Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

Shasta

Well-known member
Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible
I see; the fire gave light to see them, though it had no power of heat to burn them.
Like the Son of God; a Divine, most beautiful, and glorious countenance; either of a mere angel, or rather of Jesus Christ, the Angel of the covenant, who did sometimes appear in the Old Testament before his incarnation, Genesis 12:7 18:10,13,17,20 Exo 23:23 33:2 Joshua 5:13-15 Proverbs 8:31; in all which places it is Jehovah; Genesis 19:24 Exodus 3:2 Acts 7:30,32,33,38.

Poole, Matthew, "Commentary on Daniel 3:25". Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible. "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=3". 1685.

Notice that while Poole believed the "fourth figure" was a Christophany he allowed that it might have been an angel. Indeed, I do not find in any of these commentators a dogmatic opinion that it HAD to be THE SON of God in the fire. Clearly they were not acolytes of a KJVO movement although the KJV certaintly existed in their days.

E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
the son of God = a son of God (no Art.): i.e. a superhuman being, or an angel. Compare Daniel 3:28, and see App-23. Nebuchadnezzar could know nothing of N.T. revelation.
________________________________________
Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Daniel 3:25". "E.W. Bullinger's Companion bible Notes". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=3. 1909-1922.

Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible
Daniel 3:25. Is like the Son of God— Rather like a Son of God, or of the gods: in agreement with the Hebrew, LXX, and Syriac; that is to say, "Like a divine and glorious person, sent from the powers above to rescue and deliver these men." For, as Nebuchadnezzar was an idolater, it is scarcely to be conceived that he should know any thing concerning the Son of God, the Messiah, and much less of his form and likeness: whereas all the heathens had a notion, which runs through their theology, of the sons of the deities, as powerful beings sent often to the aid and protection of mankind.

Coke, Thomas. "Commentary on Daniel 3:25". Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible. "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tcc/view.cgi?bk=da&ch=3". 1801-1803.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
It's impossible to have any kind of rational conversation with these people.

Bob and Will Duffy did an excellent job, and Will Kinney couldn't even answer half their questions.

Of all the "isms" there are, KJVO is by far the wackiest of them all.

Will Kinney's only argument is to call all non-KJVO's "bible agnostics". That's all he has.

Thanks tetelestai. Yes, I think your assessment is correct. - Bob E.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Yorzhik, YES there have been minor printing errors in the KJB. I have admitted this over and over again. 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.

Yes. Exactly as I previously said:

My highlighting. Will Duffy wasn't asking what the cause of these errors were. You didn't answer the question. He asked you what year the errors were finally eradicated. You wrote thousands of words wasting your time and changing the subject. You could have answered with a simple date. Perhaps your first bolded section is the most revealing of your thought processes

but it is not there today

In other words you only believe that the Bible you can buy today is 100% inerrant. So long as you, Will Kinney, are well sorted, that is all that matters. I don't think you care that none of those people in the past 2000 years had this version.

Your credibility is in shreds. You say 'inerrant' and 'printing errors' in the same paragraph. We use ordinary language here. Inerrant means without error. Got it?

Got it?
 

Brother Vinny

Active member
Notice that while Poole believed the "fourth figure" was a Christophany he allowed that it might have been an angel. Indeed, I do not find in any of these commentators a dogmatic opinion that it HAD to be THE SON of God in the fire. Clearly they were not acolytes of a KJVO movement although the KJV certaintly existed in their days.

They were proto-bible-agnostics.
 

brandplucked

New member
Shasta has a hard time understanding English

Shasta has a hard time understanding English

You need to study Jamison Fausett and Brown more carefully. Here is what they said:



The Commentators treat the scriptures on two levels. On one hand, they admit that the king was saying the "fourth man" in the fire was an angel or messenger sent by the gods. At the same time they maintain that this was a Christophany. This shows that even they believe that the letter of the text conveys the idea that this person is an angelic messenger not the Son of God. This being the case, the most appropriate way to render the verse is that the fourth man is "a son (a messenger or agent) of the gods." Do we think Nebuchadnezzar thought the Hebrew God had only ONE messenger in his entourage?



Aren't people's words supposed to be understood by how THEY meant them and not by what it happens to stimulate in the minds of the? Here they admit that the king did not believe the fourth man was a chief among the gods but a mere messenger. Also, if that was really his belief why translate HIS words as "THE SON of GOD" when he most certainly would have said "a son of gods." It was obvious to these commentators that Nebuchadnezzar meant (his equivalent of) an angel.


Shasta. What I said, and still say is the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown themselves believed that this was the Son of God who was with the Hebrew children. I know that they go into what they think Nebuchadnezzar thought, but what was the conclusion Jamieson, Faussett and Brown gave us at the very end there? You DID read it, right?

This is their own conclusion when commenting on Daniel 3:25 - "Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation."

They sided with the way the King James Bible has it.

By the way, here is a more complete list of Bible translations that read like the King James Bible in Daniel 3:25 And when you look at the actual translation of the most common "Septuagint" in print that is out there, it says "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD" So does Brenton's New Translation of 2012.


"The fourth is like THE SON OF GOD"

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 - "the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.", the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.", the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.",the King James Bible 1611, The Bill Bible 1671, Webster's translation 1833,the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Smith Bible 1876, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD", the Douay of 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "the fourth is like that of the Son of God.", The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the NKJV of 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF ELAH", the 2009 Bond Slave Version, the Asser Septuagint 2009 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

It is also the reading of The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin (Ben Elohim, Hebrew).", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God", Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2012 - “the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD." and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God!”

This online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."


http://studybible.info/IHOT/Daniel 3:25

It is even the reading found in the so called Greek Septuagint copy I have which is translated as "the fourth is like the Son of God."

Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”



Foreign language translations that say the fourth is like the Son of God are the French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy - " le quatrième est semblable au Fils de Dieu.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez - "y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al Hijo de Dios.", the Check BKR Bible - "jest synu Božímu.", the Lithuanian Bible - "kaip Dievo sūnus!”, the Russian Synodal Version - "подобен сыну Божию.", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bbile - "ca a Fiului lui Dumnezeu. "

and the Modern Greek Bible -"ου τεταρτου ειναι ομοια με Υιον Θεου."

The NKJV 1982 also reads: "the fourth is like the Son of God" but then it has a footnote that reads: "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Branplucked, do you know that adding 3 letters after the scripture - KJV - will pull up King James instead of New King James like your posts do now.
 

Shasta

Well-known member
They were proto-bible-agnostics.

Have you, like some others, received a personal revelation from the Almighty that one particular translation, (after several revisions) was eventually transformed into an inerrant Bible that perfectly and in all parts reflects every meaning and nuance of the original languages in exact English equivalents. Surely you can see that this narrative is an extra-Biblical construct. When Paul said "all scripture is God-breathed" he was not talking about the coming of the KJB.

I call this view Translational Gnosticism because the Gnostics of the First and Second Centuries believed they received revelations of divine truth that were not based in scripture. There is a difference between this view and that of people who, on the whole, believe the KJV is better than other translations. People who hold that opinion would not go as far as to say that even their favorite translation is always right in every respect. The presumption of divine revelation closes the mind to reason and commits a person to an unceasing defense, not of the Word but of every last word of the KJB.

The fact is most of the mainstream commentators I cited did not base their study of the scriptures solely on the KJB (even though many obviously preferred it) but upon hermeneutical, linguistic, historical and cultural facts. That they did this is evidence of their commitment to search the word as noble Bereans. It is also evidence of the fairly recent advent of the KJVO belief.

Had they believed completely in the KJVO doctrine they never would have been so honest in their treatment of Daniel 3:25. Rather, they would have tried to justify the KJV's rendering of this verse from the outset. Their "commentaries" would not have been an exploration of scripture but a polemic for KJVO. As it was, some of them presented contradictory opinions which resulted from trying to maintain Biblical scholarship while simultaneously holding to a traditional view that was incompatible.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik, YES there have been minor printing errors in the KJB. I have admitted this over and over again. 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. Or I can show you an online site where you can see it. Or give you the names of some American publishing companies where you can get one.

Most of these minor printing errors were corrected in the first 30 years by two men who were the original translators.

You guys who are bible agnostics and unbelievers in an inerrant Bible in any language, will insist that these minor printing errors prove that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible.

For those of us who believe God has given us an inerrant Bible,we can tell you where it is. It is the King James Bible you can buy in any bookstore today.

You guys, on the other hand, will NEVER show us a copy of the inerrant Bible simply because none of you really believes such a thing exists. It is just that simple and easily shown. NONE of you will ever come out and take a serious and consistent stand on ANY Bible in any language as being the Standard of inerrancy.

And so you mock and ridicule those of us who believe God really has given us an inerrant Bible.

Now, just out of curiosity, how would you translate that verse you were talking about in Romans 8?
OK. So printing errors don't count. One could reasonably ask "Why? Why don't printing errors count?" Especially since "minor" errors are still errors and remove the label of "inerrant", and have the same potential of creating the confusion that other translations could lead to. Let's move on to other types of errors.

You said in your article on Ex 20:13 "For this simple reason, abortion is the law of the land. It is not illegal for a doctor to deprive a living child of its life if the mother consents to this act."

But a better understanding of the issue is that it doesn't matter if the law of the land says something is lawful or not. What matters is what God considers the act in this context, which is correctly called "murder" and not "killing" because the baby murder industry is glad to say they are killing a fetus. It is only when they are faced with the truth, that they are murdering a baby, that everyone can see that what they are doing is wrong.

Do you still stand by your assertion that "kill" is a better translation than "murder" in Ex 20:13?

As to the translation of Rom 8:28. I don't read Greek so I cannot translate it. I told you is wasn't my translation. What makes you think the correct translation I've presented isn't inspired? Just because you don't like it? Just because it isn't the KJV?
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I think I will make this my last post to this thread. With thanks to Bob, Will and Will for doing their bit. Especial thanks to Will Kinney for avoiding nearly all my questions in the grandstand and about half of BE's/WD's in the main debate. This really livened the debate up and ensured that there would be both a winner and a loser rather than terminating in a boring draw. We grandstanders would certainly have felt cheated unless there had been real blood spilt, teeth knocked out and permanent brain damage (some people though did think that one of the participants already had brain damage before entering the ring). Well, we were not disappointed! My thanks also to other KJVO participants in the grandstands, including George Affleck, for all the historical evidence, logical and linguistic arguments they didn't come up with.

For posterity, I'd like to summarise my understanding of the KJVO position now, after reading all the contributions. Then I can go back home to the wife and kids with a good conscience, have a shower, and collect my winnings from the betting shop.

1. The KJV is without error of any kind, whether translation error, printing error, original manuscript error or any other kind of error. Provided always that the KJVO adherent is the sole arbiter of what is an error and what is not. An objective definition of an error is unnecessary because the KVO adherent will still need to make a subjective judgement anyway. If anyone else points out any errors, it is either a printing error, an error in the original manuscript, not an error, doesn't matter or the person himself doesn't believe in any inerrant version anywhere.

2. God inspired the translators in 1611 to be 100% accurate in their translations (or marginal notes where they stated that they didn't know what the proper meaning was) but he couldn't be bothered to inspire the printers with like accuracy, with the result that no one could read a fully inerrant version until 1985. The 1985 version is fully 100% inerrant with no printing errors or any other kind of error. Will Kinney guarantees this. Also, the translators were completely unbiased theologically, proven by their written promises to ensure that everything in the translation was consistent with reformed doctrine and the 39 articles.

3. God chose early modern English as the language of the KJV. This was a mistake on God's part because the language was still very fluid and by the time the language had stabilised, over 24,000 changes needed to be made until 1769 to make the text readable. This gap of 150 or so years is nothing at all because with God even a thousand years is like one day.

4. No other translation was inspired by God in this way. We know this because a) Will Kinney says so and b) because all other translations differ from the KJB. What the 1611 translators themselves said about this can be ignored as only the actual text of the KJB is inspired.

5. No other translation has received the care and attention to detail of the KJB. This is not surprising as they had nearly 400 years to work on it. This is a vital point because it is obvious that a work so inspired by God needs a great deal of fine-tuning by mere mortals to get it just perfect. Other Bibles such as the NIV, have not had 400 years of error correction and therefore they can be summarily dismissed; besides, it is probably better that such translations die an honourable quick death, rather than suffer the slow death of a thousand cuts as they advance into old age when their language and idiom is no longer in current use or even understood, unlike the 100% inerrant KJV itself.

6. The KJB supersedes the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts from which it was translated. Even if such manuscripts were incorrect representations of the originals, this doesn't matter because the KJB now takes precedence. When new manuscripts are found which are deemed to be more authentic than the ones used by the KJB translators, these are of no importance and can be ignored.

7. The KJB can be understood by any modern English speaker. Provided he puts in some effort and has a decent Shakespearian English dictionary handy. This is hugely more beneficial for modern Christians than it was for those living in, say, 1740, just a hundred or so years after Shakespeare, who thought that it was so incomprehensible and inconsistent that it needed those 24,000 changes. Native Mandarin speakers can read a Bible in their own language, but it is not as good as the KJB and will certainly lead them into some errors of faith and doctrine. This is completely logical and inevitable because the KJV is the only Bible in the whole world in any language that is 100% inerrant, such that any other translation in any other language, past, present or future, is guaranteed to have errors of one kind or another in it (especially if it's one of those nasty Catholic Bibles). It is preferable if their version is translated from the KJB rather than the original language texts.

8. If you are an English speaker, it is better to read the KJB than any other translation because all the other translations are Roman Catholic, which automatically makes them works of the Devil.

9. The assurance of the divine inspiration of the 100% inerrant KJB (the 1985 Cambridge edition of course) is something that can only come by faith. No amount of historical research will convince you of this, even though historical research always supports the KJVO position. (Yes, really, that wasn't a joke!) Anyone who doesn't have this faith assurance is a spiritually deficient person, usually termed 'Bible agnostic'. Historical research supporting the KJB consists of just one clear and precise fact worth mentioning and which is sufficient to controvert all the thousands of others: 'Errm, uh, Cambridge, blah, blah... any modern bookstore' (although KJVO adherents don't like to dwell on this important fact as it is really an issue of faith). Thus KJVO people will tend (I mean roughly 99.99% of the time) to steer clear of any actual history.

See you in the next BR!
 
Last edited:

Shasta

Well-known member
Shasta. What I said, and still say is the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown themselves believed that this was the Son of God who was with the Hebrew children. I know that they go into what they think Nebuchadnezzar thought, but what was the conclusion Jamieson, Faussett and Brown gave us at the very end there? You DID read it, right?

This is their own conclusion when commenting on Daniel 3:25 - "Really it was the "messenger of the covenant," who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation."

They sided with the way the King James Bible has it.

By the way, here is a more complete list of Bible translations that read like the King James Bible in Daniel 3:25 And when you look at the actual translation of the most common "Septuagint" in print that is out there, it says "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD" So does Brenton's New Translation of 2012.


"The fourth is like THE SON OF GOD"

"And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" is the reading of Wycliffe Bible 1395 - "the fourthe is lijk the sone of God.", the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.", the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.",the King James Bible 1611, The Bill Bible 1671, Webster's translation 1833,the Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible of 1855, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Smith Bible 1876, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD", the Douay of 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "the fourth is like that of the Son of God.", The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the NKJV of 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF ELAH", the 2009 Bond Slave Version, the Asser Septuagint 2009 - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

It is also the reading of The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar Elohin (Ben Elohim, Hebrew).", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God", Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2012 - “the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD." and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God!”

This online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."


http://studybible.info/IHOT/Daniel 3:25

It is even the reading found in the so called Greek Septuagint copy I have which is translated as "the fourth is like the Son of God."

Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Bar-Elahin”



Foreign language translations that say the fourth is like the Son of God are the French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy - " le quatrième est semblable au Fils de Dieu.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez - "y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al Hijo de Dios.", the Check BKR Bible - "jest synu Božímu.", the Lithuanian Bible - "kaip Dievo sūnus!”, the Russian Synodal Version - "подобен сыну Божию.", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bbile - "ca a Fiului lui Dumnezeu. "

and the Modern Greek Bible -"ου τεταρτου ειναι ομοια με Υιον Θεου."

The NKJV 1982 also reads: "the fourth is like the Son of God" but then it has a footnote that reads: "Or a son of the gods". A son of the Gods, would not be the Son of the only true and living God. "A son of the gods" would not be the Lord Jesus Christ who was with them in the fiery furnace.

A son of the gods would not be the the Lord Jesus Christ, I agree but we do not interpret the word with the intent of inserting our doctrines. The laws of hermeneutics dictate that, in order to understand the scriptures we must first read the words of a passage or verse in the ordinary sense they would have been understood at the time they were written or spoken. If you go in with an agenda as you have, you are certain to miss what it is saying.

If you had bothered to read my posts you would know that I read the whole of what Jamieson, Faussett and Brown said about this verse though you apparently only read their statement of faith appended on the end.

Let me attempt to communicate my thoughts more clearly. First here is what they said:

…like the Son of God — Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. “Son of God” in his mouth means only an “angel” from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves. Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7; Psalm 34:7, Psalm 34:8; and the probably heathen centurion‘s exclamation (Matthew 27:54).

The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods; thus the expression he meant: one sprung from and sent by the gods.


Really it was the “messenger of the covenant,” who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.

1. I find it fascinating that they would say Nebuchadnezzar was made to UNCONSCIOUSLY utter divine truths.

This is an outright admission that he did not consciously mean what his words seemed to say in the English text. Leaving aside the issue of the UNconscious content of his words let us consider his CONSCIOUS understanding (of his own words)? After all, isn't the first responsibility of Bible student to try and understand what people in the scriptures meant rather than to impose our ideas into their heads and mouth?


2. What the king meant is not hard to figure out. The commentators say that by “Son of God” he only meant AN Angel from Heaven. “AN” is an indefinite article implying he was not speaking of a specific angel, just an angel.


3. Next, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown do what responsible interpreters of the Bible do. They explore the king’s cultural-religious background in order to understand in more detail the context of his king’s remarks. They explain:

The Chaldeans believed in families of gods: Bel, the supreme god, accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, being the father of the gods; thus the expression he meant: one sprung from and sent by the gods.


4. Based upon this, the commentators admit that “Son of Godin his mouth means only an “angel” from heaven (or, I might add, his equivalent of an “angel”)

This being the case, would the best translation of his remark be “the fourth one is like THE Son of God?” The definite article “the”could imply that he was speaking of one particular “angel”that was in some way separate from and superior to all others. For a definite article to be implied the meaning would have to be unequivocally understood. Here it is not. The king knew of no such angel in what he would have imagined to be the pantheon of the Hebrew's God. When the commentators were speaking of the king's words they already said that he meant only “AN”angel

I believe the commentators are correct in their assessment of the king’s words. As powerful as the messenger apparently was, no messenger was equal to the deity who had sent him. He would not have imagined that any god as powerful as that of Shadrack, Meshek and Abed-nego would carry his own messages. No, as far a Nebuchadnezzar was concerned, the fourth figure in the fire was not a major god but rather a “son,” a lesser deity or demi-god one appointed to go on missions: such as delivering messages or delivering favored mortals from firey furnaces. The fact that he believed it to be a messenger is revealed in.

Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him (Daniel 3:28)


5. I also agree with the commentators that the word “son” was a word that meant an angel. It was not meant to convey the same sense of sonship as Jesus meant when He said He was the “Son of God” The Jews rightfully took this be a claim of equality with God. In Daniel 2:25 “son” is equivalent to an angel, a divine being. By rendering the text “The Son of God”translators are importing theological terms that were unknown at that time in history.

6. The interesting thing is that despite what their scholarly research has revealed, when it comes to drawing a conclusion they say:

Really it was the “messenger of the covenant,” who herein gave a prelude to His incarnation.

In reality this is not a conclusion, that is, it does not naturally follow the flow of their reasoning. It is just a reiteration of their preexisting belief in a tradition that the figure in the fire was actually God, in the person of the pre-incarnate Christ. Though they assert this as a statement of faith they have done nothing to establish it in their exposition. The only “proof” is that the words of some translations seem to read that way which is the main part of what you call proof.

In the end, all the research Jamison Fausett and Brown employed in to interpret this scripture could not override their pre-existing traditions. In the same way, no fact of history, culture, linguistics, employed in a reasoned argument can ever supersede the lettering of the KJB to someone who is a committed Translational Gnostic. for the basis of their belief is not grounded in reason, at least not primarily so but in faith, faith in personal revelation about the infallibility of the KJB. They are devoted to the letter first and to interpreting it properly second. The question of the KJVO position is not first “what do the scriptures say”but whose side are you on in this verse the KJB or one of the other ones. Hence they are committed to ongoing conflict with the majority of Christendom who are increasingly reluctant to learn to read archaic English.

BTW here are Bibles who interpret the fourth being in the fire in a way that is more like what the king would have actually said consciously (Daniel 3:25)

A SON OF THE GODS
: New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, GOD'S WORD® Translation, JPS Tanakh 1917,New American Standard 1977, King James 2000 Bible, American Standard Version, English Revised Version, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation, The Bible in Basic English, American Standard Version, New Century Version, Hebrew Names Version, Revised Standard Version, Today's New International Version, A SON OF GOD: Darby Bible Translation New Living Translation, NET Bible, Common English Bible, New Revised Standard; THE SON OF A GOD: Lexham English Bible; LIKE ONE OF THE GODs: Common English Bible; THE APPEARANCE OF A GOD: New Revised Standard; LIKE AN ANGEL: Good News Translation; LIKE A DIVINE BEING International Standard Version
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
I think I will make this my last post to this thread. With thanks to Bob, Will and Will for doing their bit. Especial thanks to Will Kinney for avoiding nearly all my questions in the grandstand and about half of BE's/WD's in the main debate. This really livened the debate up and ensured that there would be both a winner and a loser rather than terminating in a boring draw. We grandstanders would certainly have felt cheated unless there had been real blood spilt, teeth knocked out and permanent brain damage. Well, we were not disappointed! My thanks also to other KJVO participants in the grandstands, including George Affleck, for all the historical evidence, logical and linguistic arguments they didn't come up with.

For posterity, I'd like to summarise my understanding of the KJVO position now, after reading all the contributions. Then I can go back home to the wife and kids with a good conscience, have a shower, and collect my winnings from the betting shop.

1. The KJV is without error of any kind, whether translation error, printing error, original manuscript error or any other kind of error. Provided always that the KJVO adherent is the sole arbiter of what is an error and what is not. An objective definition of an error is unnecessary because the KVO adherent will still need to make a subjective judgement anyway. If anyone else points out any errors, it is either a printing error, an error in the original manuscript, not an error, doesn't matter or the person himself doesn't believe in any inerrant version anywhere.

2. God inspired the translators in 1611 to be 100% accurate in their translations (or marginal notes where they stated that they didn't know what the proper meaning was) but he couldn't be bothered to inspire the printers with like accuracy, with the result that no one could read a fully inerrant version until 1985. The 1985 version is fully 100% inerrant with no printing errors or any other kind of error. Will Kinney guarantees this. Also, the translators were completely unbiased theologically, proven by their written promises to ensure that everything in the translation was consistent with reformed doctrine and the 39 articles.

3. God chose early modern English as the language of the KJV. This was a mistake on God's part because the language was still very fluid and by the time the language had stabilised, over 24,000 changes needed to be made until 1769 to make the text readable. This gap of 150 or so years is nothing at all because with God even a thousand years is like one day.

4. No other translation was inspired by God in this way. We know this because a) Will Kinney says so and b) because all other translations differ from the KJB. What the 1611 translators themselves said about this can be ignored as only the actual text of the KJB is inspired.

5. No other translation has received the care and attention to detail of the KJB. This is not surprising as they had nearly 400 years to work on it. This is a vital point because it is obvious that a work so inspired by God needs a great deal of fine-tuning by mere mortals to get it just perfect. Other Bibles such as the NIV, have not had 400 years of error correction and therefore they can be summarily dismissed; besides, it is probably better that such translations die an honourable quick death, rather than suffer the slow death of a thousand cuts as they advance into old age when their language and idiom is no longer in current use or even understood, unlike the 100% inerrant KJV itself.

6. The KJB supersedes the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts from which it was translated. Even if such manuscripts were incorrect representations of the originals, this doesn't matter because the KJB now takes precedence. When new manuscripts are found which are deemed to be more authentic than the ones used by the KJB translators, these are of no importance and can be ignored.

7. The KJB can be understood by any modern English speaker. Provided he puts in some effort and has a decent Shakespearian English dictionary handy. This is hugely more beneficial for modern Christians than it was for those living in, say, 1740, just a hundred or so years after Shakespeare, who thought that it was so incomprehensible and inconsistent that it needed those 24,000 changes. Native Mandarin speakers can read a Bible in their own language, but it is not as good as the KJB and will certainly lead them into some errors of faith and doctrine. This is completely logical and inevitable because the KJV is the only Bible in the whole world in any language that is 100% inerrant, such that any other translation in any other language, past, present or future, is guaranteed to have errors of one kind or another in it (especially if it's one of those nasty Catholic Bibles). It is preferable if their version is translated from the KJB rather than the original language texts.

8. If you are an English speaker, it is better to read the KJB than any other translation because all the other translations are Roman Catholic, which automatically makes them works of the Devil.

9. The assurance of the divine inspiration of the 100% inerrant KJB (the 1985 Cambrige edition of course) is something that can only come by faith. No amount of historical research will convince you of this, even though historical research always supports the KJVO position. (Yes, really, that wasn't a joke!) Anyone who doesn't have this faith assurance is a spiritually deficient person, usually termed 'Bible agnostic'. Historical research supporting the KJB consists of just one clear and precise fact worth mentioning and which is sufficient to controvert all the thousands of others: 'Errm, uh, Cambridge, blah, blah... any modern bookstore' (although KJVO adherents don't like to dwell on this important fact as it is really an issue of faith). Thus KJVO people will tend (I mean roughly 99.99% of the time) to steer clear of any actual history.

See you in the next BR!
what he said
 
Top