Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[genuineoriginal]

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!

Thank you Bob.

My analysis is purely for my own amusement, so it is nice that others are getting some enjoyment from it as well.

It is fun for me to see how fair to both sides I can be in my unofficial analysis when my personal opinions are completely biased towards one of the sides.

The other thing I am having fun with is condensing the answers into a few words that can still convey a sense of how the answer went.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Will Kinney, does God create evil?

KJB Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

PS God creating evil is along the lines of Gods killing being murder when there is no differentiation between murder and kill.

Sets up a whole lot of error in Gods own character.

 

[Angel4Truth]

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.

I don't get it either, hes merely comparing the others with the kjb and declaring them wrong because they differ from the kjb, without stating what makes the kjb the "standard" of what should be said.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

I do disagree with Will's approach which omits the function of the church in the matter at hand, as well as his vitriolic presentation of the same.

As I have posted in this thread my position is one that points to the church that received the ecclesial text and declares this is the word of God. Within the conservative Reformed tradition, that text is more often than not assumed to be the one with Byzantine provenances versus the Alexandrian. I will admit there are NAPARC churches that do not adhere to this strict approach, but that is not an argument the approach is without warrant.

As a Calvinist, Will should know these Reformed talking points, yet it vexes me that he wants to stand outside the church's purview and argue from the evidentiary and textual criticism level while attempting to import God's revelation behind the argument. First that approach ignores the role of the visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride. And second,
Will's approach goes nowhere fast, as the debate has demonstrated, since both parties will appeal to this or that codex, uncial, etc., and lose sight of what I have argued in previous posts (so linked above), summarized as follows:

When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice—we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgment upon it?

When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgment. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgment on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.

The Bible calls upon believers to "hear the Word of the Lord"—to hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, Reformed piety teaches that the "holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God" (WLC, answer 157). It is contrary to Reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, all the while esteeming them both as the Word of God.​

AMR

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

He is doing it as part of the strategy, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with . . . excess data"

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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 ?

:AMR:

AMR

 

[Zach_]

I wasn't planning on replying, commenting, or conversing regarding this debate, especially since I wasn't a member. I had to comment, though, and applaud Bob and Will D. for their excellent responses. They were beyond expectations and, honestly, it is unfortunate that you must waste them on Mr. Kinney's sloppy posts.

We can see the people who are actually trying in this debate and those who are not. Thank you for your patience with Mr. Kinney! I hope that the result of this debate will show the true scholarship of the KJVO position.

 

[Brother Vinny]

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.

Looking back over Kinney's Round 2 post, I found the nugget that rests at the core of his--and, I'm guessing, every KJO advocate's--worldview:

I can tell you that I came to this conclusion [that the KJV is the inerrant words of God] about 15 years ago. How is it done? It’s called a spiritual revelation of truth. That’s how God does things, you know.

This is, ultimately, why I cannot trust a KJV-only position. It is no more reasoned out that the Mormon conviction that the Book of Mormon is true--it's based entirely on gut feeling. Kinney is no less his own authority by trusting his subjective witness of revelation as anyone he accuses.

 

[Shasta]

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.

That is at least something we can discuss. There is a big difference between saying the KJB is the better or even best translation and saying it is the ONLY inerrant translation in the English language. We should not make any translation equal to the words God-breathed in the Greek language of the NT.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Breaking news story

Breaking news story

We interrupt the debate discussion to announce that brandplucked has just validated the main argument against the KJV Only position.

[...]How do we know[...]? All we have to do is check both the underlying Hebrew text and the previous English Bibles.[...]

 

[Shasta]

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.

I think he believes the sheer numbers of references gives the appearance of overwhelming evidence. Since he apparently does not much consult the original languages (very much) he relies on an appeal to authority. I assume his "authorities" probably do read the original language but more importantly they are in agreement with the KJV. Of course it would be a simple matter to compile a list of authorities who oppose his views but then he would find ways of discrediting them. It would become a battle of authorities.

 

[George Affleck]

I disagree with the term "murder". The term "kill" is definitely the right one.

The reason for choosing "kill" is the definition of murder which is: "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." This means that if the laws concerning murder changes (and they have; and they will), so will people's notion of what this commandment means. Even the recent easings of the penalty for murder takes the edge off the importance of this commandment if the word is used.

We have seen that laws change. My marriage to my wife is now included, according to law, with the marriages of same sex couples. The definition of my marriage has changed due to the changes in the law and I am grouped with those who, in my view, are not married.

Abortion is most definitely killing but, according to many laws, is not murder. This can logically make those who commit such crimes against God feel justified. If the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder", then abortionists have not transgressed this commandment and are not guilty before Him.

Taken as a whole, the Bible is very clear on what this commandment means with regard to "kill". It does not refer to plants and animals and there are circumstances under which killing, in the biblical sense, is not a crime against God. (ie self-defense) The very fact that the Bible goes into great detail about this commandment is evidence that "kill" is the right word. If murder was the right word, there would be little or no reason for passages that qualify what it means.

The choice of the word "kill" is just another indication of how superior and enduringly effective the specific words of the AV are for English speaking people.

 

[George Affleck]

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.

If I may explain...

In the creation/evolution debate, creationists often use evidences that show that the world/universe is no more than 100,000 years old. Even though they believe it is actually 6,000 years old, if it is no more than 100,000 years, evolution falls apart and the one left standing is creation. At that point, the discrepancy of a few thousand years can be addressed.

In this debate, the same phenomenon, for different reasons, exists. This is a debate between the KJV and all comers. If there is widespread disagreement among the challengers, how can there be a legitimate consensus? If one agrees with the AV in one place and another in another, the witness against it is very weak considering the widespread disagreement among modern translating scholars.

The "overwhelming outcry" against the KJV is an illusion, a mirage; because the reasons for disliking it are so varied. This bandwagon has few who agree with each other let alone the AV. If the KJV did not exist, they would be at each others throats in a heartbeat.

 

[ccfromsc]

Rats I missed this! i would love to have watched and read and learned. Anyway I can get a transcript of the debate?

Also can I post some tibbits here?

 

[Brother Vinny]

Rats I missed this! i would love to have watched and read and learned. Anyway I can get a transcript of the debate?

Also can I post some tibbits here?

Still ongoing in the Battle Royale thread.

 

[George Affleck]

Rats I missed this! i would love to have watched and read and learned. Anyway I can get a transcript of the debate?

Also can I post some tibbits here?

What are ccfromsc tibbits going for these days? Peanups?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Thank you Bob. ...

The other thing I am having fun with is condensing the answers into a few words that can still convey a sense of how the answer went.

Yeah, I liked that too. I've thought: why didn't we just say that and be done with it?

 

[death2impiety]

Guys, God just revealed to me that Will Kinney is right. I guess that settles it.

 

[patrick jane]

Guys, God just revealed to me that Will Kinney is right. I guess that settles it.

The KJV is the Bugatti of Bibles; top of the mark

 

[death2impiety]

The KJV is the Bugatti of Bibles; top of the mark

I doth not difagree