Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Exactly so! Thou speakest truth Sister!
I agree.
:up: I think the theological majority will agree.
Me too.
genuineoriginal
New member
First Post in Round 1
I haven't read Bob Enyart's opening yet, so this is an evaluation on brandplucked's post.
In my analysis of his post, there seems to be only three reasons why brandplucked believes the KJV is the only complete and inerrant words of God.
Unfortunately for his argument, God never promised that there would be a complete and inerrant Bible available for anyone. The real question for him is, "Why do you think you need a complete and inerrant Bible that you can hold in your hand?"
brandplucked says he often asks this question:
What makes me say this?
The KVJ Bible that brandplucked uses does not contain the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (is not complete) and is not the original translation made in 1611 (is not inerrant).
The rest of his opening was nothing more than filler to expand on his three reasons.
Here is one thing I found particularly amusing:
It was not the King James Version.
(Next)
I haven't read Bob Enyart's opening yet, so this is an evaluation on brandplucked's post.
In my analysis of his post, there seems to be only three reasons why brandplucked believes the KJV is the only complete and inerrant words of God.
- The first reason is he desperately wants to believe that there exists a complete and inerrant word of God that can be found in a book that he can hold in his hand.
Unfortunately for his argument, God never promised that there would be a complete and inerrant Bible available for anyone. The real question for him is, "Why do you think you need a complete and inerrant Bible that you can hold in your hand?"
- The second reason is that people that do not believe that the KJV is the complete and inerrant word of God do not believe that there is any complete and inerrant word of God to be found on earth.
Other people doubting your belief is not a good reason to believe something.
brandplucked says he often asks this question:
The answer is, "No, and neither can you, since the KJV is not complete and is not inerrant."
What makes me say this?
The KVJ Bible that brandplucked uses does not contain the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (is not complete) and is not the original translation made in 1611 (is not inerrant).
- The third reason is that he agrees with the doctrines that come from using the KJV.
That is the worst reason he has given, since it implies that he judges the Bible based on the doctrines he believes instead of humbling himself enough to change his doctrines to match the Bible when he is shown his doctrines are based on a mistranslation or on verses that were added to the Bible at a later time.
The rest of his opening was nothing more than filler to expand on his three reasons.
Here is one thing I found particularly amusing:
The first Bible printed on a printing press was the Gutenberg Bible, written in Latin.
It was not the King James Version.
(Next)
Last edited:
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
The Bible never says about itself that it is inspired. No translation is inspired. No words or phrases are inspired. Not even the originals were inspired.
The Biblical view of inspiration is that the authors, holy men of God, were chosen of God to be inspired and they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. All scripture was given by this method of inspiration and the product was an inerrant body of redemptive light given progressively over many years, that is profitable for instruction in righteousness.
It was the men who were inspired, not the words themselves. They are not magic, nor were they dictated. Scripture is perfect truth transmitted by supernatural means and resonates with, and is recognized at its destination by, those who have been supernaturally born again by the same Spirit.
The question needs to be this: "Where is the inerrant product of this process to be found for English speaking people?"
The Biblical view of inspiration is that the authors, holy men of God, were chosen of God to be inspired and they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. All scripture was given by this method of inspiration and the product was an inerrant body of redemptive light given progressively over many years, that is profitable for instruction in righteousness.
It was the men who were inspired, not the words themselves. They are not magic, nor were they dictated. Scripture is perfect truth transmitted by supernatural means and resonates with, and is recognized at its destination by, those who have been supernaturally born again by the same Spirit.
The question needs to be this: "Where is the inerrant product of this process to be found for English speaking people?"
False Prophet
New member
Does 1 John 5 about the Trinity belong in scripture like the Authorized Version seems to claim it does? 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. God's sovereignty prepared the writers, their lives, experiences, vocabulary, so that they would write exactly what God wanted to be written.
Nothing here should be taken to assume that fallible men produced fallible writings. B.B. Warfield’s classic illustration drives home this point, wherein he speaks of a stained-glass Cathedral window. The window is not viewed as distorting the pure light, but rather is exactly fulfilling the design of the architect in producing exactly the effect that he desired. The writers of Scripture were uniquely superintended by the sovereign action of God via the Holy Spirit in all factors related to their writings.
When God uses human language so that temporal man may understand His truthful revelation, there is a supernatural warrant—it is God speaking through the writer—that the Scriptures will not be in error. Holy Scripture is not the word of God in the words of men.
Scripture is the Word and words of God as the words of men.
AMR
Nothing here should be taken to assume that fallible men produced fallible writings. B.B. Warfield’s classic illustration drives home this point, wherein he speaks of a stained-glass Cathedral window. The window is not viewed as distorting the pure light, but rather is exactly fulfilling the design of the architect in producing exactly the effect that he desired. The writers of Scripture were uniquely superintended by the sovereign action of God via the Holy Spirit in all factors related to their writings.
When God uses human language so that temporal man may understand His truthful revelation, there is a supernatural warrant—it is God speaking through the writer—that the Scriptures will not be in error. Holy Scripture is not the word of God in the words of men.
Scripture is the Word and words of God as the words of men.
AMR
JoshuaTheRed
New member
I defeated Mr. Kinney just yesterday in 15 comments or less, and that was between the 2 of us.
I believe something very similar to this, not exactly the same, although so similar; it might be parsimonious, yet valid, to state I believe the same.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
1 Cor 13:10KJV, Eph 5:8KJV, Psa 119:105KJV John 14:26KJV, 2 Pet 1:15KJV, Heb 4:12KJV, 2 Cor 2:17KJV, Psa 119:130KJV, 1Th 2:13KJV, 2 Pet 1:21KJV, 1Pe 1:25KJV
Excellent analysis. I thought it was a great deal of whining and wishful thinking. Along with straw men.
I also thought that BE/WD were much more direct and all but one of their points was quite objective.
Examples:
From WK:
My reaction: the argument that the KJV is better than some other version or versions does not amount to evidence of it being the only perfect version.
From BE/WD:
I don't know of any way WK can answer this question. I expect him to avoid it. All he can say is that he just wants there to be an English infallible version. In other words wishful thinking. In fact, the tone of his opening post was so emotive that I don't expect the debate to follow on standard scholarly lines at all. I don't think that WK is up to it. He does quote a lot of examples but these are only examples of his emotive, personal and subjective views, not of an objective argument, so the many examples are somewhat a waste of his time and ours in my view.
Originally Posted by genuineoriginal
Unfortunately for his argument, God never promised that there would be a complete and inerrant Bible available for anyone.
Not a single one of these scriptures teaches anything close to there being a book called the Bible which is the definitive inspired revelation of God. Not even close. I wonder why you posted them?
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Will Kinney says this:
He admits the NKJV on part with the KJV here, so what exactly is his objection to the NKJV? Does he not believe it as "inspired" as the KJV?
PS - i took the names from the post this above was written in, at the begining it says " King James Bible Debate with Bob Enyart and Will Duffy" Sorry, confused the wills, and fixed the post
He admits the NKJV on part with the KJV here, so what exactly is his objection to the NKJV? Does he not believe it as "inspired" as the KJV?
PS - i took the names from the post this above was written in, at the begining it says " King James Bible Debate with Bob Enyart and Will Duffy" Sorry, confused the wills, and fixed the post
Last edited:
Nope, not that one either.
Edit:
Well, GA just called me thick in a rep comment. However, I fail to see how a printed book can exist when heaven and Earth have both passed away. Back to you chum to be a little clearer and use words.
Last edited:
Because The Word is Truth and can not pass away
Hi everyone, Will Duffy here. I hope you are all enjoying the debate. I know I thoroughly enjoyed preparing the last few months, including some international travel to really get hands-on with documents that are hundreds of years old.
So here's a peculiar one. Maybe someone can help me understand and comprehend this, because I'm at a loss for words. I am getting booted and blocked from King James Only groups on Facebook for promoting this debate. I have not made one argument or said anything about the KJB. I simply posted a link to TOL to make others aware of the debate. Is this even comprehensible?
Maybe others here could help me promote the debate on Facebook in the various King James Only groups, since I'm quickly running out of options. You'd think they would want to promote this, right?
So here's a peculiar one. Maybe someone can help me understand and comprehend this, because I'm at a loss for words. I am getting booted and blocked from King James Only groups on Facebook for promoting this debate. I have not made one argument or said anything about the KJB. I simply posted a link to TOL to make others aware of the debate. Is this even comprehensible?
Maybe others here could help me promote the debate on Facebook in the various King James Only groups, since I'm quickly running out of options. You'd think they would want to promote this, right?