Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[George Affleck]

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:

This is why there is controversy. Not because KJVO advocates believe the King James, but because of those who attack it. They are not activists, they are defenders. The ones who desire to unseat the AV are actively involved in doing so by sowing seeds of discontent within the Christian community by spreading lies like the ones mentioned here.

The King James was here first. Upstarts and wannabees need to step up to the bar with supportable facts to prove their case; not by sowing seeds of discord through gossip like this which is a complete fabrication.

 

[tetelestai]

The King James was here first.

Not King James Onlyism.

King James Onlyism originated from the SDA's.

 

[Granite]

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.

No one--no one--believes the gospel was written during the life of Jesus. Absolutely nobody. So if you want to be pedantic or contrary for its own sake, or because it's just me, knock yourself out.

The "problem" here is the idolatry at the heart of KJV Onlyism. It's a bizarre, weird, totally predictable flavor of derangement. It's useful in one sense: Illustrating the madness inherent to the idea of an inspired, God-breathed scripture. It's just that people attacking KJVers don't take their arguments far enough.

 

[Granite]

This is why there is controversy. Not because KJVO advocates believe the King James, but because of those who attack it. They are not activists, they are defenders. The ones who desire to unseat the AV are actively involved in doing so by sowing seeds of discontent within the Christian community by spreading lies like the ones mentioned here.

The King James was here first. Upstarts and wannabees need to step up to the bar with supportable facts to prove their case; not by sowing seeds of discord through gossip like this which is a complete fabrication.

Uh, what?

 

[tetelestai]

No one--no one--believes the gospel was written during the life of Jesus. Absolutely nobody.

How would John be able to quote Jesus verbatim throughout his gospel for things Jesus said years before?

So if you want to be pedantic or contrary for its own sake, or because it's just me, knock yourself out.

It has nothing to do with you.

All I'm saying is no one knows when John wrote his gospel. No one knows if he took some kind of notes when Jesus was alive.

Do you really think a person could remember verbatim all the things Jesus said many years later?

The "problem" here is the idolatry at the heart of KJV Onlyism.

Yes, I agree.

There is no valid argument for the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Yet, that's what KJVO's have to attempt.

 

[brandplucked]

Bob Enyart once again dodges the question

Bob Enyart once again dodges the question

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...)


Bob's "answer" - I'm so sorry to hear that DR. Praying for you. -Bob E.

 

[heir]

Yes, the bottom line. If they did, they would have to pick one, and believe it no matter what.

The real issue has always been about final authority.

 

[Granite]

How would John be able to quote Jesus verbatim throughout his gospel for things Jesus said years before?

:chuckle:

Yes. How indeed. Think about that for a sec.

All I'm saying is no one knows when John wrote his gospel.

And everyone is certain when he didn't. Except you. Congrats. (Seriously, tet, you've picked a losing horse: The vast majority of scholars are fairly certain John was written dead last out of all four gospels. You literally couldn't have picked a worse example.)

The KJVO business makes me wonder: Does it spring from a love of language, or love of the familiar?

 

[brandplucked]

Satraps and the "easy to understand" NIVs

Satraps and the "easy to understand" NIVs

Originally Posted by tetelestai
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....


Uhhh....tetelistai. Your Comic Book Vatican supervised NIV uses the word "satrap" 13 times. See Ezra 8:36; Esther 3:12; 8:9; 90:3, and Daniel 3:2, 3, 27; 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.

 

[Danoh]

How would John be able to quote Jesus verbatim throughout his gospel for things Jesus said years before?

...All I'm saying is no one knows when John wrote his gospel. No one knows if he took some kind of notes when Jesus was alive.

Do you really think a person could remember verbatim all the things Jesus said many years later?...

Consider, brother, that on the "Scriptures Against PreTrib..." thread in the ECT Forum, you rely on a supposed oracle from God as having been a devine intervention of some sort as to how the "Christians" were saved from the Romans in 66AD?

While in the above you are basically questioning what your Post-Completed Canon "oracle" be asserting about the following passage - that the following was still operative..

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

I take it then that you do not hold to Cessation after a pre 70AD Canon.

You can't have both ways, brother.

Perhaps you might want to think this out a bit more. It appears to have a hole in it not much different from the hole in your "oracle" assertion.

 

[brandplucked]

Bible Babble Buffet in Action

Bible Babble Buffet in Action

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.

I can give a hundred examples like this.



Job 39:13 KJB - "Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?"


NKJV: "The wings of the OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"

NASB: "The ostriches' wings FLAP JOYOUSLY with the PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF LOVE."

NIV: "The wings of the ostrich flap joyously BUT THEY CANNOT COMPARE WITH the pinions and feathers OF THE STORK."

Young's "literal": "The wings OF THE RATTLING ONES EXULTETH whether the pinions of the ostrich OR HAWK."

Judaica Press Tanach - “The wing of the RENANIM REJOICED, OR THE WINGED STORK OR THE NOZAH.”

RSV, ESV 2001 - “"The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; BUT ARE THEY the pinions and plumage OF LOVE?”

NRSV : "The ostrich's wings flap wildly THOUGH ITS PINIONS LACK PLUMMAGE."

Lamsa's : "The ostrich ROUSES HERSELP UP HAUGHTILY,THEN SHE COMES AND MAKES HER NEST."

LXX "A wing of DELIGHTED ONES is the PEACOCK IF THE STORK AND THE OSTRICH CONCEIVE."

New English Bible: "The wings of the ostrich ARE STUNTED; her pinions and plummage ARE SO SCANTY."

Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "The wings of the ostrich BEAT IDLY, HER PLUMAGE IS LACKING IN PINIONS."

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "Can the wing of the ostrich BE COMPARED WITH THE PLUMAGE OF STORK OR FALCON?"

NET version by Daniel Wallace and company - "The wings of the ostrich FLAP WITH JOY, BUT ARE THEY THE PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF A STORK?"

Bible in Basic English: "IS the wing of the ostrich FEEBLE, OR IS IT BECAUSE SHE HAS NO FEATHERS?"

The Message - “"The OSTRICH flaps her wings FUTILELY - ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL FEATHERS, BUT USELESS!”

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Bible Babble Buffet-

I agree. No matter what you already believe, you can find a version that agrees with you. There is no more allowing your thinking to be shaped by the Bible, but the other way around.

 

[brandplucked]

Note to Knight

Note to Knight

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.

Hi Knight. The questions Bob and Will posted were the same ones he asked before and I already answered him on those. All he did was bring them up again. That is all he is doing - going over and over the same alleged "corrections", which are mere printing errors, again and again.

Now, if you require that I repeat the same answers to the same questions Bob asked before, I can do that. But what is the point.

Funny that you complain about me not answering the same questions again, and yet Bob won't give me an honest answer the the same basic question I keep asking him again and again.

Here is the question both Bob and Will D. keep dodging.

Do you believe that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete (66 books on one volume), inerrant and 100% true words of God? Yes or No?

If Yes, can you show us a copy? Or can you tell us exactly which one it is, so that we too can go out and get one for ourselves? Yes or No?

If No, you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language, are you honest enough to admit it? Yes or No?


Next time I will have a series of questions for Bob and Will D. concerning specific verses of Scripture. I can almost guarantee you that they will once again dodge them and not answer with a clear Yes or No response.

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is why there is controversy. Not because KJVO advocates believe the King James, but because of those who attack it. They are not activists, they are defenders. The ones who desire to unseat the AV are actively involved in doing so by sowing seeds of discontent within the Christian community by spreading lies like the ones mentioned here.

The King James was here first. Upstarts and wannabees need to step up to the bar with supportable facts to prove their case; not by sowing seeds of discord through gossip like this which is a complete fabrication.

It is not a fabrication nor a lie.

brandplucked clearly stated that none of the Bibles in any language before the KJV of 1611 are inerrant.
The conclusion of that statement is that when there are any differences between the Greek manuscripts and the KJV, then the KJV is right and the Greek manuscripts are wrong.

 

[genuineoriginal]

How would John be able to quote Jesus verbatim throughout his gospel for things Jesus said years before?

Like this:

John 14:26 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

I can give a hundred examples like this.

Yes, you can give a hundred examples like that which do absolutely nothing to prove that the KJV is right and the others are wrong.

:idunno:

Do you have anything else, or are you a one trick pony?

Next time I will have a series of questions for Bob and Will D. concerning specific verses of Scripture. I can almost guarantee you that they will once again dodge them and not answer with a clear Yes or No response.

And we can all be certain that they will merely be lists of differences between verses that do absolutely nothing to prove that the KJV is right and the others are wrong.

(See, I did read your article :ha

 

[brandplucked]

The bible agnostic's claim of "anti-intellectualism"

The bible agnostic's claim of "anti-intellectualism"

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.

Hi Desert. Funny that you guys complain about the "hard to understand" King James Bible, and then turn around and tell us we need to learn Greek and Hebrew.

And yet you yourself (if you were honest enough to actually admit it) do not believe that any particular "the" Greek and Hebrew texts are now or ever were the complete and inerrant words of God.

Now, if you think I am wrong on this, which "the" Greek (leaving aside the Hebrew readings your fake bibles so often reject) do you honestly believe is the inerrant words of God?


How long has it been around? Is it the 1st or the 10th or the 28th edition of the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical text they keep changing every few years, or what?

No inerrant N.T.before this time? And it's only in Greek?

A lot more people can read and understand the KJB than "the" Greek with its thousands of variant readings and all in a form that is not even spoken by native Greek speakers today.

Yes, indeedy, you bible agnostics have really got a handle on things, right?

 

[brandplucked]

Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
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.

This is why there is controversy. Not because KJVO advocates believe the King James, but because of those who attack it. They are not activists, they are defenders. The ones who desire to unseat the AV are actively involved in doing so by sowing seeds of discontent within the Christian community by spreading lies like the ones mentioned here.

The King James was here first. Upstarts and wannabees need to step up to the bar with supportable facts to prove their case; not by sowing seeds of discord through gossip like this which is a complete fabrication.

Hi George. You are totally correct. "genuine original" and those like him couldn't show us a copy of "the" Greek that he honestly believes is or ever was the inerrant New Testament if his life depended on it.

He certainly has no "genuine original" to show us. He knows he doesn't, but that doesn't seem to stop him from trying to give others the false impression that he does.

The bible agnostics

 

[genuineoriginal]

Hi George. You are totally correct. "genuine original" and those like him couldn't show us a copy of "the" Greek that he honestly believes is or ever was the inerrant New Testament if his life depended on it.

He certainly has no "genuine original" to show us. He knows he doesn't, but that doesn't seem to stop him from trying to give others the false impression that he does.

The bible agnostics

I see you have nothing but a lie.

 

[brandplucked]

final authority

final authority

The real issue has always been about final authority.

Hi heir. You are right. And people like Bob Enyart, Will Duffy, "genuine original", tetelistai, etc. have no final authority in written form. Their "final authority" is their own personal preferences (subject to change at any moment). But not one of them will ever honestly and consistently tell anyone what is this inerrant and 100% true words of God Bible they all want to give others the impression they actually believe in.