Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
JoshuaTheRed said:
I am not willing to debate bible versions, but I am willing to debate the topic of Open Theism vs. Hard Determinism.
Click to expand...

Hi JTR. Have you seen the open theism debate here on TOL: Battle Royale X, or my O.T. debate with James White from Denver's Brown Palace? That one's on YouTube.

Just curious.

Thanks, -Bob
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
SaulToPaul said:
I think brandplucked is doing very well.

He has a Bible that he can believe, rely on, and rest on.
It's a beautiful thing.

Again, I'm not sure how a pastor can stand up and preach with conviction from a Book he is convinced is riddled with errors.
Click to expand...

I have brandplucked at like 37-0 at last check. (I'm a little behind) Yes, the KJV is a perfect Bible today. We are blessed to have all the scriptures exactly the way they are intended with no doctrinal errors. I open my KJV and read with confidence.
 
Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
George Affleck said:
This is where the Received Text comes in. The MSS that were available at the time English coalesced into a world language ready to take the truth to the nations of the world, were, and are still, deemed by KJV proponents to be the ones God provided for the purpose. These texts were considered to be the only ones "received" for the purpose of translation into modern English when it emerged.

This was long before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were discovered. These witnesses are corrupt and God did not want them to have an influence in the translation of the English Bible. Subsequent versions give these texts preference over the Received text.

(Note: Vaticanus existed but was shut up in the Vatican and could not be viewed by protestants. Another blessing!)

Accuracy is tested against the Received, God-provided texts.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. I hit Reply G.A. as soon as I saw your statement that the T.R. was composed long before Sinaiticus was discovered. And just now I see your clarification. I was going to ask your opinion about the account of Erasmus asking his friend at the Vatican, if possible, to check a passage in Sinaiticus.

- Bob
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Bob Enyart said:
Oh, I see. I hit Reply G.A. as soon as I saw your statement that the T.R. was composed long before Sinaiticus was discovered. And just now I see your clarification. I was going to ask your opinion about the account of Erasmus asking his friend at the Vatican, if possible, to check a passage in Sinaiticus.

- Bob
Click to expand...

Hi Bob!

Actually it was Vaticanus, but who's counting?

I think he was a very smart man and capable beyond what any could hope to be today. But beyond that, I think God used him in a special way. We, who think so highly of the AV, recognize that he was the small end of the funnel so to speak and it is a step of faith on our part to trust that God can boil it down to just one man at certain times in history.

But, of course, that's the way God often likes to do it; just to keep us humble.

God bless.
 
Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Desert Reign said:
From the latest by BE:
I have asked WK pretty much this question a couple of times in the grandstands and I haven't got an answer. Like BE/WD, I tried to piece from research what version it was that WK claimed was the perfect inerrant one and it indicated the Cambridge 1769. Which is what I suspected at a much earlier point in the debate. But asked WK to confirm this and that it is without error, no answer was the loud reply.

And you'd have thought that for someone who places so much importance on having the exact inerrant Bible, he would have been able to point to the precise version straightaway. He actually prefers to remain vague about it so as not to have to confront the issue.

Top marks to BE/WD again.

Although I felt the insistence on 'murder' being correct and 'kill' being incorrect was quite weak. I explained this in an earlier post. It has nothing to with admitting anything about abortion. That is a red herring.
Click to expand...
Good points D.R. The obvious reason that some KJO advocates like to be vague on which KJB is innerant is similar to the reason that it is the incomplete skeletons that are the favorite fossils of the evolutionist. They make their strongest points on that which cannot be tested.

As to abortion and kill/murder, Kinney's tactical rushing to slop on the wall his pre-written material in order to deny us the 48 hours that an opponent is allotted, so that we can't do as good a job researching and writing as we had hoped to do, means that we weren't able to proofread, etc., our post. All that to say, is it possible that you misread our post? Because we certainly didn't intend to say that translating "kill" means that you are pro-choice. Kinney, we knew, tries to make it clear that he is anti-abortion, but he sure did a lousy job of that in Round 4.

-Bob
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Bob Enyart said:
Good points D.R. The obvious reason that some KJO advocates like to be vague on which KJB is innerant is similar to the reason that it is the incomplete skeletons that are the favorite fossils of the evolutionist. They make their strongest points on that which cannot be tested.

As to abortion and kill/murder, Kinney's tactical rushing to slop on the wall his pre-written material in order to deny us the 48 hours that an opponent is allotted, so that we can't do as good a job researching and writing as we had hoped to do, means that we weren't able to proofread, etc., our post. All that to say, is it possible that you misread our post? Because we certainly didn't intend to say that translating "kill" means that you are pro-choice. Kinney, we knew, tries to make it clear that he is anti-abortion, but he sure did a lousy job of that in Round 4.

-Bob
Click to expand...

Hey Bob - only if you have time...

I would be interested in your comments on my post at 652 on kill/murder.
 
Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
George Affleck said:
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.
Click to expand...

George it is because you wrote that in these Grandstands that we added the Revelation verses to our Round 4 post.

- Bob E.
 
steko

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
If one were seeking to communicate the Bible to a people who were isolated from the literate world and that people had a spoken language but no written language, would one go the distance to develop an alphabet and written language for them and then translate the Bible into their new written language so that they could read it for themselves?
If then, one translated the KJV into that new language, could one still call it the KJV?
Did GOD preserve His Word only for English speaking people?
Should non-English speaking people be required to learn English so that they can read the KJV?
Could it be that some would never come to a full understanding of certain terms, lacking the cultural/experiential comprehension of many idiomatic expressions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top