Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[False Prophet]

So continues the Great Renunciation of the KJV. This version had many predecessors to draw from, and the translators drew from these predecessors to write their version of the scriptures. Douay Rheims translated directly from the Vulgate, and his translation was published in 1610. Jerome completed the Vulgate in 400 AD. His friend Exuperius received a letter from the bishop of Rome suggesting a canon for the New Testament. The Old Testament was decided by the Septuagint.
Bishop of Toulouse, France, and a friend of St. Jerome. Exuperius, also called Soupire, donated vast sums to the Christian communities of Egypt and Palestine. He received a list of authentic books of the Bible from Pope Innocent I. It is believed that Exuperius was exiled late in life.
This is a quote from Catholic Online. The office of Pope did not exist in 400, since Justinian established that office when he briefly united the East and West during his reign about a hundred years later.

 

[tetelestai]

Whilst I think that most of the citations you make have their own context which would make the beliefs held not quite amount to KJVO, accepting that you have proved your point, the best that can be said about it is that you have the comfort that you are not alone in your extremism.

I asked brandplucked (and any KJVO) for an article showing King James Onlyism before 1863.

The reason for 1863 is that was the year Seventh Day Adventism was established.

King James Onlyism originated from SDA.

IMO, it's always important to study the history of an "ism", and find its beginning.

As we see in his quotes, the only ones he supplied before 1863 do not support KJVO. In fact the quote he supplied from Abbot was from a book about revising the KJV because of the inaccuracies of the KJV.

So, unless a KJVO can show us any trace of KJVO before 1863, then my claim that KJVO was founded and rooted in SDA stands.

The oldest known book to exist on KJVO was written in 1930 by SDA Benjamin Wilkinson, titled "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated"

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That's my point.

You shouldn't use just one version. I'm not an NIVOnlyist, or any other "Bible Version Onlyist".

I doubt many Americans know that a satrap was a Persian governor.

In fact, the International Children's Version gives a really good translation:

(Dan 6:4 ICV) So the other supervisors and the governors tried to find reasons to accuse Daniel....

Yes, you have proven that you will quote anything to "prove" your points.
My point was that all versions use words that we don't use everyday. You quoted "fetch a compass".

 

[tetelestai]

The text itself gives zero indication it was a contemporaneous account (and indeed indicates the opposite).

(John 21:24) This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

It doesn't say when he wrote them down.

No one knows.

 

[chrysostom]

they have to protect

rightly dividing

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

they have to protect

rightly dividing

:chuckle:

 

[tetelestai]

Yes, you have proven that you will quote anything to "prove" your points.

No, I have proven that when you come to a verse with a word you don't know, it really helps to look at different versions when trying to understand the word.

Same thing for an entire sentence.

My point was that all versions use words that we don't use everyday. You quoted "fetch a compass".

The KJV has the most anachronisms.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Brandplucked.... please only post your debate posts in the battle and nothing else. If you want to say something else or clarify something you will have to do it here in this thread but it will not be considered part of the debate.

It's clear you rushed out your last post and then tried to correct yourself after. Please take more time and construct your posts more carefully before posting them in the battle. You had plenty of time (which you didn't use) and then made a sloppy post and a follow-up past with a correction. This is yet another rules violation.

It's also clear that you didn't make an attempt to answer questions....

BWQ4b
BWQ9
BWQ10
BWQ11
BWQ18

You must respond to the questions asked of you just as Bob and Will must respond to your questions. Take more of your allowed 48 hours between posts and make every round count.

 

[Granite]

(John 21:24) This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

It doesn't say when he wrote them down.

No one knows.

Which again is simply at odds with all scholarship. This is kind of the problem: When the text is inconvenient, you guys ignore the text; when scholarship becomes inconvenient, you ignore scholarship. You pretty much make it up as you go...which leads us to KJV Only madness. The idea that a product of a committee for hire could somehow produce the only flawless word of God, centuries after the texts themselves were supposedly originally God-breathed, boggles the mind with its obvious crazy factor. And yet if you make it up as you go and seize on something comforting and convenient, it makes its own demented sense. At some point you have to shrug your shoulders at the lunacy and go: "Well, sure. Why not. This was inevitable."

 

[Shasta]

Here is another response to brandplucked’s criticisms of all modern translations. Remember, if the KJB is ever shown to have mistranslated the Greek text upon which it is based then it cannot be the perfect translation it is purported to be

# 3. Who controls the world, God or Satan?

Several modern version teach it is Satan -

1 John 5:19 “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world LIETH IN WICKEDNESS.” Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, Youngs, Third Millennium Bible

The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE." NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman, Catholic St. Joseph, NET

To begin with the “whole world“ lieth in“WICKEDNESS” is an incorrect translation of 1 John 5:19. “Wickedness (or evil)” is a noun but the Greek word that actually appears in the text is an adjective. The translators of the KJV also omit the article “the” that precedes the word they translate as “wickedness” likely because it would not have made sense to say “the whole world lieth in THE wickedness.”

The actual word used here is the adjective poneros NOT the noun poneria. As everyone knows adjectives describe nouns…but where is the noun this adjective is describing? Well, it is missing but since poneros is singular and masculine a noun is implied. Modern translators have represented this implied noun using the generic pronoun“one”so that it reads:

“the whole world lies in the control of the wicked (or evil) one.

The interlinear translation agrees with the modern rendering of this verse against the KJB

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_john/5-19.htm

This is an instance where the KJV, by incorrectly translating a word, failed to accurately convey the meaning of scripture, which affirms that this world is dominated by the power of the Evil One. Yet this is precisely what the Bible says elsewhere.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Satan is this world’s god because he dominates the minds of mankind, the majority of whom do not believe in or serve Christ. (Colossians 1:21). Jesus called the Devil the "prince" (or ruler) of this world (John 14:30). This does not mean, however that he is in control of the physical earth (Psalm 24:1)

To maintain his belief in the flawless perfection of one particular translation of scripture our guest had to prove that this verse was mistranslated by the modern translations and that the KJV had gotten it right. However, when the accuracy of this “perfect translation” was checked against the scriptures as they were written by the Apostles, most of the modern versions actually proved to be more accurate.

This illustrates the point that the ultimate source of truth against which all translations are to be measured is the scriptures themselves. No translation is or should be above this kind of assessment. The goal of all translators should be to faithfully render the meaning of the original text in the language of the people. Admittedly some did better than others.

 

[tetelestai]

Then why did John call it the passover of the Jews?

The same reason John called the Feast of Tabernacles of the Jews

(John 7:2 KJV) Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand.

 

[Desert Reign]

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.

Because it feels better to read the KJV !!!

It's because they can't be bothered to learn ancient Greek (or maybe Hebrew) and get with the flow. They despise proper learning and they despise anything that is not in a form that they personally understand. It's anti-intellectualism.

i think this so far has been pretty much a hands down slaughter and that many of the posts and responses from Will Kinney appear unprepared and non responsive.

Agree entirely. And I am pleased that BE/WD have been insistent on WK that he answer these questions and not let him get away with his lackadaisical attitude to debate.

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.

As promised, here is my answer to this question.
The KJV is no better or worse than many other translations. Each translation has its own philosophy, each translator has his or her own presuppositions. The KJV has the advantage that it started from an original text that was superior to the NA/UBS textform. But the TR itself also had many issues. So in summary, there is really not much to choose from. The KJV is dated. All you KJV lovers can eulogise it as much as you like but it is a proven fact that 90% of English speakers find it difficult to read and understand. And I am talking about the 1769 version. The actual 1611 version would be probably be difficult for over 99% of the population.

Also, I don't think I have got GA's clear answer to the question I asked him. In a rep comment he says that he posted one but I have looked and can't find it. It appears my contention is correct. That Will Kinney's version of KJVO is too much to stomach for even other KJV lovers. Also, I never got WIK's answer to other comments I made to him. It all seems that WK's view is arbitrary and unsustainable.

 

[tetelestai]

Which again is simply at odds with all scholarship. This is kind of the problem: When the text is inconvenient, you guys ignore the text; when scholarship becomes inconvenient, you ignore scholarship.

A consensus of scholarship is not empirical evidence, and/or proof.

No one knows when John wrote his gospel.

The text is not inconvenient, because as we see elsewhere in the gospel of John, John refers to the Feast of Tabernacles as "the Jew's Feat of Tabernacles".

That's a problem for Affleck's theory.

Unless Affleck wants to claim there was a separate Christian Feast of Tabernacles after the resurrection, and John was specifying which Feast of Tabernacles he was referring to, his theory doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[George Affleck]

You have no idea when John penned that verse.

For all you know, John kept some sort of journal, and wrote down things each day.

The internal evidence tells us otherwise.

A passage you have already quoted tells us John did not write until sometime after Jesus' death.

And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,
“nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.”

John speaks of Caiaphas being high priest in the past tense. Caiaphas was high priest until AD 36. If the book that John wrote was actually his everyday journal, why did he write this in the past tense?

See also Jn 18:13KJV

I suggest the reason it is in the past tense is because John wrote sometime after Caiaphas was high priest and needed to specify the reason why this prophecy was significant.

 

[Nick M]

We paid special attention to dozens of its thousands of handwritten notes which document the multiple stages of the KJB’s impressive revision process, for the King James was not actually a new translation, as we have learned, but a revision of the Anglican Catholic Bishops’ Bible. We returned to America with high-resolution photos of all annotations should we need to consult them for this debate. For example, these contemporaneous writings should be able to settle the kind of question, often raised by the KJO camp, of whether a particular reading is the result of the printers changing the work of the translators, or a result of the translators work themselves.

This initial post was very informative.

 

[GuySmiley]

Is there any positive argument for KJO? Problems in other versions doesn't make the KJV inerrant, especially when Will says there are errors in the KJV. Even if he calls the errors minor, he's still saying there are errors.

I'd like to go to the bookstore to hold the inerrant KJV like Will says. But they have more than one version there.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I noticed how long their opening remarks were

why would you start a debate like that?

They are not doing well on the Q&A portion (see the unofficial analysis posts).

Maybe they think that it is the opening remarks sections that will decide the debate?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here is another response to brandplucked’s criticisms of all modern translations. Remember, if the KJB is ever shown to have mistranslated the Greek text upon which it is based then it cannot be the perfect translation it is purported to be

It looks like you haven't realized that KJV Only activists do not care what is written in the Greek.
They believe that when the Greek does not match the KJV translation, it is the Greek that is in error.

:idunno:

 

[George Affleck]

A consensus of scholarship is not empirical evidence, and/or proof.

No one knows when John wrote his gospel.

The text is not inconvenient, because as we see elsewhere in the gospel of John, John refers to the Feast of Tabernacles as "the Jew's Feat of Tabernacles".

That's a problem for Affleck's theory.

Unless Affleck wants to claim there was a separate Christian Feast of Tabernacles after the resurrection, and John was specifying which Feast of Tabernacles he was referring to, his theory doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.

This is further evidence that this was written after the fact; otherwise John would not have given it in the past tense.

The reason he would have specified that it was during the holy days belonging to the Jews that he is talking about is due to the blurring of the lines between Jewish and pagan and, at the time of John's writing, Christian celebrations. This was a time when, not just Jews, but people from all of Judea and beyond came to Jerusalem to the feast.

In addition, as a Jew, Jesus was expected to partake. They wanted Him to show Himself to the world and used the excuse of Jewish requirement. It would not have been very convincing if they had said; "Aw c'mon, everybody's going; you'll have a good time". They were pointing out that it was a requirement and John recorded it as such.

 

[tetelestai]

This is further evidence that this was written after the fact; otherwise John would not have given it in the past tense.

I'm not claiming he didn't. All I said was no one knows when he wrote it, or how he wrote it. You're trying to claim that because John said "the Jews Passover", it proves there were two different kinds of Passovers.

The reason he would have specified that it was during the holy days belonging to the Jews that he is talking about is due to the blurring of the lines between Jewish and pagan and, at the time of John's writing, Christian celebrations. This was a time when, not just Jews, but people from all of Judea and beyond came to Jerusalem to the feast.

That's a very weak argument.

There was no Christian or pagan celebration of Feast of Tabernacles.

John said "the Jew's Feast of Tabernacles" and "the Jews Passover".

You want us to believe that John said "the Jews Passover" because there were two types of Passovers after the cross.

Never at any time were there two types of Feast of Tabernacles.

Many believe John was not Jewish, and that's why he used the phrase "the Jews" 70 times in his gospel.

If John wasn't Jewish, then "the Jews Passover" and "the Jews Feast of Tabernacles" makes sense.

Regardless, the Passover in Acts 12:4 is not Easter, and your theory of two Passovers backed by John 11:55 doesn't stand based on John 7:2

Also, does the following language sound like someone who was a Jew?

1. The Passover of the Jews (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55);

2. The religious rules of the Jews about purification (John 2:6);

3. A religious festival of the Jews (John 5:1);

4. The Festival of Tabernacles of the Jews (John 7:2);

5. The Day of Preparation of the Jews (John 19:42); and

6. The way in which Jews prepare a body for burial (John 19:40).