Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[tetelestai]

The book of 2 Esdras

Not to mention the book of Jasher:

(Joshua 10:13 KJV) And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? ...

(2 Sam 1:18 KJV) (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

 

[tetelestai]

Speaking of the Book of Jasher, we find the Apostle Paul referencing it:

Paul said the following:

(2 Tim 3:8 KJV) Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

Now, compare to the Book of Jasher:

(Jasher 79:27) "And when they had gone Pharaoh sent for Balaam the magician and to Jannes and Jambres his sons, and to all the magicians and conjurors and counsellors which belonged to the king, and they all came and sat before the king."

 

[Right Divider]

What are the other books in the current Bible that Jesus did not quote from?
Are you willing to remove them from the Bible because Jesus didn't quote from them?

So many people on TOL use this type of fallacious logic.

You were clearly trying to validate those bogus books by associating them with other valid books.

No, we do not need to remove the other books that Jesus did not quote from. But this does NOT mean that we need to INCLUDE the ones that He did NOT quote from simply because someone put them together in THAT Latin translation.

 

[Nick M]

There really is no such thing as a "word for word" translation.

I think that is called mechanical translation, and is usually somewhat bizarre. Like google translate.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So many people on TOL use this type of fallacious logic.

You were clearly trying to validate those bogus books by associating them with other valid books.

No, I was countering your strawman argument that claimed that the book of 2 Esdras was no more trustworthy than the stories your grandpa told by showing that the book of 2 Esdras had been part of the Bible since before the time of Jesus.

No, we do not need to remove the other books that Jesus did not quote from. But this does NOT mean that we need to INCLUDE the ones that He did NOT quote from simply because someone put them together in THAT Latin translation.

Are you talking about the books that were in the Greek translation long before the Latin translation and were included in the 1611 KJV because of that?
Those are the books I am talking about.

 

[ddevonb]

The actual debate isn't that interesting, and it isn't going to resolve anything.
What is interesting to me is the attitude of each side.


1. KJB- we want there to be a perfect word of God available, we want a book that we can believe no matter what, even when we don't understand it. We want to be under it's authority.

2. Non KJB- in most cases, they do not really want there to be a perfect word of God available. They are happy with a "reasonably accurate" account, and with hundreds of versions that capture "the main message". But they want the lee way to be able to dabble with all versions and be their own authority to some degree.


If a gun was to your head, and you had to know what God said on a particular matter, where would you turn?

That is a misrepresentation of the non-KJB only position. Of course we would love for there to be a perfect translation to be available, but the Bible gives us no reason to believe one would exist and God doesn't need one to exist to get His the truth of His message to us.
We certainly don't want to dabble in all versions and be our own authority. We clearly believe that some versions are better than others and it is good to use the best one available. We just don't agree that there is a perfect translation in existence or that there has ever been a perfect translation from one language to another of any book in history.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am sure brother Bob Enyart is going to bring up this so called Greek Septuagint thing. This "Jesus and the apostle's quoted from the LXX" has got to be one of the biggest lies the bible agnostics have bought into.

Surely everyone knows that Jesus actually quoted from the Hebrew (Masoretic text, perhaps?) scriptures available and the writers copied the quotes from the Septuagint when they wrote in Greek to make sure they translated the quotes correctly, don't they?

 

[tetelestai]

Another example why the KJV isn't a good Bible for today.

(Rom 9:25 KJV) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

"Osee" is used in the KJV. It is the result of transliterating a Hebrew word from Greek to English.

The Hebrew word is "Hosea".

Every modern Bible version uses "Hosea".

The quote is from the book of Hosea.

Example:

(Rom 9:25 NIV) As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

Why would I want to read a Bible that uses the word "Osee", when it clearly is supposed to be "Hosea"?

There is no book in the Old Testament called "Osee".

 

[ddevonb]

Ive looked at the objections and found them all wanting. Both the kjv and the nkjv are translated into english from the same manuscripts.

I would clarify that somewhat. They both utilized the same sources except that the Bishops's Bible was to be the English standard mostly followed in producing the JKV.

The Bishop's Bible was not used in any way for the NKJV translation.

 

[ddevonb]

If God preserves His infallible word through human translators, why does he allow it to be corrupted by human printers? Maybe he meant for the translators to do all there own printing, but then the translators would be the corrupters for not doing what God told them to do.

How on earth can the KJOs think they can blame away the messed up KJV on the printers? That's just lame.

I was shocked to learn that hand written notes could be printer errors.

 

[ddevonb]

If God preserves His infallible word through human translators, why does he allow it to be corrupted by human printers? Maybe he meant for the translators to do all there own printing, but then the translators would be the corrupters for not doing what God told them to do.

How on earth can the KJOs think they can blame away the messed up KJV on the printers? That's just lame.

e

Bob Enyart also made that point... why would believe God would allow not allow translators errors that only one printer would see, but allow the one printer to make errors that millions would see. It would seem that keeping one printer without error would be much easier than a keeping a whole bunch of translators from making a mistake... yet the proponents of KJO readily accept printer errors.

 

[False Prophet]

If another translation does not support your doctrine, then your doctrine is incorrect!

 

[brandplucked]

Reposting, Will Kinney can you please answer this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel4Truth View Post
Were the KJV translators wrong about this that they stated:
Quote:
Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.


If the answer is yes they were mistaken, then how is it possible to believe they could not have been mistaken in any other part that they translated?[/QUOTE]

Hi Angel. This is one of the quotes James White and other unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible like you take completely out of context.

"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
“Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

As for the Preface to the Reader found in the King James Bible, many anti-KJB folks like to use certain quotes from the KJB translators (usually taken out of context) in an effort to prove that the translators themselves would approve of the multiple, conflicting and contradictory Bible Babble Buffet versions seen on the bible market today.

It should first be pointed out that we do not hold the King James Bible translators as our final authority. Neither their Prefatory remarks, nor their individual or collective theology (though I personally agree with much of it) nor their personal lives nor opinions form any part of our Final Written Authority.

They were not always right in what they said or did, just as king David, Solomon, Peter, Paul or John were not always right in what they did or thought. They were sinful and imperfect men, but they were all God fearing, blood bought children of God who believed they were handling the very words of the living God.

It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God. If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with! Think about it.


They ask: “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church.

The whole quote in context is this. “Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God.”

It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until 1610, some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."

Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions. Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368

Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).

“Men of our profession” refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the “theirs” refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding “the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined” that “all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR” (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)

The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's 1525, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587 and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God."

Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.”

In another part they stated: "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.

The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible.

The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new “Catholic” bible versions. See "Undeniable Proof the NIV, NASB, ESV are the new 'Catholic' versions" here- Please read both parts

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

All of grace, believing The Book,

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why did God quit preserving His word? We don't speak like that any more. Word meanings have changed. Why did God quit preserving His word?

 

[patrick jane]

It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God. If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with! Think about it.

That is exactly it, in a nutshell. Thanks Mr. Kinney, I noticed the differences between KJV and the babble books long ago. I notice even more now at this stage of life. :rapture:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel4Truth View Post
Were the KJV translators wrong about this that they stated:
Quote:
Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.


If the answer is yes they were mistaken, then how is it possible to believe they could not have been mistaken in any other part that they translated?

Hi Angel. This is one of the quotes James White and other unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible like you take completely out of context.

Please state specifically how its out of context to say that even the meanest translation of the word of God, IS the word of God when that is exactly what they said?

I quoted verbatim from the preface of the 1611 king james bible. Nothing was added by me or taken from context.

It should first be pointed out that we do not hold the King James Bible translators as our final authority. Neither their Prefatory remarks, nor their individual or collective theology (though I personally agree with much of it) nor their personal lives nor opinions form any part of our Final Written Authority.

Which isnt the question and now you just said that their remarks do not form any part of your authority, yet also maintain when they translate themselves as they state they clearly do, that they are authoritative, when they themselves agree they are not and agree they take some liberty and note it in the margins (that you have also denied exist and are mere printer errors):

From the translators:

it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment … in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? … They that are wise, had rather have their judments at libery in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

They were not always right in what they said or did, just as king David, Solomon, Peter, Paul or John were not always right in what they did or thought. They were sinful and imperfect men, but they were all God fearing, blood bought children of God who believed they were handling the very words of the living God.

Why do you put the kjv translators on par with those directly given the word of God?

It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God. If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with! Think about it.

So your position is that God made the KJV translators on par with those who were given His word directly - was unable to do so before 1611, and was unable to keep mere men from creating the same printer errors that were found in the translators own notes?

Think about that.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I would clarify that somewhat. They both utilized the same sources except that the Bishops's Bible was to be the English standard mostly followed in producing the JKV.

The Bishop's Bible was not used in any way for the NKJV translation.

I agree, when i used the term manuscripts, i should have been more specific in my meaning, i was referring to the original language manuscripts there - not other english translations.

 

[heir]

It's possible.

There is evidence for it, and against. I have decided that I am going to believe that God preserved his words perfectly, and that I have it.
And I'm going to believe what I read. That's all anyone of us can do. It is called faith.

Amen!

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Proverbs 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.


...

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

 

[heir]

It's possible.

There is evidence for it, and against. I have decided that I am going to believe that God preserved his words perfectly, and that I have it.
And I'm going to believe what I read. That's all anyone of us can do. It is called faith.

I choose to believe what saith the scripture about itself including that the words of the Lord ARE pure and that all scripture IS given by inspiration of God.

I am not at the mercy of religious men who allegedly have studied the "the Greek" and Hebrew to tell me the scripture doesn't mean what it says so they can work their agenda. I can 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV because I can believe God's every word in English!

 

[Angel4Truth]

I was shocked to learn that hand written notes could be printer errors.

Same here.