Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
This is the preface in my KJV:


PREFACE TO THE KING JAMES VERSION
1873 EDITION
The most time-honored and widely used edition of the English Bible is the translation of 1611,
commonly known as the Authorized Version or King James Version (KJV). But though it has
served as the standard translation for millions of users through nearly four centuries, there has never
been a standard edition to which all printings are conformed.
No two early printings of the KJV were identical—not even the two printings of 1611—and no two
modern settings are identical, either. These differences are due to accidental human error as well as
to intentional changes by printers and editors, who sought to eliminate what they judged to be the
errors of others and to conform the text to their standards of English usage. This said, most differences
involve only spelling, punctuation, and italics, and few variations materially affect the meaning
of the text.
As early as 1616 there were systematic attempts to revise and standardize the KJV. Other important
early editions were issued by Cambridge in 1629 and 1638. In the eighteenth century, the two
great English universities (who were also officially chartered printers) commissioned thorough and
systematic revisions. The edition of Dr. F. S. Paris was published by Cambridge in 1762 and that of
Dr. Benjamin Blayney by Oxford in 1769. Though far from perfect, these remained the standard editions
until The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873.
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible began with the simple plan of arranging the text of the KJV according
to the sense of the literature: arranging the prose sections into paragraphs and the poetic sections
into parallel lines. This simple plan, however, was enhanced by the editor’s desire to create the
most thorough standardization of the text ever attempted. To this task Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener devoted
seven laborious years: 1866 to 1873.
Because the translators’ original manuscript no longer exists, the KJV text must be established by
consulting the earliest settings. Dr. Scrivener compared at least 15 early settings and important revisions,
including both settings of 1611; Bibles of 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1629, 1630, 1634, 1638,
1640; and the significant editions of Drs. Paris (1762) and Blayney (1769).
In his 120-page introduction, Dr. Scrivener addressed the various features of the KJV he worked to
standardize:
Marginal notes. The KJV does not contain explanatory or doctrinal comments but does include annotations
“for the explanation of the Hebrew and Greek words.” In the Old Testament of 1611, there
are 6,637 such notes. The more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Aramaic (“Chaldee”) is expressed
in 4,111 notes, indicated by the abbreviation “Heb.” or “Chald.”; 2,156 give alternate renderings,
indicated by the word “Or”; 63 give the meaning of proper names; 240 harmonize parallel
passages; and 67 refer to various readings in the Hebrew manuscripts used by the translators.
In the New Testament of 1611, there are 765 marginal notes. Alternate translations are given in 583
notes, indicated by the word “Or”; 112 provide a more literal rendering of the Greek, indicated by the
abbreviation “Gr.”; 35 are explanatory notes or brief expositions; and 35 relate to alternate readings
in the Greek manuscripts used by the translators.
Significant notes from later editions have also been included in square brackets [ ]. There are 368
additional notes in the Old Testament (for example, Gen. 1:20) and 105 in the New (for example,
Mat. 1:20,21).
The KJV Looseleaf Reference Bible includes a significant system of cross references in addition to
the translators’ notes. Cross references are indicated by letters (a, b, c, etc.), while translators’ notes
are indicates by numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.).
Italic type. Italic type was used in the KJV, as in the Geneva Bible, to indicate words in the English
translation that have no exact representative in the original language. Dr. Scrivener, following many
earlier scholars, noted that the KJV translators were noticeably inconsistent in their use of italics,
sometimes even in the same paragraph and verse. To cite one small pattern from the 1611 edition,
Leviticus 11:20 has “upon all foure,” while for the same Hebrew 11:21 and 42 have “upon all foure,”
and 11:27 has “on all foure.”
Dr. Scrivener carefully analyzed why italic type was used throughout the KJV, reduced this analysis
to 14 major principles, and then applied these principles with meticulous consistency throughout
the entire Bible. A substantial portion of the editor’s “seven laborious years” was devoted to this
significant improvement.
Punctuation. Later printings of the KJV added a great deal of punctuation to the editions of 1611.
Dr. Scrivener restored the major punctuation (periods, colons, parentheses, question marks) of 1611

I suppose everyone has that preface -
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I agree.

But then again, I knew this debate would be like this because KJVO doesn't have a leg to stand on, never has, and never will.

I still don't understand what motivates someone to take a KJVO stance.

I don't take a KJVO stance, but I have family members that do. I use the KJV on the web because it doesn't have all those confounded footnotes for me to delete.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
BWQ9
Disagree, he has stated himself at times they were inspired but at others not. Both positions taken.
Only the answers provided in the debate to the questions in the debate are under consideration.
Points go to brandplucked.

Half the stuff Brandplucked has on his own website refutes KJVOism.
Only the answers provided in the debate to the questions in the debate are under consideration in determining how the debate is going.

If we judged based on his website . . . well let's stick to what is in the debate.
(His website, theology, and arguments are all a hot mess).
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Only the answers provided in the debate to the questions in the debate are under consideration.
Points go to brandplucked.


Only the answers provided in the debate to the questions in the debate are under consideration in determining how the debate is going.

If we judged based on his website . . . well let's stick to what is in the debate.
(His website, theology, and arguments are all a hot mess).

So what's the score ? Who's winning ?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I don't take a KJVO stance, but I have family members that do. I use the KJV on the web because it doesn't have all those confounded footnotes for me to delete.

I love the KJV, but I'm not KJVO.

IMO, the greatest thing about the KJV is the pronouns.

The KJV eliminates any confusion of whether a pronoun is singular or plural.

Most Christians who aren't KJVO also love the KJV, but with KJVOnlists, they call you a "bible-correctior" and all kinds of other nasty names if you don't adhere to KJVO.
 
Last edited:

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
I love the KJV.

IMO, the greatest thing about the KJV is the pronouns.

The KJV eliminates any confusion of whether a pronoun is singular or plural.

Most Christians who aren't KJVO also love the KJV, but with KJVOnlists, they call you a "bible-correctior" and all kinds of other nasty names if you don't adhere to KJVO.

I like the NKJV the best.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
KJVism is so bizarre, so idolatrous, so absurd, that only a true bibliophile could've thought of it.

It is certainly bizarre. I think that it has arisen because some people are unable to relate to the real world of uncertainties and grey areas. They want everything buttoned down and completely defined. It's a psychological obsession.

But this kind of mentality is not limited to bibliophiles. It is found amongst scientists and philosophers just the same; it is found in all walks of life in a few percent of society. And they will try to foist their insecurities on others and make us all feel guilty (in this case) that we do not have a scripture that is 100% inerrant. Well, a) They have zero evidence that the KJB is such a a text (there being plenty of contrary evidence) and b) 100% inerrancy is not something that people generally need or want. As I pointed out earlier, the fluid, human process of copying, comparison and verification is much more confidence inspiring than a text that Joe Bloggs claims to be 100% right. We all know that by accepting that premise, we will be abandoning our only real means of maintaining inspired scripture. It's like you have worked hard all your life to buy your house and it is all paid for and then someone comes along and tells you that you can move to a much better house in the next town so long as you sign a rental contract on your old house that means that it will be let to others for the next 50 years. And the new house is free. The one catch is that you aren't allowed to examine the new house first: you have to take it on trust that it is 100% perfect.

Only the most stupid people would give up what they have worked for their entire lives for a theoretical promise that just sounds too good to be true.
 
Last edited:

Danoh

New member
It is certainly bizarre. I think that it has arisen because some people are unable to relate to the real world of uncertainties and grey areas. They want everything buttoned down and completely defined. It's a psychological obsession.

But this kind of mentality is not limited to bibliophiles. It is found amongst scientists and philosophers just the same; it is found in all walks of life in a few percent of society. And they will try to foist their insecurities on others and make us all feel guilty (in this case) that we do not have a scripture that is 100% inerrant. Well, a) They have zero evidence that the KJB is sucha a text (there being plenty of contrary evidence) and b) 10% inerrancy is not something that people generally need or want. As I pointed out earlier, the fluid, human process of copying, comparison and verification is much more confidence inspiring than a text that Joe Bloggs claims to be 100% right. We allknow that by accepting that premise, we will be abandoning our only real means of maintaining inspired scripture. It's like you have worked hard all your life to buy your house and it is all paid for and then someone comes along and tells you that you can move to a much better house in the next town so long as you sign a rental contract on your old house that means that it will be let to others for the next 50 years. ANd the new house is free. The one catch is that you aren't allowed to examine the new house first: you have to take it on trust that it is 100% perfect.

Only the most stupid people would give up what they have worked for their entire lives for a theoretical promise that just sounds too good to be true.

What would you say your two or three top issues with the KJV itself are?

And what do you see as to how it fairs as a translation in comparison to others?

Thanks in advance.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
IMO, the greatest thing about the KJV is the pronouns.

The KJV eliminates any confusion of whether a pronoun is singular or plural.

Oh boy! Don't let Will hear you say that tetelestai.

Oh yeah, and which KJV might you be referring to? :) Not a 1611 I hope. :)
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
What would you say your two or three top issues with the KJV itself are?

And what do you see as to how it fairs as a translation in comparison to others?

Thanks in advance.

I'll answer you when you give me a straight yes/no answer to my previous questions instead of beating about the bush. Quid pro quo. I'm not here to be made a fool of.

Do you agree with Will Kinney that there was no 100% inerrant scripture before the Cambridge version (whatever that was exactly - although I previously assumed it to be the 1769 version) of the KJB?

Yes or no?

GA hasn't answered either as far as I can tell. (Though I have missed a few pages due to I had a car accident this evening and I've just got back from hospital at 5 in the morning...)
 

Danoh

New member
I'll answer you when you give me a straight yes/no answer to my previous questions instead of beating about the bush. Quid pro quo. I'm not here to be made a fool of.

Do you agree with Will Kinney that there was no 100% inerrant scripture before the Cambridge version (whatever that was exactly - although I previously assumed it to be the 1769 version) of the KJB?

Yes or no?

GA hasn't answered either as far as I can tell. (Though I have missed a few pages due to I had a car accident this evening and I've just got back from hospital at 5 in the morning...)

First off; get well soon.

Second, I did answer that; I believe someone else asked when I answered. Passages like 2 Tim. 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 3:2, 15-16, etc., lead me to believe a complete canon existed in the hands of Paul, Peter et al (I place an early writing of those writings some hold as having been written post 70AD).

I also believe that there have always been "faithful men" who had copies of the writings. I also basically concur with Bryan Ross of the Grace History Project (google that if you are curious) on much of the work he has done in tracing all that out.

As for attempting to make you a fool. That is your usual reading into another's words; I know I do not set out to make anyone out a fool, as I can only keep myself from learning what ever someone might contribute, regardless of who they are; be they humble, dogmatic, arrogant, seemingly clueless, or apparantly very knowledgeable.

I asked you in earnest; aware, in fact, you'd make it some issue about you but took the gamble anyway because I actually want to know your thoughts on that. If its a problem; ignore my request; I'm certain I won't lose any sleep over it. Likewise with whatever problem you might have with any of my answer herein. Again, get well soon.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Why would John use the phrase "the Jews' passover" in Jn 11:55KJV? It was because Christians began celebrating a Christian pascha at the same time of the year as the Jewish pascha immediately after Jesus' resurrection.
Jesus was still alive in John 11:55.

No He was not. Jesus was in heaven when John penned this verse.

No one was celebrating Easter at the time of John 11:55 since Jesus was still alive.

The time of the verse is after the resurrection, not before. It is not being written as it happens. John is not a "man at the scene". He is a man who was at the scene and is recounting the story after the fact by way of explanation to Christians who would understand why he was making the distinction.

The only Passover that existed as of John 11:55 was a Jewish Passover. There was no other kind at the time.

Then why did John call it the passover of the Jews? This was my original question. He did the same in Jn 2:13KJV. To avoid confusion? Notice that when he is quoting Pilate who was speaking to the Jews he uses no such expression: Jn 18:39KJV This is because he is being faithful to the quotation which happened while Jesus was still alive. But after the resurrection, he needs to specify which celebration he is talking about so that the Christians, to whom he is speaking, will understand.

Also, John said the following in verse 52:

(John 11:52) He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,

Yes, and He became the passover lamb, and everything changed. The Jewish unbelievers continued with their passover but the Christians celebrated a new passover, the Saviour's passover. They knew He was the lamb of God.

Eusebius reports that, from the times of the apostles, a "Savior's pascha" was held in the Christian churches.
Even if that's true, that's not the context of Acts 12.

James was killed, and Peter was put in prison. Herod did this to please the Christ rejecting Jews, not the early Christian Jews.

This is not about Herod or what his plans were. These facts are the historical backdrop by which Luke tells Peter's story to Christians. The KJV translators knew this. They also knew that the Christians who would read it would understand pascha as the time they celebrate the resurrection and they faithfully rendered it Easter; the celebration of the day dawning in the hearts of men, the resurrection pascha.

What Peter said in verse 11 proves it was all about the Christ rejecting Jews and Passover:

(Acts 12:11) Then Peter came to himself and said, “Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen.

Again, historical, but this has nothing to do with showing that pascha meant the Jewish passover to any Christian after the resurrection. They adopted a new pascha. After the resurrection the Jewish passover was referred to as the passover of the Jews. Christians celebrate something different and the KJV translators knew that Luke knew it and that Luke's readers knew it and would identify with it.

Luke is not writing to Jews. He is writing to Christians. To Christians, after the resurrection, pascha was the resurrection celebration. In English, that is Easter.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
(Previous)

Second Post in Round 2

Unofficial analysis of Bob Enyart & Will Duffy's response to brandplucked's second round questions.

Your results may vary.

WKQ1: You don’t believe in an inerrant, 100% true and inerrant words of God type of Bible. Right? If you think you do, can you tell us exactly which one of these following bible versions got it right and are at least in the running to be considered “perfect and inerrant”?
- answer: none. Bob Enyart and Will Duffy talked around the question but never really gave any answer.
Points go to brandplucked

WKQ2: Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. *IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?*
- answer: God's Word is sometimes true, but, hey! look at that cool genome over there!
Points go to brandplucked

WKQ3: Same question for you - Did God’s perfect Word exist in English in 1610, and if so, in which version?
- answer: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy almost gave the same answer as they gave for WKQ1 (no answer), but then decided that something brandplucked had posted earlier in the debate kinda looked like an answer, so they quoted him instead.
Points go to brandplucked, since it was his answer that was used.

WKQ4: Bob and Will Duffy. If you now claim that the belief in an inerrant (perfect) Bible is the same as the Catholic’s claim of inerrancy, then what exactly are YOU referring to when you affirm: “God’s perfect Word exists on Earth today.”? (continued) What exactly is it that you have to give us in the way of a perfect and inerrant Bible?
- first answer: It is everywhere from a Bible bookstore, to Amazon, to the hearts of believers.
Points go to Bob Enyart and Will Duffy
- second answer: but...but...but...you can't do it either.
Points go to Bob Enyart and Will Duffy

WKQ2(b): Do you happen to have an actual copy of this “perfect word of God” that you claim to believe in that you can show us? Or give us a link to where we can see what it says and compare it to whatever bible version we are now using so we can see the similarities and differences?
- answer: but...but...but...you can't do it either.
Points go to Bob Enyart and Will Duffy


tally for second half of second round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 3
brandplucked - 3

Running total at end of second round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 9
brandplucked - 9

Your results may vary.

(Next)
 
Last edited:

genuineoriginal

New member
brandplucked posted the first post in round 3.
He used only 5 of the 48 hours allotted to him to formulate a response.

Is he that confident in his ability to provide both compelling answers and devastating questions?
 
Top