Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[Desert Reign]

The narrative about how the KJB was a product of a multi-staged process until the flawless Cambridge edition was produced is a myth that is imparted to people by revelation and accepted by faith. This is what brandplucked said in the course of the debate"

I don't know about you but this sounds super-spiritual to me, arrogant even. The scriptures he quotes to establish his point have nothing to do with the subject. He just uses them to make his opinions sem more spiritual and to give him a justification for calling everyone who disagrees carnal. You see, really spiritual people believe KJVO. People who read those other versions are carnally minded.

Yup. He can't stop with he thinks his view is right and others are wrong. He has to go down the road of 'you are less spiritual than me' because if he didn't blackmail people emotionally, his belief would get no adherents and would have no backbone. Shame he has to resort to this.

 

[tetelestai]

Please quote me saying that Herod intended to hand him over to the Christians.

Once again, you make no sense.

If Herod intended on handing him over to the Christ rejecting Jews, then why would Herod wait until the Christians were allegedly done celebrating Easter? That has nothing to do with Luke.

First off, you have not one shred of evidence that anyone celebrated Easter on that day, nor do you even know on what day they celebrated it on, if they even celebrated it.

We know for sure the Jews were celebrating Passover, and we know what days they were doing it.

 

[tetelestai]

Yup. He can't stop with he thinks his view is right and others are wrong. He has to go down the road of 'you are less spiritual than me' because if he didn't blackmail people emotionally, his belief would get no adherents and would have no backbone. Shame he has to resort to this.

Exactly.

He calls other bibles satanic.

Yet if you question anything in the KJV, you're called a "bible corrector", and all kinds of other derogatory names.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Exactly.

He calls other bibles satanic.

Yet if you question anything in the KJV, you're called a "bible corrector", and all kinds of other derogatory names.

You have claimed the KJB is without error, can you list the others that we can rely on to be without error?

 

[nikolai_42]

Hey I love the KJV as much as anyone, but come on, since the scriptures Jesus quoted were the Septuagint, and it was the original Church Scripture, and everyone translated the NT from the Greek of various sources, why on earth wouldn't the Septuagint or the Greek Bible be the most inerrant?

Most KJVOists don't believe the Septuagint exists.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hey I love the KJV as much as anyone, but come on, since the scriptures Jesus quoted were the Septuagint, and it was the original Church Scripture, and everyone translated the NT from the Greek of various sources, why on earth wouldn't the Septuagint or the Greek Bible be the most inerrant?

With the Magisterium, we do not need an inerrant Bible. In fact, we'd be better off without any Bible at all, there would be less private interpretation, right?

 

[George Affleck]

It would be interesting to hear what each of the participants in the debate think in regard to Handel's Messiah. It cannot be put in the same class with God-breathed, inerrant scripture but the will to produce it came from somewhere. Was it only his or did God have a hand in it?

To what extent, if any, was Handel inspired to write his composition which survives to bring joy to the hearts of Christians everywhere?

Is it only inspiring to us or was it, to any extent, divinely inspired?

To what extent would any corrected printing errors have on the finished product?

 

[tetelestai]

You have claimed the KJB is without error

What do you consider an error?

Or better yet, what kind of error does it take to make a bible go from inerrant to errant?

Does a spelling error make a bible errant? Grammar error? Anachronism?

If "Joshua" is translated as "Jesus" in one bible, "Joshua" in another bible, and "James" in another bible, are those errors? is only one translation inerrant?

 

[chrysostom]

Jesus built a church
and
it was His church that gave us a bible
so
His church would be inerrant
if
anything is going to be inerrant

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Jesus built a church
and
it was His church that gave us a bible
so
His church would be inerrant
if
anything is going to be inerrant

:chuckle:

 

[brandplucked]

Another Bible Agnostic with his own "opinion"

Another Bible Agnostic with his own "opinion"

The narrative about how the KJB was a product of a multi-staged process until the flawless Cambridge edition was produced is a myth that is imparted to people by revelation and accepted by faith. This is what brandplucked said in the course of the debate"



I don't know about you but this sounds super-spiritual to me, arrogant even. The scriptures he quotes to establish his point have nothing to do with the subject. He just uses them to make his opinions sem more spiritual and to give him a justification for calling everyone who disagrees carnal. You see, really spiritual people believe KJVO. People who read those other versions are carnally minded.

It seems to me that when people in the Bible had divine REVELATIONS God talked to them through dreams, visions, angels or directly. I mean, it's not the same thing if I just happen to hold a strong opinion about something. I believe God does show us things but I would never say with authority "God has showed me something about the Bible itself" unless it is actually written in the Bible.

What I would like to know is, if KJVO doctrine is to be accepted and believed because it is revelation knowledge then through what avenue was this revelation given...and when was it given? I doubt if the men that translated the KJB thought what they did was a work of perfection.

A lot of people have a sense of awe and reverence about the KJB because it has been around a very long time and they have had a lifetime of familiarity with it. I myself grew up reading the KJV and much of what I know by memory is in Old English. I think it is fine that they like it, especially if it motivates them to try and understand it but for people to lay a trip on everyone else, that they are carnally minded because they do not believe KJB is the ONLY perfect word of God is judgmental. You cannot measure a person's spirituality by their stance on this subject.

Hi Shasta. The end result of your opinions and present belief system is that you do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. And if you were honest about (but most bible agnostics and unbelievers in an inerrant Bible are not) you would have to admit that this is true of you.


So I quite understand why you and others who believe (or rather, disbelieve) the way you do, would see someone like me who DOES believe in an inerrant Bible as being arrogant and judgmental. I get that.

This way you can feel better about yourself and and try to justify your own position of unbelief. I see this type of thing all the time.

Hopefully, God will "reveal" to you the absolute truth of the King James Bible, because right now, you don't have nor believe in one that is.

God bless.

 

[GuySmiley]

Hopefully, God will "reveal" to you the absolute truth of the King James Bible, because right now, you don't have nor believe in one that is.

God bless.

God has not revealed to me the absolute truth of the King James Bible. Your list of minor errors in the KJV is making it hard to believe it's the inerrant version. Maybe we are just like the people in 1610, and the inerrant version hasn't been produced yet.

 

[genuineoriginal]

God has not revealed to me the absolute truth of the King James Bible. Your list of minor errors in the KJV is making it hard to believe it's the inerrant version. Maybe we are just like the people in 1610, and the inerrant version hasn't been produced yet.

Maybe you just need to think it through more carefully.

The following approach to the study of the Bible is obviously wrong because it begins with the assumption that there might be errors in the manuscripts and that there is actually a way of determining what the original manuscripts may have said that was different from what the copies say:

_____
A biblical manuscript is any handwritten copy of a portion of the text of the Bible. The word Bible comes from the Greek biblia (books); manuscript comes from Latin manu (hand) and scriptum (written). The original manuscript (the original parchment the author physically wrote on) is called the "autographa." Biblical manuscripts vary in size from tiny scrolls containing individual verses of the Jewish scriptures (see Tefillin) to huge polyglot codices (multi-lingual books) containing both the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the New Testament, as well as extracanonical works.

The study of biblical manuscripts is important because handwritten copies of books can contain errors. The science of textual criticism attempts to reconstruct the original text of books, especially those published prior to the invention of the printing press.
. . .
None of the original documents of the New Testament is extant and the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most conforming to the original.[31] The New Testament has been preserved in three major manuscript traditions: the 4th-century-CE Alexandrian text-type, the Western text-type, and the Byzantine text-type, which includes over 80% of all manuscripts, the majority comparatively very late in the tradition.

Since the mid-19th century, eclecticism, in which there is no a priori bias to a single manuscript, has been the dominant method of editing the Greek text of the New Testament (currently, the United Bible Society, 4th ed. and Nestle-Aland, 27th ed.). In textual criticism, eclecticism is the practice of examining a wide number of text witnesses and selecting the variant that seems best. The result of the process is a text with readings drawn from many witnesses. In a purely eclectic approach, no single witness is theoretically favored. Instead, the critic forms opinions about individual witnesses, relying on both external and internal evidence. Even so, the oldest manuscripts, being of the Alexandrian text-type, are the most favored, and the critical text has an Alexandrian disposition.[32] Modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies.
_____​

KJV Only is obviously right, even though the translators used the same textual criticism methods used for modern translations, because they created a translation that was more accurate than the original words.

See?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As relates to the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) KJB discussions in this thread, see: http://www.bibleprotector.com/

For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”.

From here, use this checklist to ascertain whether the Bible is a Pure Cambridge Edition:

For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”. Then see...

1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

Variations between common editions of the King James Bible, as compared to the pure cambridge edition (standard), with reference to the 1611 edition:

http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm

AMR

Although not related to the above, see also another perspective via this YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBr33f2vepU

 

[False Prophet]

Eleven caves revealed scrolls that were initially discovered near Qumrun. Many scrolls were discovered after that around the Dead Sea, so they became known as the Dead Sea scrolls. Such manuscripts as the Manuel for discipline or Habakuk's commentary are not part of the Biblical canon. The Bible canon was not established until the Council of Trent.

 

[Zeke]

You overlooked my emphasis upon the church's role in one's walk of faith. Your logic would dismantle the very thing our Lord established. I will not abide caviling by the Just Me and My Bible folk, Lone Ranger believers, and anyone else who thinks the church exists external to their faith. The two are not separable. If you think the church has nothing to say about the word of God, then you have abandoned what the Reformation was all about.

Within the church we confess what the sound patterns of Scripture teach. We confess what the "word of God" means as we come to hear it regularly. When the pastor exhorts from the word of God, I hope all holding a book in their hands actually believe it to be the word of God, and not but an academic exercise wherein the jots and tittles are regularly debated, preservation, infallibility, and inerrancy doubted, or the disagreement between this version or that version is lending more fog in the pews from the apparent mist in the pulpit by a man who thinks any translation will do.

I do not begrudge the person who uses a translation that I do not use. God can bring anyone into His Kingdom in spite of a weaker translation of His special revelation. My only point in this thread is that one should spend time understanding what the "very word of God" means to the church and act accordingly. If they and their church believes the ESV, NIV, or whatever recent translation they prefer is that very word of God, my peace is upon them.

AMR

The denominational big boys are hardly shunning this worlds system AMR, Paul was deserted, Jesus sought solitude to pray, many lived in caves rather than be part of this legal fiction that you seem to think is ordained by the Creator of the living. So this looking down you're theological state dependent nose is spiritual blindness to you're own worldly living condition.

 

[Shasta]

Hi Shasta. The end result of your opinions and present belief system is that you do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. And if you were honest about (but most bible agnostics and unbelievers in an inerrant Bible are not) you would have to admit that this is true of you.


So I quite understand why you and others who believe (or rather, disbelieve) the way you do, would see someone like me who DOES believe in an inerrant Bible as being arrogant and judgmental. I get that.

This way you can feel better about yourself and and try to justify your own position of unbelief. I see this type of thing all the time.

Hopefully, God will "reveal" to you the absolute truth of the King James Bible, because right now, you don't have nor believe in one that is.

God bless.

Without the original Greek and Hebrew texts you have no Bible. The accuracy of all translations (and that is what the KJB is) must be measured against the benchmark of those "scriptures" Paul said were "God-breathed" I use those along with various translations to understand what the Word is. The considerable amount of time I spent learning to do that is not a mark of flippancy about the Bible, I assure you.

In my previous post, I demonstrated how the KJV in a particular verse mistranslated the plain meaning of the original Greek text the translators of the KJB used. It is interesting that even when they got it wrong you believe I should accept that the translators ideas. This tells me that in your paradigm their translation supersedes even the authoritative word of the Apostles and Prophets. For refusing to believe this I am labelled a "Bible Agnostic" and a KJB "unbeliever," words with overtones of heresy and error. However, in reality, all these words say is that I disagree with you.

I have no problem with anyone using the KJB. Many ministers I respect do as do other Christians I know. I myself memorized a great deal of the Bible in Old English. I do not reject the KJB as a viable translation, What I do reject is your extra Biblical revelation (i.e., opinion or belief) that one and only one English translation has achieved the standard of perfection. If this position makes me a "Bible Agnostic" then I submit that your belief - that a mere translation should be exalted above the God-breathed words of scripture - makes you a "Translation Idolator."

Unlike you, I do not have a desire to "hold the Word" in the physical form of a translation. The word of life that is corporeal is The Word. The truth is in the world and it is recorded in Bibles. For the most part that truth is clear and self-evident but at times the meaning has to be searched out as hidden treasure through sound exegesis which involves using the linguistic skills and tools at our disposal.

Honestly I do not know if you are arrogant. I am prepared to accept that you believe very strongly in the scriptures and desire to maintain their integrity and accuracy. I do not exclude you from the pale of orthodoxy because you happen to be wrong about this.

Grace and Peace,

Shasta

 

[Macfz]

<a href="https://imgflip.com/i/tqjwl"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/tqjwl.jpg" title="made at imgflip.com"/></a>

 

[Macfz]

<a href="https://imgflip.com/i/tqjwl"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/tqjwl.jpg" title="made at imgflip.com"/></a>

<a href="https://imgflip.com/i/tqjwl"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/tqjwl.jpg" title="made at imgflip.com"/></a>

 

[Macfz]

How do you do this again? Ha!

How do you do this again? Ha!

<a href="https://imgflip.com/i/tqjwl"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/tqjwl.jpg" title="made at imgflip.com"/></a>

via Imgflip Meme Maker