KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no infalible Bible

B.E.has no infalible Bible

3. I found that there are mythical creatures in KJV: unicorns an satyrs. It also mentions dragons, but I'm not sure that they're not leftover dinosaurs.

......................
Your third question comes up quite a bit.
The Bible does not say that they are mythological creatures.This belief is only from pagan sources.Many try to read pagan definitions into the text of the Holy Bible.But what we must do is go always to the words of God,for the propper biblical definition of any term or word.Our Holy Bible has a built-in Bible dictionary,right in its own text.In fact most of the translators would never use any dictionary of any kind,only Bibles and versions,Greek and Hebrew.They may have gone to the Dictionaries from time to time,but never used them as their final authority.This is in sharp contrast today.All lexicons and Bible dictionaries include,now,pagan definitions.So one gets a lot of contradictions here and there,if one time you go by one lexicon,and then the next time just the Bible definition,because of overwhelming evidence that forces the translator to use the Bible definition.
Just look up those animals etc.and look at the definitions the Bible gives.That is your guide line.Not some compromized lexicon from some liberal or unsaved scholar.

You can find plenty of sites that answer these easy questions,once you believe the Bible,and use it as your sole source of matters of faith and practice.

 

[MartianManhuntr]

3. I found that there are mythical creatures in KJV: unicorns an satyrs. It also mentions dragons, but I'm not sure that they're not leftover dinosaurs.

Unicorns:

Ever heard of the elasmotherium? A giant "prehistoric" onehorned rhinocerus whose horn was not composed of compacted hair like mordern rhinos but was rather made of bone. Obviously this thing is now extinct. Why doesn't anyone ever think of looking at extinct animals before saying the KJV is in error?

Satyrs:

Isn't it interesting that the Hebrew behind the KJV's word "Satyrs" in Isa 13:21 is sa'iyr? Don't see a resemblance do you? Looks like exactly the same word except for the t vs the ', doesn't it? In other words, it looks like transliteration (changing the characters of a word from one language to another to keep the basic pronunciation intact). Also, it should be noted that everyone knows a Satyr in Greek mythology is a half-goat-half-man creature. Well, the Hebrew sa'iyr has some reference to a goat as well, but based on the context of the verse doesn't seem to merely be a regular old goat. The dumbed-down Internet version of the Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon says of the word "Sa`iyr" that "satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30)" http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08163&version=kjv

In other words, to put it much more simply, the Greek myth of a half-man-half-goat-demon-creature was most likely borrowed by the Greeks from the book of Isaiah, and the very Greek word Satyr no doubt is derived from the Hebrew word Sa`iyr, as many things were borrowed by the Greeks from Holy Writ. The Titans, no doubt, were borrowed from Genesis 6, etc. To see more along that line, read Justin Martyr's First Apology where he lists many things that the Greeks borrowed from Scripture.

Dragons:

Dinosaurs sounds good enough to me. I would note that based on their descriptions, the Leviathan and Behemoth in the book of Job sound very much like a plesiosaur and wooly-mammoth to me.

 

[MartianManhuntr]

Free moral agency necessitates that some of the future is open, unsettled, and unknowable except as a possibility before it becomes a certainty/actuality.

I don't see how you can arrive at that. Why couldn't an infinite and almighty God know exactly what we are going to do and yet still allow us to do it? Whether he knows or not has no bearing on our free-will. Your statement appears the same as to say "if God knew, he would be forced to intervene because his will is so weak that he couldn't stop himself from so doing."

 

[godrulz]

I don't see how you can arrive at that. Why couldn't an infinite and almighty God know exactly what we are going to do and yet still allow us to do it? Whether he knows or not has no bearing on our free-will. Your statement appears the same as to say "if God knew, he would be forced to intervene because his will is so weak that he couldn't stop himself from so doing."

This is a complex subject that involves predestination, decrees, determinism, the nature of time/eternity/free will, etc.

The simple foreknowledge view of Arminianism combined with the platonic 'eternal now' view does not see a logical problem either. C.S. Lewis spouted it without thinking it through critically. The downside is that if something is known as a certainty, there is no possibility of it being any different. God only knows truthful statements. If He knew I would die in a car accident even before I was born, there would be no way for things to be different. You think He did not cause the car accident, but how can He 'see' into the future when there is nothing there to see? It is not a deficiency in infinite omniscience to not know a nothing. The future is simply not there yet to know. Choices have not been made. Until they are made, it could be A or B. There is no way of knowing trillions of years ago which way a free moral agent would chose on many mundane and moral issues. Proximal knowledge and perfect knowledge of past and present increases the probability of God knowing what we might chose in any given circumstance. It still does not make the choice fatalistic. God knows the possible choices. I could chose, in the last second, to do something totally out of character. Until the choice is made, the actuality is not an object of certain knowledge.

Modal logic and quantum mechanics are also relevant to this discussion. Necessities, contingencies, certainties, freedom, etc. must be understood lest we believe something incoherent. You do not see it yet, but trust me. After 25 years of wrestling with this, I am convinced that simple foreknowledge of future contingencies does not compute. Saying God is infinite or outside time (another fallacy) does not resolve the biblical, philosophical, logical issues relating to predestination, foreknowledge, sovereignty, and free will.

Calvinism is more logical in that for something to be knowable before it happens, it would have to be decreed and predestined. The downside is that this logically negates libertarian free will in favor of determinism.

Open Theism, as an alternative, is less problematic than the other views.

 

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no pure Bible

B.E.has no pure Bible

BINGO!

................
B.E.has No pure Bible.
B.E.has no infalible Bible.
B.E.has no purified Bible.
B.E.has no inspired Bible.
B.E.has no errorless Bible.
B.E.has no immutable Bible.
B.E.has no preserved Bible.
B.E. has no impecable Bible.
B.E.has no enduring Bible.
B.E.has no true Bible.

 

[Peter A V]

B.E.speaks out against the Holy Bible?

B.E.speaks out against the Holy Bible?

And with this thread title as it was, Bob Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant, the average born-again Christian *WHO AGREES WITH ME* against KJOnly, will see that thread title, and just that may prompt him to leave the forum, *EVEN THOUGH HE ACTUALLY AGREES WITH ME AGAINST KJONLY*, and he would then never even learn what your actual allegation against me is. -Bob

................
Concerning the infalibility of the Bible,you seem to make a strong argument against your believing that there is such a thing.Whats up with that?
You may do great work for the LORD,but you have done a misfire here,in a big way.

 

[godrulz]

................
B.E.has No pure Bible.
B.E.has no infalible Bible.
B.E.has no purified Bible.
B.E.has no inspired Bible.
B.E.has no errorless Bible.
B.E.has no immutable Bible.
B.E.has no preserved Bible.
B.E. has no impecable Bible.
B.E.has no enduring Bible.
B.E.has no true Bible.

Then neither do you, objectively.

What we do have is a wealth of very good MSS evidence and centuries of textual criticism to give us very solid Scripture that we can call the Word of God. Minor variants do not change any significant doctrinal passage. The Bible should be in the vernacular of the people and culture. Archaic English is a translation barrier. KJV-only is simply a divisive, minor heresy. Quit wasting our time and go preach Christ crucified, risen from the dead to the lost masses.

 

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no true Bible

B.E.has no true Bible

4. One word: "Easter". In Acts 12:4, KJV uses the word "Easter" and not Passover. ... Why would God inspire the translators to use a pagan goddess' name and not the name of the festival He was familiar with?

..................
There are a couple of answers to that.
I use this one,that seems to answer the question as best as I can be taught.
First,take a look at verse 3.
:3And because he saw it pleased the Jews,he proceeded further to take Peter also.[Then were the days of unleavened bread.]
Now we go to the Old Testament;Lev 23:5
:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Now watch this.
:6 And on the 15th day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD:seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

So when Herod was going to wait till after Easter,it was not the passover,but as many say a pagan ritual that Herod would be familiar with.
The passover was one day,on the 14th.
The feast of unleavened bread was for the 7 following days.
So here is the only place where Easter is legitimate.

Another senario is that the early church had already adopted the term Easter for their own celebration at this time.
Hope this helps you out .
Relenless for the LORD Jesus,
Peter Fuhrman

 

[Rimi]

MartianManhuntr wrote:

Having said that, I provide one example of the 1st type of misunderstanding--a misunderstanding of Jacobian English. In Acts 12:4 the KJV has the word "Easter." Many KJVO's are adamant that the word there means something different than the word "Passover," but they are dead wrong. In pre-Tyndale English the word "Passover" did not exist, and therefore "Easter" was used to represent the Jewish feast which in Hebrew is called "Pesach." Tyndale employed the word "Easter" in Exodus 12 and all other passages dealing with the Jewish feast which in Hebrew is called "Pesach." After a while Tyndale decided to translate more literally, and began to revise his translation replacing "Easter" with "Passover."

Tyndale decided to translate more literally . . . and KJV works off of his stuff . . . so, he and they managed to get every Pecach/Pascha translated properly except one. Why didn't God catch this?

In the year 1611 the English language was switching over from the term "Easter" to the term "Passover." The switchover, however, was not complete. As a result, the then obsolete word "Easter" (which had the EXACT same meaning as "Passover") made its way into the text just one time.

I have no doubt that Easter was used in place of Pascha by Gentiles, specifically the RCC, much like they did with Halloween as early as 800AD. You point out that Tyndale went back to be more literate . . . were his first attempted Divinely inspired or was God holding out for the KJV translators?

So, although the KJV says "Easter" in Acts 12:4 it is not making reference to any sort of Pagan bunny worshipping festival. "Easter" at that time meant the exact same thing as "Passover." Over time, however, the word "Easter" has become disassociated with "Passover" and has come to be thought of as a festival all its own. Therefore, those who are ignorant of this think they have found an error. The error, however, is not in the KJV nor is it the fault of the KJV translators. The error is in the critics' brains and is the fault of their faulty understanding of their own English language.

No, they're not referring to the actually festival for Easter, but they are calling Pascha was it was then known as in the English-speaking world, Easter. Easter is STILL to this day associated with Passover, and if you're not sure about that go to a Hallmark store in March/April and check it out. The error is in your arrogance to admit that the translators used the word Easter because that's what they were used to calling that time of year. It's a very simple thing.

 

[silverkz]

Interesting

Interesting

Mark, according to your assertion, there was no Bible in Europe between about 420 and 1611.




****************

Read carefully Justin, I said God uses one LANGUAGE at a time. First Hebrew, then Greek, now English.



Yes, frankly. If the translators are guided from mistakes, and the printers are not, then God is shown as either inconsistant or lacking in power and authority.

**************

You can feel that way. It seems to me God has done a pretty good job when I can go to a store pick up any AV and it matches any other AV that you buy at your local store.





Were I interested in becoming a Christian again, I could not ask you how to do so. I prefer to worship God. Not a book.

*********************

Ahh, now that is intersting! IF .... you were born again....that is: IF you repented of your sin and received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.....THEN you ARE a Christian. This cannot be undone. You cannot go back into your mother's womb and be unborn. Neither can you go back to being unborn in the Spirit....It is a one time for all eternity event. So then IF and it all depends on *IF* you confessed Jesus as your Lord THEN no matter what you say, what you do, what you think, what others tell you (and that includes Satan, and your local pastor), you are saved, you are a Christian.



Justin

On the other hand, if you threw that tidbit about being a "Christian again" just for curiosity or info, then you have your answer. Sounds to me you're seeking. Otherwise why waste your time here?


Mark

 

[Rimi]

Peter A V wrote:

3. I found that there are mythical creatures in KJV: unicorns an satyrs. It also mentions dragons, but I'm not sure that they're not leftover dinosaurs.
......................
Your third question comes up quite a bit.
The Bible does not say that they are mythological creatures.

I didn't say it does. But the translated words are of mythological creatures, as they are translated.

This belief is only from pagan sources.Many try to read pagan definitions into the text of the Holy Bible.But what we must do is go always to the words of God,for the propper biblical definition of any term or word.Our Holy Bible has a built-in Bible dictionary,right in its own text.In fact most of the translators would never use any dictionary of any kind,only Bibles and versions,Greek and Hebrew.They may have gone to the Dictionaries from time to time,but never used them as their final authority.This is in sharp contrast today.All lexicons and Bible dictionaries include,now,pagan definitions.So one gets a lot of contradictions here and there,if one time you go by one lexicon,and then the next time just the Bible definition,because of overwhelming evidence that forces the translator to use the Bible definition.

Actually, I use Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which is based solely on the KJB.

dragon (8577) tanniym; intens. from the same as 8565k; a marine or land monster, i.e., sea-serpent or jackal: --dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.
tan 8565, from an unused root prob. mean. to elongate; a monster (as preternaturally formed), i.e., a sea-serpent (or other huge marine animal); also a jackal (or other hideous land animal): -dragon, whale.

satyr (8163) saiyr or sair; from 8175; shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by anal. a faun: -devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.
sa'ar (8175), a prim. root; to storm; by impl to shiver, i.e., fear: -- be (horribly) afraid, fear, hurl as a storm, be tempestuous, come like (take away as with) a whirlwind.

unicorn (7214) re'em, re'eym, reym, rem; from 7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness): --unicorn.
ra'am (7213); a prim. root; to rise: -- be lifted up.


So, dragon could've been jackal (a creature which we know to exist); satyr could've been goat or devil; unicorn could've been bull. Yet the translators used the words they used. How you get unicorn from bull I'll never know.

Just look up those animals etc.and look at the definitions the Bible gives.That is your guide line.Not some compromized lexicon from some liberal or unsaved scholar.

The Strong's Conconcordance was not compiled by a liberal but a noted linguist and theologian. Seemed he wouldn't change the bible so he just put in the actual meanings of those words and included what the translators had.

You can find plenty of sites that answer these easy questions,once you believe the Bible,and use it as your sole source of matters of faith and practice.

You know what you've just said? You've just said that I can only get these questions answered once I believe the KJV. But how can I believe unless the questions are answered first, which you've not done adequately, logically and/or honestly.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

How you get unicorn from bull I'll never know.

Look at a bull or a goat in profile: one horn hides the other, and it looks like there's only one horn.

Justin

 

[Rimi]

MartianManhuntr wrote:

Unicorns:

Ever heard of the elasmotherium? A giant "prehistoric" onehorned rhinocerus whose horn was not composed of compacted hair like mordern rhinos but was rather made of bone. Obviously this thing is now extinct. Why doesn't anyone ever think of looking at extinct animals before saying the KJV is in error?

Get a Strong's Concordance.

Satyrs:

Isn't it interesting that the Hebrew behind the KJV's word "Satyrs" in Isa 13:21 is sa'iyr? Don't see a resemblance do you? Looks like exactly the same word except for the t vs the ', doesn't it? In other words, it looks like transliteration (changing the characters of a word from one language to another to keep the basic pronunciation intact).

But if the word doesn't not MEAN satyr (a mythological creature, surely) (get a Concordance), then why didn't translators use one of the other options??

Also, it should be noted that everyone knows a Satyr in Greek mythology is a half-goat-half-man creature. Well, the Hebrew sa'iyr has some reference to a goat as well, but based on the context of the verse doesn't seem to merely be a regular old goat. The dumbed-down Internet version of the Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon says of the word "Sa`iyr" that "satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30)" http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08163&version=kjv

Yeah, it's better to use the word for something that doesn't even exist than to use a word or phrase for something that did/does (animals gone nuts). This is whacked.

Dragons:

Dinosaurs sounds good enough to me. I would note that based on their descriptions, the Leviathan and Behemoth in the book of Job sound very much like a plesiosaur and wooly-mammoth to me.

While I agree that this very well could be a Meat-o-sauras, we're talking translation. But if a linguist who is much better able to define these words, oh, say, like Dr. Strong, says the word means jackal, why, oh, why couldn't the translators just use that. Guess your problem is with Dr. Strong at this point, because he's the one making is difficult to believe your stance.

 

[Rimi]

Peter A V wrote:

There are a couple of answers to that.
I use this one,that seems to answer the question as best as I can be taught.
First,take a look at verse 3.
:3And because he saw it pleased the Jews,he proceeded further to take Peter also.[Then were the days of unleavened bread.]
Now we go to the Old Testament;Lev 23:5
:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Now watch this.
:6 And on the 15th day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD:seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

So when Herod was going to wait till after Easter,it was not the passover,but as many say a pagan ritual that Herod would be familiar with.
The passover was one day,on the 14th.
The feast of unleavened bread was for the 7 following days.
So here is the only place where Easter is legitimate.

So, the Greek manuscript they used was wrong in using Pascha and the translators corrected it. OK.

Another senario is that the early church had already adopted the term Easter for their own celebration at this time.
Hope this helps you out .
Relenless for the LORD Jesus,
Peter Fuhrman

IF that were so, then the Greek transcript would NOT have been Pascha (Greek for Pecach) it would've been Easter or Ostern or whatever the heck the derivatives of that word are. But, alas, the word WAS Pascha in the Greek and the KJV translators chose Eastern instead of Passover due to their own experience and not because of an actual translation.

 

[Rimi]

Look at a bull or a goat in profile: one horn hides the other, and it looks like there's only one horn.

Justin

A "walkin'-like-an-Egyptian" goat . . . . . I think about it.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Mark,

First and foremost, please read this tutorial on the use of quote tags. The way you've formatted your reply is quite difficult to read.

Read carefully Justin, I said God uses one LANGUAGE at a time. First Hebrew, then Greek, now English.

Look at your history, Mark. The primary Bible used in Europe from about 420 (the year of Jerome's death) until the later translations were published was the Latin Vulgate--not the Greek. Therefore--according to your logic--Europe had no Bible between those dates. Actually we need to be a bit more specific: most areas used the Vulgate even after the publication of the AV1611.

You can feel that way. It seems to me God has done a pretty good job when I can go to a store pick up any AV and it matches any other AV that you buy at your local store.

Irrelevant to the point, as it does nothing to explain a grave logical inconsistancy. Was God unable to guide the printers, or simply unwilling?

Ahh, now that is intersting! IF .... you were born again....that is: IF you repented of your sin and received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.....THEN you ARE a Christian. This cannot be undone. You cannot go back into your mother's womb and be unborn. Neither can you go back to being unborn in the Spirit....It is a one time for all eternity event. So then IF and it all depends on *IF* you confessed Jesus as your Lord THEN no matter what you say, what you do, what you think, what others tell you (and that includes Satan, and your local pastor), you are saved, you are a Christian.

On the other hand, if you threw that tidbit about being a "Christian again" just for curiosity or info, then you have your answer. Sounds to me you're seeking. Otherwise why waste your time here?

Yes, I was Born Again. I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. But what of it? I am now Wiccan. Thus you have yet another logical impossibility: either you must discard the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved," or you must discard Gal 5:19-21. More likely, you will place yourself as my Judge, and state that I was not "truly" born again--but this is not the topic at hand.

You have not answered the charge that you are teaching another gospel--Bibliolatry. I would like to hear your response to that charge next.

Justin

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

A "walkin'-like-an-Egyptian" goat . . . . . I think about it.

Now I have that song going through my head. :guitar:

Justin

 

[Rimi]

Now I have that song going through my head. :guitar:

Justin

I do apologize for that, sincerely, but It can NOT be worse than Space People. Ask Jefferson.

 

[Yorzhik]

The two questions are "do you believe God knows the future exhaustively? That God knows every detail of every decision since before time existed?"

That is what He says of Himself in Isaiah 46:9-10 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

Of course, this highlights the very issue at hand. The KJVO's will believe this verse. So also, Received Text onlies like me will believe this verse. Those who believe in no inerrant and inspired Bible, however, will laugh at it and blaspheme.

Thanks. Any other KJOnly people care to answer?

The two questions are "do you believe God knows the future exhaustively? That God knows every detail of every decision since before time existed?"

 

[godrulz]

Thanks. Any other KJOnly people care to answer?

The two questions are "do you believe God knows the future exhaustively? That God knows every detail of every decision since before time existed?"

Is this relevant to the KJV-only debate?