Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

brandplucked

New member
The King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God.

The King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God.

brandplucked posted the first post in round 3.
He used only 5 of the 48 hours allotted to him to formulate a response.

Is he that confident in his ability to provide both compelling answers and devastating questions?

Hi go. I am confident that neither Bob Enyart nor Will Duffy will EVER actually answer the question I keep asking them. They will never tell us what is this perfect and inerrant words of God Bible is, because neither one of them actually believes such a thing exists.

Most here don't either. So some take the view that there is no need for an inerrant Bible or you (like Bob and Will) simply dodge the question and ramble on and on about "the perfect word of God" or the anemic and unidentified "robust message" without ever telling us what it is or where we can get a copy of it.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
I'll answer you when you give me a straight yes/no answer to my previous questions instead of beating about the bush. Quid pro quo. I'm not here to be made a fool of.

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...)

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

Brother Vinny

Active member
Passages like 2 Tim. 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 3:2, 15-16, etc., lead me to believe a complete canon existed in the hands of Paul, Peter et al (I place an early writing of those writings some hold as having been written post 70AD).

How is this possible? Neither Paul nor Peter could've had a complete canon at the time of these writings because both Peter and Paul were busy composing books that went into the canon. It's like in Spaceballs where the consult the videotape of Space balls to find out what happens next.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
First off; get well soon.

Second, I did answer that; I believe someone else asked when I answered. Passages like 2 Tim. 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 3:2, 15-16, etc., lead me to believe a complete canon existed in the hands of Paul, Peter et al (I place an early writing of those writings some hold as having been written post 70AD).

I also believe that there have always been "faithful men" who had copies of the writings. I also basically concur with Bryan Ross of the Grace History Project (google that if you are curious) on much of the work he has done in tracing all that out.

As for attempting to make you a fool. That is your usual reading into another's words; I know I do not set out to make anyone out a fool, as I can only keep myself from learning what ever someone might contribute, regardless of who they are; be they humble, dogmatic, arrogant, seemingly clueless, or apparantly very knowledgeable.

I asked you in earnest; aware, in fact, you'd make it some issue about you but took the gamble anyway because I actually want to know your thoughts on that. If its a problem; ignore my request; I'm certain I won't lose any sleep over it. Likewise with whatever problem you might have with any of my answer herein. Again, get well soon.

Thanks for your well wishes. I am a bit sore. Should be ok within the week.
So I take it this means no, you don't support him.
Thanks for confirming that.
I'll respond to your earlier question when I have a little more time.
 

1Way1Truth1Life

New member
I use the NIV Study bible as my main study bible for reading. For a period of time I switched to the KJB a few years back. I have also studied the Koine Greek and its textual history for years and consult the original language for greater understanding when needing clarity on passages and meanings of words. I also reference other translations such as the NASB, ESV, Young's, and KJV.

Then God had me switch back to the NIV and even use the latest edition. I tried to stick with the KJV but God said, no use the NIV. During this time i sat under a KJO type pastor, that God confirmed was anointed by the Holy Spirit, for years. He would rail against the NIV. But yet when others asked him questions about meanings of passages he would give answers that supported the NIV translation over the KJV/NKJV. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Even the Holy Spirit spoke through him that he was wrong about KJO.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Hi go. I am confident that neither Bob Enyart nor Will Duffy will EVER actually answer the question I keep asking them. They will never tell us what is this perfect and inerrant words of God Bible is, because neither one of them actually believes such a thing exists.

Most here don't either. So some take the view that there is no need for an inerrant Bible or you (like Bob and Will) simply dodge the question and ramble on and on about "the perfect word of God" or the anemic and unidentified "robust message" without ever telling us what it is or where we can get a copy of it.
you-keep-using-that-word-meme.jpg
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Hi go. I am confident that neither Bob Enyart nor Will Duffy will EVER actually answer the question I keep asking them. They will never tell us what is this perfect and inerrant words of God Bible is, because neither one of them actually believes such a thing exists.

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

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Passages like 2 Tim. 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 3:2, 15-16, etc., lead me to believe a complete canon existed in the hands of Paul, Peter et al

You do know that would place Revelation as written before Paul's death?

(I place an early writing of those writings some hold as having been written post 70AD).

Hey we agree.

I believe everything in the NT was written before 70AD
 
Last edited:

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
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.

There is absolutely no evidence any of the gospels were written contemporaneously. Most scholars are in agreement the exact opposite's actually the case.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Daniel 6:4 (NKJV)

Who are the satraps in Pittsburgh?

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....
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
There is absolutely no evidence any of the gospels were written contemporaneously.

There is no evidence they were not.

Most scholars are in agreement the exact opposite's actually the case.

Yes, I know.

"Scholars" claim a lot of things. However, most scholars can't even show who wrote the gospel of John, which John it was, and when it was written.

All they basically do is give theories.

I could say John the Disciple wrote it, kept a log each day, finished it in 32AD, and my theory would be just as valid as all the other theories.
 

tetelestai

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

Just because you guys pick a Bible version and say it's inerrant, and claim all the others are fakes, doesn't prove the one you picked is inerrant.

BTW, please tell us which KJV it is that you have picked as inerrant.?
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830

We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

1857: “The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted...” (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).



1882: “I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED...” (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).

1890: The Supreme Court said, “…the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects…” (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).

1897: "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers hands for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version. It had come to have all the significance of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, and they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called the best translation in the world, and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...(Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.)


In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, “I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)


Commenting on the KJV Bible in 1922 William L. Phelps, Professor of English Literature at Yale, wrote, “The Elizabethan period—a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642—is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature.... the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorised Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611.... the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the [KJV] Bible. WE ANGLO-SAXONS HAVE A BETTER BIBLE THAN THE FRENCH OR THE GERMANS OR THE ITALIANS OR THE SPANISH; OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS; THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WAS INSPIRED." (Human Nature in The Bible, William Lyon Phelps, 1922, pp. 10, 11)




1945: President Harry S. Truman said, “THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE BEST THERE IS OR EVER HAS BEEN OR WILL BE, and you get a bunch of college professors spending years working on it, and all they do is take the poetry out of it.”
(President Harry S. Truman, quoted in, Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, 1985)

1946: “When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering [saying, 'that word means'], and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. WE BELIEVE THAT GOD OVERRULED HIS GIFT OF THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611, SO THAT IN IT WE HAVE THE VERY WORD OF GOD." (Le Baron Wilmont Kinney, Acres of Rubies, Loizeaux, 1946)

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 wouldn't myself make any issue of whether KJVOnlyism existed before a certain date or not so I don't have a problem with that. But All you can do is to interpret history after the event. What you can't do is to show that there was any explicit expectation, prior to the KJV, that the KJV itself would be produced. Such as for example some prophecy that one day such a translation would be made. All you have is looking back and reinterpreting events. Any old Tom, Dick or Harry can do that.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
There is no evidence they were not.



Yes, I know.

"Scholars" claim a lot of things. However, most scholars can't even show who wrote the gospel of John, which John it was, and when it was written.

All they basically do is give theories.

I could say John the Disciple wrote it, kept a log each day, finished it in 32AD, and my theory would be just as valid as all the other theories.

Well no, it wouldn't. The text itself gives zero indication it was a contemporaneous account (and indeed indicates the opposite). So, you can either keep on being contrary for its own sake or just admit what literally everyone else seems to think. Your call, buddy ruff.
 
Top