full seven years since the last Battle Royale on TOL. Well.... good news folks because Battle Royale XIV is heading your way and it's going to a fun one.



What: Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today? Battle Royale XIV

Who: This King James Only debate will be moderated by TheologyOnline.com’s webmaster, through his TOL screen name Knight, who can be contacted at knight@TheologyOnline.com. Will Kinney has informed us that he will defend the proposition that the King James Bible is the only inspired Scripture on Earth today. Pastor Bob Enyart and Will Duffy of Denver Bible Church have informed us that they will oppose the proposition.

Where: The debate will take place in the Coliseum at TheologyOnline.com (TOL), the popular online Christian forum, in the Battle Royale Center Ring. The moderator, TOL’s webmaster Knight, and the opponents will participate over the web. Spectators can likewise observe the debate and comment in The Grandstands there within the Coliseum.

When: The debate will begin on Monday, November 2, 2015 at noon Mountain Time. TOL’s webmaster Knight will open the debate and both sides will simultaneously post their opening statements.

KJO Debate Guidelines

Honor: Both sides commit to honor God through their demeanor, to “argue hard and love much.”

Clarity: Both sides will attempt to achieve clarity and avoid obfuscation.


Responsiveness: Each side will make an effort to be responsive to the other, to interact, and to answer relevant questions forthrightly, which also ensures that the participants actually debate one another and not simply post material written for other purposes, especially if that material is not specifically responsive.


KJO Debate Rules

Question Numbering: To help focus the opponent on the topic(s) of a particular post, and to enable readers to follow the debate more easily, participants will sequentially number their questions using TOL’s Battle Royale convention of initials, a Q for question, an A for answer, and then the question number. Bob Enyart and Will Duffy will identify their questions with BWQ1, BWQ2; Will Kinney will identify his questions with WKQ1, WKQ2, etc. To reply, mark any answer with BWA-WKQ1 (Bob & Will answer Will Kinney’s first question), WKA-BWQ3 (Will Kinney answer’s Bob & Will’s third question), etc. Prior to presenting the answer, first quote in full the question that was asked, and then present one's answer. After reading a post, without such a convention, it may be unclear to the audience and even to the opponent exactly what is being asked. So this also saves participants time in evaluating an opponent’s post. And it discourages unresponsive replies that focus for example on rhetorical questions or incidental details while ignoring the primary challenges. Of course there can be valid reasons why an opponent may refuse to answer a given question.

Posting: The debate will consist of five rounds of a maximum of 6,000 words per post. Both first round posts will appear online simultaneously at noon on November 2nd. For each of the next four rounds, the proponent, Will Kinney, must post within 48 hours of the previous post, and the opponents, Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, must post within 48 hours of Will Kinney’s post. The official Battle Royale XIV clock will be set by Knight and will show the countdown on TOL. Graphics are permitted but links will not be permitted except at the end of each side’s final post.

All participants in the debate have agreed to the rules and are preparing their opening round posts as we speak.

In this thread feel free to discuss the battle and how you think it might go as well as comment on the battle posts as the participants make them.

The King James has good qualities, but it was a translation with an agenda.

I submit a quote from King James himself

"The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . .

I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws. . . I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances:

First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office.

Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . . All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body. and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions, for that were to judge me unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me.

And lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law, and whereunto . . . you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.

From King James I, Works, (1609)."

On that note, it would be unwise to believe that the KJV is without its flaws.

Jesus Red Letters and the Counselor are the only dependable filters to view all cannon through.

Language and translation are merely a luxury.




Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
 
Top