Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[Bob Enyart]

Your results may vary.
_____
Note, since the questions and answers only comprise part of the debate posts, the scores given for questions and answers does not necessarily indicate who is ahead in the debate.
The opening statements of the posts will be given points in a wrap up analysis of the entire debate where I will announce my opinion on who won the debate and why they won.
_____

GO, your evaluation of the Q&A is so interesting, and definitely shows an attempt to be even handed (no attempt to butter up here ), and I'm looking forward to your final debate analysis!

 

[Bob Enyart]

I know I'm being whiny but on the Battle Royale Thread, the screen got blown up too big to fit on my monitor. I guess I can shrink my screen and make the print really small.

PJ, I'm so sorry. This must be because we weren't able to proof the formatting being under the tactically rushed time frame of our opponent.

EDIT: I think it's fine now. The photo was oversized (as though it was being used with a

Spoiler

tag), but now it seems fine.

Thanks all!

- Bob E.

 

[Psalmist]

How many times has the 1611 KJV revised or had translation errors fixed.​

 

[Bob Enyart]

Psalmist, good question! Hey, do you lead worship? Just guessing from your username.

Psalmist, good question! Hey, do you lead worship? Just guessing from your username.

How many times has the 1611 KJV revised or had translation errors fixed.​

Hello Psalmist! There are about 100 revisions of the KJB that have been compared with the results being hundreds of changes between each, and thousands of changes overall, and multiply that if you were to look at all of the more than 400 editions published.

Since our KJO Opponent Will Kinney says get a Cambridge edition of the KJB (why that? why not Oxford, or many of the others?) by going to any bookstore (or look at an online King James Bible), and you will have God's perfect inerrant Word. But of course the Cambridge KJBs have the same kind of survivable changes in their revisions as do Bibles in many other languages.

Here's the chart of examples of changes from our Round 3 post in our section titled...

Cambridge vs. Cambridge

If you haven't yet, I'd recommend reading our posts in the debate.

Here's an excerpt from just below that chart:

In our chart, these differences are between one or more Cambridge editions of the Bible and other Cambridge editions. This is just the tiniest sampling of the changes, and out of a review of only a fraction of all the KJ editions. The changes fill small-print volumes many hundreds of pages long.

In our next post, we expect to provide a list of differences between the 1769 Cambridge and the 1769 Oxford. We also plan to present more examples of errors that continue to be printed in today’s King James Bibles. The King James Only movement seems to especially respect the 1769 Cambridge and the very widely distribute 1769 Oxford KJVs, both of which have been used as a basis for other editions.

 

[Bob Enyart]

WOW!

The coffin was already nailed shut.
Now Bob & Will are gold plating it!!!

Sheesh! Thanks Tambora!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Hello Psalmist! There are about 100 revisions of the KJB that have been compared with the results being hundreds of changes between each, and thousands of changes overall, and multiply that if you were to look at all of the more than 400 editions published.

Since our KJO Opponent Will Kinney says get a Cambridge edition of the KJB (why that? why not Oxford, or many of the others?) by going to any bookstore (or look at an online King James Bible), and you will have God's perfect inerrant Word. But of course the Cambridge KJBs have the same kind of survivable changes in their revisions as do Bibles in many other languages.

Here's the chart of examples of changes from our Round 3 post in our section titled...

Cambridge vs. Cambridge

Spoiler

If you haven't yet, I'd recommend reading our posts in the debate.

Here's an excerpt from just below that chart:

Rev. Enyart,

I added spoiler tags to the large image in your post. Using these tags will prevent expanding the horizontal width of the page for large images.

As to the Cambridge bible Will Kinney is referring to, I believe he means what has been called the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) as discussed here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4509967#post4509967

Not a few KJBOnlyists will say that the PCE is the one perfect version of the KJB in existence.

AMR

 

[patrick jane]

Rev. Enyart,

I added spoiler tags to the large image in your post. Using these tags will prevent expanding the horizontal width of the page for large images.

As to the Cambridge bible Will Kinney is referring to, I believe he means what has been called the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) as discussed here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4509967#post4509967

Not a few KJBOnlyists will say that the PCE is the one perfect version of the KJB in existence.

AMR

what does PCE stand for ?

 

[Shasta]

Shasta, try a little more honesty. You don't believe that ANY Bible, translated or UNtranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant Bible. You certainly do not have "the" original like you said you study. And you can't and won't show us any Greek text in existence that you honestly believe is the inerrant N.T. either. And you know you won't. So who do you think you are kidding?

Sir, did you actually read my article? I went over it again this evening and found about 25 more Bible translations that translated Revelation 19:8 exactly as it stands in the KJB, and several of them are Critical text versions.

"THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS"




Versions that read just like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535 - "And to her was graunted, that she shulde be arayed with pure and goodly sylke. (As for the sylke, it is the rightewesnes of sayntes.)", the Great Bible 1540, Matthews Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587, The Beza New Testament 1599 - "for the fine linnen is the righteousnesse of Saintes.", The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation - "the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Worsley Version 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thompson N.T, 1816, Daniel Webster's of 1833, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Murdoch's Translation of the Syriac 1852 - "for fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", Etheridge's Translation 1849, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised New Testament 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, The Anderson N.T. 1865, the Ainslie N.T. 1869, Noyes Translation 1869, The Alford New Testament 1870 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", The Revised English Bible 1877 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", Darby's translation 1890, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.



Others Bibles that read "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" are The Coptic Version of the New Testament (Memphitic and Boharic) A Literal English Translation 1904 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Sinaitic New Testament 1918, The Plain English N.T. 1963, The Basic English Bible 1965, The Fenton Bible 1966, The Recovery New Testament 1985, the Word of Yah 1993, the 21st Century KJB version 1994, The Revised Webster's Bible 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the set apart ones.", Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green’s interlinear and Green's 2005 Literal Translation, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message which reads: "She was given a bridal gown of bright and shining linen. The linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Bond Slave Version 2012, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", the BRG Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 and the Modern Literal Version 2014 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the holy ones."



Did you by any chance read the Bible commentators I included in my article?

Here is just one of them-

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: "granted--Though in one sense she "made herself ready," having by the Spirit's work in her put on "the wedding garment," yet in the fullest sense it is not she, but her Lord, who makes her ready by "granting to her that she be arrayed in fine linen." It is He who, by giving Himself for her, presents her to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, but holy and without blemish.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown continue: "righteousness - Greek, "righteousnesses"; DISTRIBUTIVELY USED. EACH SAINT MUST HAVE THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS: not merely be justified, as if the righteousness belonged to the Church in the aggregate; the saints together have righteousnesses; namely, He is accounted as "the Lord our righteousness" to each saint on his believing, their robes being made white in the blood of the Lamb."

The King James Bible is right, as it always is, and you are not.

May God give you a heart to receive His truth.

God bless.

Your list of Bibles do not change what the Greek text says. The sheer number of translations and commentaries does not change what was written. Truth, after all, is not determined by a democratic consensus. Unlike you I did not marshal a consortium of commentators and translations to support what I said. I looked to the Greek text. If you do not believe the Greek was the language God breathed His word into then you have no basis for believing the KJB since that was their point of reference. The KJV is only as good as the texts upon which it is based.

In reponse to your own critiques of modern versions I looked back to those texts and found first that the word the KJB translated as "righteousness" is the same in all the Greek texts I examined. I also found that the KJB did not faithfully render the word in English.

The Jamison, Faucett and Brown Commentary (which I possess) clearly tried to reconcile the KJV's translation of this verse with the actual meaning of the Greek text. Though the KJV does not recognize the plurality of righteousness (found in the Greek) the commentators obviously did. Rather than introduce a change in definitions they tried to come up with a way that "righteousness" can be single and plural. Thus they conceptualized a single "righteousness" which is multiply distributed among a plurality of saints. This introduces needless level of complexity into the text when none is there. If John wanted to say something like that he could have easily used the plural form of "dikaiosune" This is a moot point, however, since the word that appears in the text is not dikaiosune ("righteousness") but (dikaioma) or "righteous acts[/B]" . Despite their ingenius efforts no amount of semantic manipulation can make the one word into the other. You have followed their route of introducing subtlety and complexity into a verse that is overt and simple solely to keep your belief about the KJB intact.

The KJB was the work of scholars not commentators who were sincerely trying to ascertain and convey the meaning and sense of the Greek scriptures in English. Apparently, however, they were given instructions to keep the meaning consistent with the Bishop's Bible whenever possible. Now, that their work is finished no one is supposed to look at the Greek texts as they did. We are supposed to accept their translation as flawless, without question, by faith.

In this you have exalted the work of a particular group of scholars you prefer over the words of the Biblical authors themselves. You do this because it fits into your translational mythology, which was not foretold by any Biblical author nor was it given by any kind of supernatural revelation that you have been able to identify other than by pointing to your subjective feelings.

All the critiques you made about modern versions in this thread do not prove that the KJV (Cambridge edition) is inerrant. On the other hand, even one mistranslation in the KJB overthrows your entire thesis. You have fortified your belief in a glass house and try earnestly to defend it as best you can.

Let us leave subjective revelations and go back to something that is objectively provable. The Greek word used here here is not "righteousness" (dikaosune) as the KJB would lead you to think. Rather it is (dikaioma) the Lexical definition of which is "righteous acts[/B]" Since dikaioma is in the Greek text, (which you have not disputed) it is the God-breathed word. Because I took much time and effort to study the Greek language I was able go back and, with the help of those who know much more than I, see which translation best comported with Revelation 19:8.

In this instance, there is no gray area. Amazingly, however, you reject the clear meaning of the Greek text upon which the KJB was based, preferring to base your belief on what translators wrote and upon selected commentators who happen to agree with you. This shows me the level of your commitment to the myth of the multi-staged process that produced the "inerrant" Cambridge edition of the KJB. I maintain that it is a myth because it is extra-Biblical and was discovered by "revelation" though I still do not know exactly how, when, and to whom God first made this revelation known. It reminds me of the mystical gnosis the Second Century Gnostics were always talking about. They also called those who did not accept their "rev-know" carnally minded and spiritually immature.

The definition of the Greek word dikaioma in Revelation 19:8 is "a righteous deed or act." If you do not believe this consult the Lexicons. The Greek word for "righteousness" is another word - dikaiosune. No matter how advantageous it would be to our doctrinal presuppositions this is not the word that appears in the text.

Furthermore in this verse dikaioma appears in the plural form (dikaiomata). It also has an article in front of it. If the word were "righteousness" then it would indicate multiple righteousnesses which is what your commentators tried (unsuccessfully imo) to pull off.

The error of the KJV are as follows:

1. It does not present the correct English equivalent to the Greek word dikaioma

2. It omits the article

3. It does not present the word in the plural form

While they have left part of the original meaning out of their translation most of the modern Bibles (which you call "fake Bibles) faithfully bring out the whole concept out

Making the claim that the KJV is the best translation of the Greek is one thing. If you had left it there then this would be a scholarly debate. By going back to the ancient languages and studying the context we might discover something edifying. However, since you have adopted from the outset the dogmatic position that the King James Translation is equivalent to the inerrant "Word of God" then, of course, no amount of scholarship, study or linguistic knowledge can alter what the Cambridge edition says. "When the perfect is come all that which is partial can be done away with." We should not "add to or take away" from the words contained in this literal book we can hold in our hands. We might as well consult Jamison, Faucett and Brown for our question and dispense with such linguistically oriented commentators such as A. T. Robertson. In fact, we would do better avoiding all such men since they might confuse matters by raising questions about the perfection of the King James translation. This is why, when you kept calling us students of the word "Bible Agnostics" I said that you are a "Translation Idolator." Really I would prefer that we dispense with all such appellations.

I sincerely doubt if those men who produced the Cambridge Edition of the KJB would have called their work inerrant and equivalent to the Word of God. I suppose that revelation had not yet been given.

 

[Shasta]

Shasta, try a little more honesty. You don't believe that ANY Bible, translated or UNtranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant Bible. You certainly do not have "the" original like you said you study. And you can't and won't show us any Greek text in existence that you honestly believe is the inerrant N.T. either. And you know you won't. So who do you think you are kidding?

If the Greek texts are unreliable then so is your KJV that is purported to be an accurate (perfect) translation of them. A perfect translation of something unreliable is itself unreliable...unless you believe God "re-breathed" all the original truth by revelation but then...why were revisions necessary? Does God have to edit words that come directly from Him? This post hoc reasoning is singularly inconvincing.

Here is another example of the errors in translation that can be found in the KJV. To prove this I will not use specially selected commentaries and translations that agree with me. I will instead refer back to the original language. If you have more than a "schoolboy" level of Greek (which you have said I have) then this should be easy to understand.

First, this is what you said:

# 3. Who controls the world, God or Satan?

Several modern version teach it is Satan -

1 John 5:19 “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world LIETH IN WICKEDNESS.” Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, Geneva Bible, Youngs, Third Millennium Bible

The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE." NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman, Catholic St. Joseph, NET

To begin with the “whole world“lieth in“WICKEDNESS” is an incorrect translation of 1 John 5:19. “Wickedness (or evil)” is a noun but the word that actually appears in the Greek text is not the noun poneria but the adjective poneros. The translators of the KJV erred by changing an adjective into a noun and then by omitting the preceding article. Of course, once they had altered the part of speech they HAD to leave out the article. Otherwise it would have read: “the whole world lieth in THE wickedness.”

As all of us “schoolboys” know, adjectives modify nouns…but where is the noun this adjective is modifying? Well, it is not specified…but, since the adjective poneros is singular and masculine the implied noun must also be singular and masculine. The modern translators represent this implied noun with the generic pronoun“ONE”so that it reads:

“the whole world lies in the control of the wicked (or evil) one."

Notice that the word "wicked" is an adjective and it refers to a noun that is singular and masculine - the devil.

The interlinear Bible agrees with the modern rendering of this verse over and against the translation of the KJB

“…the whole world lies (under the control) of the evil one” (1 John 5:19)

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_john/5-19.htm

This is an instance where the KJV, by incorrectly translating a word, failed to accurately convey the meaning of a verse which states that this world is dominated by the influence of Satan. Do we really need to prove the pervasive influence of the Devil in the world? We can read the news and see that but, it is also affirmed in scripture

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Satan is this world’s god because he dominates the minds of mankind, the majority of whom do not believe in or serve Christ. (Colossians 1:21) Jesus Himself called Satan the “ruler of this world” (John 14:30)

To maintain your belief in the flawless perfection of a particular Bible translation you have to prove that in every instance the KJV will translate a verse correctly while any and all version who translate it differently must be wrong. However, when the accuracy of the “perfect translation” was checked in the original Greek language and in other scriptures, the modern versions proved to be accurate and the KJV proved to be in error.

This illustrates the point that the ultimate source of truth against which all translations are to be measured is the God-breathed scriptures. No translation is or should be above this kind of assessment.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Second post in Round 3

Unofficial analysis of Bob Enyart & Will Duffy's response to brandplucked's third round questions.

Your results may vary.

WKQ3b: “Is any in print Bible you can show us God’s perfect, complete and inerrant words either today or before the King James Bible? If Yes, can you tell us which one it is? If No, are you honest enough to admit it? [We numbered that 3b because Will Kinney changed his original WKQ3 question.]
- answer: you show us yours and we will show us ours
Points go to brandplucked

WKQ13: Are you both Bible Agnostics (you don't know for sure) and unbelievers in the existence of a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language (translated or untranslated) NOW? Yes or No? If not, then can you please tell us exactly what this inerrant Bible is you supposedly believe in and where we can get a copy of it? Yes or No?
- answer: We know for sure, accept our offer to compare specific printings to find out
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy


WKQ14: Since neither of you gentlemen actually believes that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God (you have so far avoided telling us which one it is) then how do you evaluate whether or not you have His true words?
- answer: You evaluate using traditional methods.
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

tally for second half of the third round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 2
brandplucked - 1

Running total at end of third round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 18
brandplucked - 13

Your results may vary.
_____
Note, since the questions and answers only comprise part of the debate posts, the scores given for questions and answers does not necessarily indicate who is ahead in the debate.
The opening statements of the posts will be given points in a wrap up analysis of the entire debate where I will announce my opinion on who won the debate and why they won.
_____

Agree with the last 2, but for the first one you listed there (WKQ3b) i would give 0 points to either side, since neither has responded on that point.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Have just read BE/WD latest response. It was excellent. Especially the offer to to WK to name a specific Bible edition that is 100% inerrant and authoritative. I am looking forward to hear WK's response and if positive which error-ridden version he will claim to be inerrant and also which version BE/WD will claim to be the best.

For me, I consider Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R&P 2005 to be the most authentic versions of the scriptures available. For translation, I go with the NASB, even though it is based on NA/UBS. I am not too bothered with NT translations as my Greek is pretty advanced but I like the NASB for OT reading.

Thanks so much DR! Hoping Will takes us up on the offer.

- Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

I added spoiler tags to the large image in your post. Using these tags will prevent expanding the horizontal width of the page for large images.

As to the Cambridge bible Will Kinney is referring to, I believe he means what has been called the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE)...

Hi AMR. Thanks for the info on the spoiler tags.

Will always says, "walk into any bookstore and buy a Cambridge edition, and you have the inerrant word..."
In our Round 3, we indirectly referenced the PCE in our section on miracles on demand, whereas if KJO were true, then whenever someone published a KJO, for it to be perfectly inerrant, then they were essentially calling on God to supernaturally intervene to make sure the thousands of textual questions were all answered 100% correctly. Otherwise, what they have produced is a Bible that is 100% what they themselves want it to say.

Have you ever considered that KJOnlyism requires a kind of demand performance where men get to decide when a divine intervention is required, i.e., whenever they publish a KJB... or wait, maybe whenever they publish a Cambridge KJB... or no, wait... just whenever the Pure Cambridge Edition KJB gets published.

I would hope AMR that you and I, even with our history and all of our disagreements, could agree on this KJO controversy.

- Bob E.

 

[JonahofAkron]

If the Greek texts are unreliable then so is your KJV that is purported to be an accurate (perfect) translation of them. A perfect translation of something unreliable is itself unreliable...unless you believe God "re-breathed" all the original truth by revelation but then...why were revisions necessary? Does God have to edit words that come directly from Him? This post hoc reasoning is singularly inconvincing.

Here is another example of the errors in translation that can be found in the KJV. To prove this I will not use specially selected commentaries and translations that agree with me. I will instead refer back to the original language. If you have more than a "schoolboy" level of Greek (which you have said I have) then this should be easy to understand.

First, this is what you said:



To begin with the “whole world“lieth in“WICKEDNESS” is an incorrect translation of 1 John 5:19. “Wickedness (or evil)” is a noun but the word that actually appears in the Greek text is not the noun poneria but the adjective poneros. The translators of the KJV erred by changing an adjective into a noun and then by omitting the preceding article. Of course, once they had altered the part of speech they HAD to leave out the article. Otherwise it would have read: “the whole world lieth in THE wickedness.”

As all of us “schoolboys” know, adjectives modify nouns…but where is the noun this adjective is modifying? Well, it is not specified…but, since the adjective poneros is singular and masculine the implied noun must also be singular and masculine. The modern translators represent this implied noun with the generic pronoun“ONE”so that it reads:

“the whole world lies in the control of the wicked (or evil) one."

Notice that the word "wicked" is an adjective and it refers to a noun that is singular and masculine - the devil.

The interlinear Bible agrees with the modern rendering of this verse over and against the translation of the KJB

“…the whole world lies (under the control) of the evil one” (1 John 5:19)

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_john/5-19.htm

This is an instance where the KJV, by incorrectly translating a word, failed to accurately convey the meaning of a verse which states that this world is dominated by the influence of Satan. Do we really need to prove the pervasive influence of the Devil in the world? We can read the news and see that but, it is also affirmed in scripture

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Satan is this world’s god because he dominates the minds of mankind, the majority of whom do not believe in or serve Christ. (Colossians 1:21) Jesus Himself called Satan the “ruler of this world” (John 14:30)

To maintain your belief in the flawless perfection of a particular Bible translation you have to prove that in every instance the KJV will translate a verse correctly while any and all version who translate it differently must be wrong. However, when the accuracy of the “perfect translation” was checked in the original Greek language and in other scriptures, the modern versions proved to be accurate and the KJV proved to be in error.

This illustrates the point that the ultimate source of truth against which all translations are to be measured is the God-breathed scriptures. No translation is or should be above this kind of assessment.

Perfect post.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

What is utterly absurd of you is to reduce this whole argument about KJV on whether other translations agree with the KJV text.

That is pure hubris on your part, mister.

Agreed. Here's how I see the KJO crowd arguing their case:

"God preserved His word, therefore the King James Version is God's perfect and preserved word."

I still don't see the logical connection or how one gets from one to the other.

 

[Angel4Truth]

From the most recent response by Will Kinney:

Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not KILL.”

Next Bob E. and Will D. bring up the example of “Thou shalt not KILL” as found in Exodus 20:13 and somehow claim that this is “a subtle form of self-righteousness” and “a mistranslation”.

I have an entire article on my website about Exodus 20:13 and in it I show that it most definitely is NOT a translation error and that the modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. themselves are inconsistent on how they translate this word. They ALL often translate it as KILL.

This is a blatant falsehood.


Exodus 20:13 New King James Version (NKJV)
13 “You shall not murder.

Exodus 20:13 New International Version (NIV)
13 “You shall not murder.

Exodus 20:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 “You shall not murder.

Of the "modern" translations listed by Will Kinney, only the ASV translates as kill like the KJB.

Exodus 20:13 American Standard Version (ASV)

13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Shasta]

Agreed. Here's how I see the KJO crowd arguing their case:

"God preserved His word, therefore the King James Version is God's perfect and preserved word."

I still don't see the logical connection or how one gets from one to the other.

Apparently the connection is made by "revelation." That is what we were told and anyone who does not see it is "carnally minded."

 

[genuineoriginal]

Agree with the last 2, but for the first one you listed there (WKQ3b) i would give 0 points to either side, since neither has responded on that point.

Yes, earlier I considered whether to give 0 points, 1/2 points, or full points to each as an option, and decided the way I was going to do it was to give 1 point to one of the sides for each question, even if it was difficult to justify giving it to the side I gave it to.

Since it was brandplucked's question and Bob Enyart & Will Duffy did not answer it in this round, points went to brandplucked.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Wow, Will Kinney has reached a new low. In his 4th round post he argues in a way that means the Holocaust was justified and that the Jews weren't murdered, they were just killed. I'm appalled.

 

[patrick jane]

Apparently the connection is made by "revelation." That is what we were told and anyone who does not see it is "carnally minded."

It's simply that the KJB is more accurate than any other; the Word as God intended it for the world. By comparison the KJB is much better than any other translation, hands down.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Can someone help me understand something? I'm at a loss as to why Will Kinney posts other Bible versions that contain the same translation in a particular verse as the KJV. What does this prove exactly? And further, are these not the versions that he despises and think are not God's word? If I'm missing something, I would appreciate someone pointing it out, because I don't see the argument. Thanks.