C
cirisme
Guest
How much did you pay?
BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
How much did you pay?
Brother Vinny
Active member
Originally posted by cirisme
How much did you pay?
Nothing. And it was worth every penny, I can tell you.
C
cirisme
Guest
Well, you get nothing back in your refund.
JustAChristian
New member
No Translation Is Inspired.
No Translation Is Inspired.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Translations are not. The only inspired texts are the original manuscrips. Translations are interpretations of the Greek and Hebrew manuscrips. They are translated by uninspired men; not necessarily ungody or unfaithful men but uninspired none-the-less. Men are subject to mistakes. Many of the copies of the manuscrips have marginal notes which, scholars believe have been incorporated into some copies. I believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the basics of salvation that we might be saved through obedience, but a lot of study of the preserved copies need to be made in order to learn the truth. Now, that's my two cents worth. Have a good rest of the day.
JustAChristian
No Translation Is Inspired.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Translations are not. The only inspired texts are the original manuscrips. Translations are interpretations of the Greek and Hebrew manuscrips. They are translated by uninspired men; not necessarily ungody or unfaithful men but uninspired none-the-less. Men are subject to mistakes. Many of the copies of the manuscrips have marginal notes which, scholars believe have been incorporated into some copies. I believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the basics of salvation that we might be saved through obedience, but a lot of study of the preserved copies need to be made in order to learn the truth. Now, that's my two cents worth. Have a good rest of the day.
JustAChristian
bill betzler
New member
I bet no one can prove that statement.
So everyone should lighten up on the individuals who trust in the KJB to be the word of God by faith.
Depends on what you mean by "prove," Bill.
The Bible claims inspiration, the question is does that mean the translations or does that mean only the original or does that mean only specific translations?
The case for the originals is actually not that hard, as long as you believe the Bible is God's word and that God cannot lie.
The Bible claims inspiration, the question is does that mean the translations or does that mean only the original or does that mean only specific translations?
The case for the originals is actually not that hard, as long as you believe the Bible is God's word and that God cannot lie.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Well, Paul had before him and quoted from the LXX yet stated to Timothy that all Scripture is inspired so to what text do we conclude he is referring to?
"Translations are not. " Book chapter and verse on this please.
Thou shalt not belive a translation is inspired. Don't recall that commandment.
Hey Dr. B. Perhaps you should jump in there. S9 is in way over his/her head. It is a good tactic to send a warrior against a lamb, kinda makes your side look right, even though it isn't.
Wonder why ole jaltus didn't answer my challange to his lies?
I could care less who wins the debate, the point will NOT be proven either way. What we have here is a debate on whether God is active in preserving his word. He said it would not pass away, but modern scholarship states that it has passed away, and we must collate what is left over in the best way we can. That depends upon man's understanding with a little mixture of Satans messing with mans mind. Who was the first to question God's word? Hmmm?
I assume God thinks it AINT nice to mess with his word, I think that he will mess with your mind if you do. Make you vulnerable to ideas such as "if Jaltus wins that proves the King James is NOT infallible. I know of people that would win the debate for the King James easily, but that STILL doesn't prove that it is infallible. Faith cannot win or loose a debate. Pure and simple.
Thou shalt not belive a translation is inspired. Don't recall that commandment.
Hey Dr. B. Perhaps you should jump in there. S9 is in way over his/her head. It is a good tactic to send a warrior against a lamb, kinda makes your side look right, even though it isn't.
Wonder why ole jaltus didn't answer my challange to his lies?
I could care less who wins the debate, the point will NOT be proven either way. What we have here is a debate on whether God is active in preserving his word. He said it would not pass away, but modern scholarship states that it has passed away, and we must collate what is left over in the best way we can. That depends upon man's understanding with a little mixture of Satans messing with mans mind. Who was the first to question God's word? Hmmm?
I assume God thinks it AINT nice to mess with his word, I think that he will mess with your mind if you do. Make you vulnerable to ideas such as "if Jaltus wins that proves the King James is NOT infallible. I know of people that would win the debate for the King James easily, but that STILL doesn't prove that it is infallible. Faith cannot win or loose a debate. Pure and simple.
bill betzler
New member
Jaltus,
My point is that the below statement is a derived conclusion:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only inspired texts are the original manuscrips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as is the statement, "I believe the KJB is the word of God."
That is why I made my original claim. The scriptures do not declare what they mean and yet you have narrowed it down to three choices. It is then from this straw man that you will claim wisdom from deductive reasoning. Hence your conclusion that the originals are inspired.
I believe those two things. The problem for you is that you do not know the mechanics (or process) between the inspiration and the original manuscript. Hence, you cannot prove the statement.
My point is that the below statement is a derived conclusion:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only inspired texts are the original manuscrips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as is the statement, "I believe the KJB is the word of God."
I agree that the bible claims inspiration, that is a foregone conclusion for us KJ'ers.
That is why I made my original claim. The scriptures do not declare what they mean and yet you have narrowed it down to three choices. It is then from this straw man that you will claim wisdom from deductive reasoning. Hence your conclusion that the originals are inspired.
I believe those two things. The problem for you is that you do not know the mechanics (or process) between the inspiration and the original manuscript. Hence, you cannot prove the statement.
drbrumley
Well-known member
I am thinking about it. Just don't want my posts to be erased by the referee. If I can be assured it won't be, then I will.
JustAChristian
What a foolish statement,
OK JAC, NOBODY has the originals.:doh: So basically your saying something against what Jesus said in Matthew 24:35 when Jesus says "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Oh really, prove that statement. But that would be impossible, cause you don't know. The tranlators of the AKJV were very knowledgable. More so than todays modern day scholars. We do not know much about the men who translated the King James Bible--the word of God for the English-speaking people. Perhaps this is fitting lest too much honor should be bestowed upon man. However, given the current controversy over our beloved Authorized Version I believe it good and profitable to learn more about these men of God. Some defender of modern Bible perversions will immaturely accuse us of "worshipping the translators". But what saith the scriptures?
Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
It is good and profitable to remember our fathers in the faith and the contributions they made for our good. Let's turn off the hell-i-vision and get some knowledge. It is good to look into the "olde things".
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
Will you ask for the old paths? When you find profitable things there, will you take heed to them? Unlike folks of today, the men of King James' time were true divines and scholars. I perceive that those who held bachelor's degrees could out-think most of the doctors of today. We'd think their doctor's were geniuses. The King James Bible translators were men who regularly debated in Latin and Greek, one had read the entire Bible in Hebrew by the time he was six, and on and on. But even more importantly, they were godly men devoted to spiritual pursuits. They believed that they were translating the very words of God--and they took their sacred duties seriously. As it states in the Translators to the Reader--
Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, not exercendi causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learn:
Nowadays you've got "I-barely-know-Greek translators" who have their feet in everything from hell-i-vision to sodomy.
The King James Version translators took the baton passed on to them by devout men and martyrs who translated before them. Men like John Wiclif, aka "The Morning Star of the Reformation" who was the first to translate the entire Bible into English. Although he only had the Latin Vulgate to work with, you can see his influence on Tyndale's translation and ultimately our Authorized Version. Like Martin Luther, Dr. Wiclif was a member of the Romish religion when he was awakened to the truth through the reading of the scriptures. He spoke out vehemently against the Romish rites and practices which at that time had a stranglehold on the land. His followers were called Lollards and they went out like circuit preachers spreading the doctrine of Christ. Dr. Wiclif wrote tracts and spoke out against error. He was severely persecuted by the Romish religion while alive and was banished from Oxford and his professorship by order of the king. Nevertheless, the Lord delivered him out of Romish hands many times and allowed him to continue his translation work. In 1428, about 44 years after his death, Pope Martin V commanded Dr. Wiclif's bones to be dug up and burned as an arch heretick.
William Tyndale who translated from the Textus Receptus line, was strangled and burned at the stake by the Catholic religion because of translating the Bible. Time fails me here to speak of John Rogers, Myles Coverdale and others who labored AND DIED that we might have the word of God in our hands. The Authorized Version is a Book forged in blood, sweat and tears. Treasure it. The King James translators said this of the cumulative nature of their work--
"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one..."
Please do not be deceived into thinking that the King James Bible is only an amalgamation of previous translations. These scholars consulted the original languages and related languages.
"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
Should the Lord will, I would like to publish information on the faithful saints who were persecuted, imprisioned, tortured, and killed by the Romish religion that we might have the word of God in our own tongue. They did not accept deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection.
The following accounts of the King James translators are taken from, The Translators Revived by Alexander McClure published in 1858. I do not agree with all of Mr. McClure's historical commentary. In fact, I strongly disagree with his assessment of His Majestie King James VI & I whom Mr. McClure makes out to be worse than a heathen. One way this bias manifests itself is in Mr. McClure's narrative about Dr. Richard Bancroft, one of the translators close to the King:
"...considering the control exercised by this towering prelate, and the fact that the great majority of the Translators were of his way of thinking, it is quite surprising that the work is not deeply tinged with their sentiments. On the whole, it is certainly very far from being a sectarian version, like nearly all which have since been attemped in English. It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him...Two of those alleged alterations are quite preposterous. To have the glorious word "bishopric" occur at least once in the volume, the office is conferred, in the first chapter of Acts, on Judas Iscariot! 'His bishopric let another take.'"
Here Mr. McClure shows his ignorance of earlier Bible versions, which I just happen to have a copy of in the English Hexapla. The scripture in question is Acts 1:20 where the King James translators selected the word, "bishopricke". This translation was not unique to the King James Bible. In fact the word "bishopricke" was used in Wiclif's translation which was produced over 200 years before the King James Bible was ever thought about! Remember that the King James Bible came out in 1611. Look at the readings in these earlier translations--
God Bless,
DRBrumley
I wandered from the KJV and then returned to the truth
I wandered from the KJV and then returned to the truth
I agree with drbrumley when he says:
Bible commentators, even those who may be esteemed by men as part of the five fold ministry, when not speaking according to the Word of God (as it is correctly interpreted BY ITSELF) have no light in them, and the church is instructed to AVOID them, and to WITHDRAW OURSELVES from them and their corrupt doctrines:
I find it interesting that Jaltus, who makes the claim that the KJV is corrupt, thereby calling it "evil", at the same time in the "Christian" music forum argues FOR such evil as "Christian" rap music!
Scripture says:
Cast out FIRST the beam from thine own eye, that thou mightest see clearly! Talk about swallowing a camel!
I don't care what Westcot and Hort or anyone of that mindset have to say; I know from what perspective they came from, and I don't trust them at all. I never read where they gave their lives for the truth. I don't see where many of the new versions that were the "fruit" of their labor offered the italics to show when they added words to the text. I have two four-version bibles that over the years of comparison with the KJV I have seen such downright preposterous errors in the new versions, which have angered me as much if not more than if a preacher had stood up before a congregation and said "Jesus is not the son of God, he was just A son of God. Jesus was not God, he was A god. Mary wasn't a virgin, she was just a girl. The church isn't "God's Chosen People", the Jews are". Any truly holy congregation would immediately throw such a heretic out the door and mourn before God that such BLASPHEMY had ever defiled their pulpit, but today such blasphemy is carried to churches under the arms of the congregatants and rejoiced in when it's spewed from the podium. The "man" of sin sits in the temple of God exalting his antichristian doctrines in every church, while the church members (mesmerized by the popular radio and tv false prophets and their mass array of sick wannabees: all the wolves-in-sheep's-clothing teethy/fake-grinned hirelings) continue to sit on the edge of their pews awaiting the appearance of "THE ANTICHRIST", constantly buying new books and tapes that make ridiculous guesses year after boring year as to who he might be.
Since the blind lead the blind, both are so far down in the ditch they can't see the light of day. Yet they have the NERVE to call today's preachers and bible commentators "the five fold ministry"!
How dare they!
The problem today with even those who exalt the KJV and reject the new versions is that many of them also exalt unscriptural doctrines, making their focus on the KJV only of none effect! They remind me of Martin Luther, who, though he correctly withdrew from and labeled the RCC and the popes "Babylon the Great Mother of Harlots" and the antichristian "man" of sin, was himself a heretic who taught OSAS, and that we should "sin vigorously" and who hated the book of James because it denied his ungodly doctrine of antinomianism. He also rejected Hebrews, Esther, and other New Testament books such as Revelation! YET EVEN TODAY THIS HERETIC IS ESTEEMED AS A GREAT MAN OF GOD!
I wandered from the KJV and then returned to the truth
Amen. I think too that we can all do as well without Scofield, MacArther, Ryrie, and all the other popular commenters and preachers who BUTCHER the truth and make God's Word OF NONE EFFECT with their OSAS and dispensational fantasies.
I agree with drbrumley when he says:
Bible commentators, even those who may be esteemed by men as part of the five fold ministry, when not speaking according to the Word of God (as it is correctly interpreted BY ITSELF) have no light in them, and the church is instructed to AVOID them, and to WITHDRAW OURSELVES from them and their corrupt doctrines:
I find it interesting that Jaltus, who makes the claim that the KJV is corrupt, thereby calling it "evil", at the same time in the "Christian" music forum argues FOR such evil as "Christian" rap music!
Scripture says:
While Jaltus condones the new versions and calls the KJV a corrupt version, he calls evil good and good evil.
Cast out FIRST the beam from thine own eye, that thou mightest see clearly! Talk about swallowing a camel!
I don't care what Westcot and Hort or anyone of that mindset have to say; I know from what perspective they came from, and I don't trust them at all. I never read where they gave their lives for the truth. I don't see where many of the new versions that were the "fruit" of their labor offered the italics to show when they added words to the text. I have two four-version bibles that over the years of comparison with the KJV I have seen such downright preposterous errors in the new versions, which have angered me as much if not more than if a preacher had stood up before a congregation and said "Jesus is not the son of God, he was just A son of God. Jesus was not God, he was A god. Mary wasn't a virgin, she was just a girl. The church isn't "God's Chosen People", the Jews are". Any truly holy congregation would immediately throw such a heretic out the door and mourn before God that such BLASPHEMY had ever defiled their pulpit, but today such blasphemy is carried to churches under the arms of the congregatants and rejoiced in when it's spewed from the podium. The "man" of sin sits in the temple of God exalting his antichristian doctrines in every church, while the church members (mesmerized by the popular radio and tv false prophets and their mass array of sick wannabees: all the wolves-in-sheep's-clothing teethy/fake-grinned hirelings) continue to sit on the edge of their pews awaiting the appearance of "THE ANTICHRIST", constantly buying new books and tapes that make ridiculous guesses year after boring year as to who he might be.
Since the blind lead the blind, both are so far down in the ditch they can't see the light of day. Yet they have the NERVE to call today's preachers and bible commentators "the five fold ministry"!
How dare they!
The problem today with even those who exalt the KJV and reject the new versions is that many of them also exalt unscriptural doctrines, making their focus on the KJV only of none effect! They remind me of Martin Luther, who, though he correctly withdrew from and labeled the RCC and the popes "Babylon the Great Mother of Harlots" and the antichristian "man" of sin, was himself a heretic who taught OSAS, and that we should "sin vigorously" and who hated the book of James because it denied his ungodly doctrine of antinomianism. He also rejected Hebrews, Esther, and other New Testament books such as Revelation! YET EVEN TODAY THIS HERETIC IS ESTEEMED AS A GREAT MAN OF GOD!
Navigator
New member
premise a (the tranlators (sic) of the AKJV were very knowledgeable) - is refuted by premise c (we do not know much about the men...)
the value statement in premise b is very difficult to measure, more so since premise c stated, "we do not know much about the men who translated", ergo, we cannot know who is more knowledgable.. them or todays modern scholars.
Wherefore by their FRUIT ye shall know them.
Check out the mass confusion and antinomianism (lawlessness as in "the man of lawlessness") that has been the fruit of the new versions.
I don't find the churches today worthy of my precious time. I refuse to go sit before a man or a woman and listen to either perverting the gospel.
Check out the mass confusion and antinomianism (lawlessness as in "the man of lawlessness") that has been the fruit of the new versions.
I don't find the churches today worthy of my precious time. I refuse to go sit before a man or a woman and listen to either perverting the gospel.
Last edited:
"More so than todays modern day scholars."
Dr. B. I would have to disagree with this statement of yours, and i would have to concur with Navigator. You should try to find a copy of "A literary history of the Bible" By Geddes Mac Gregor. Abington press 1968. Although he is for modern scholarship, he does a good job on telling us about the King James translators. Although he editorializes in places.
They were men of great scholarship and even by todays standards Hebraic scholars are impressed. They had a fantastic library of Hebrew dictionaries and interpretation rules.
I think that todays Scholars are good at what they do, but do not employ as many rules of interpretation as those of the KJ committee did. I would say as with everything else there were some that were better and some that were not as those scholars of today.
The problem we have here is the idea that modern scholarship MUST produce a better translation, but this is blatantly a false idea. With that as a standard Macro-evolution would be true, but we know that it isn't..Another problem is the edited Texts that they use to translate from. You see if you believe that God just threw his word out there and left it to man, this would be a good idea, but God didn't do that, he stated that he was going to be active in his word's disimination to man when he stated that he was going to preserve it. When what you are translating is flawed how can you get a good translation?
There is a lot of false information out there on both sides, the only way to come to the truth is to dispell the false, but actually, that won't help come to the truth either for only the Holy Spirit can guide man into all truth. What I mean by that is if both sides were to lay the true evidence side by side, you would have to lean on you own understanding to weigh it, so let's say the man centered scholarship side had a slight lead, it would still be the Holy Spirit that could outgun the scholarship side. I probably am not stating that last sentence correctly, but I hope you get the gist.
Last night I had about 1.5 hours worth of study just go up in flames refuting Jaltus on many of the false statements that he made throughout his presentations, BLASTED MS WINDOWS.
Things like the LXX that is the oldest found containing the Apocrapha AND the New Testament. The fact that it was an invention by the Diest Origen, and the other LXX that he states exists are just copies of Origen's. The fact that a historian might have stated that there was an LXX is not proof that there was. Esp. since the historian wrote about it over 200 years AFTER Jesus Died.
And even if there was, that blows his position that a translation is inspired because it is "quoted" by the writers of the NT and Christ himself. (This is not a support for the LXX technically, as I believe that the LXX quoted them, and not the other way around).
Dr. B. I would have to disagree with this statement of yours, and i would have to concur with Navigator. You should try to find a copy of "A literary history of the Bible" By Geddes Mac Gregor. Abington press 1968. Although he is for modern scholarship, he does a good job on telling us about the King James translators. Although he editorializes in places.
They were men of great scholarship and even by todays standards Hebraic scholars are impressed. They had a fantastic library of Hebrew dictionaries and interpretation rules.
I think that todays Scholars are good at what they do, but do not employ as many rules of interpretation as those of the KJ committee did. I would say as with everything else there were some that were better and some that were not as those scholars of today.
The problem we have here is the idea that modern scholarship MUST produce a better translation, but this is blatantly a false idea. With that as a standard Macro-evolution would be true, but we know that it isn't..Another problem is the edited Texts that they use to translate from. You see if you believe that God just threw his word out there and left it to man, this would be a good idea, but God didn't do that, he stated that he was going to be active in his word's disimination to man when he stated that he was going to preserve it. When what you are translating is flawed how can you get a good translation?
There is a lot of false information out there on both sides, the only way to come to the truth is to dispell the false, but actually, that won't help come to the truth either for only the Holy Spirit can guide man into all truth. What I mean by that is if both sides were to lay the true evidence side by side, you would have to lean on you own understanding to weigh it, so let's say the man centered scholarship side had a slight lead, it would still be the Holy Spirit that could outgun the scholarship side. I probably am not stating that last sentence correctly, but I hope you get the gist.
Last night I had about 1.5 hours worth of study just go up in flames refuting Jaltus on many of the false statements that he made throughout his presentations, BLASTED MS WINDOWS.
Things like the LXX that is the oldest found containing the Apocrapha AND the New Testament. The fact that it was an invention by the Diest Origen, and the other LXX that he states exists are just copies of Origen's. The fact that a historian might have stated that there was an LXX is not proof that there was. Esp. since the historian wrote about it over 200 years AFTER Jesus Died.
And even if there was, that blows his position that a translation is inspired because it is "quoted" by the writers of the NT and Christ himself. (This is not a support for the LXX technically, as I believe that the LXX quoted them, and not the other way around).
Explosived
New member
original text?
original text?
Looks like Jaltus got caught with his critical apparatus down!
Is he lying?
original text?
Looks like Jaltus got caught with his critical apparatus down!
Is he lying?
Huldrych
New member
Just north of the grand metropolis of Delta Junction, where they're putting in the test bed for the national missile defense system.
I've been to Anchorage once (I'm entering into my third winter here), but I'm more familiar with points between Delta and Fairbanks.
Blessings,
jth
themuzicman
Well-known member
How is saying that "only the originals are inspired" lying?
So they dont' exist anymore. Big deal. That just means we have to do some work to figure out what the original was.
That doesn't mean that he's lying. It just means that he has a good grasp on what the bible says about itself.
Michael
So they dont' exist anymore. Big deal. That just means we have to do some work to figure out what the original was.
That doesn't mean that he's lying. It just means that he has a good grasp on what the bible says about itself.
Michael
Last edited:
- Status