Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[Bob Enyart]

Bob, I am not sure how to answer that because I can't see what your phone looks like. In the post you responded to, you should see the link to the first post I made in the thread. There should be a blue button at the top of the citation which you can press to go to the post itself. But I have made a large number of posts in the grandstands so I wouldn't know which one the other person was referring to unless it was just that one. When you get to a proper computer, you can do a search on my recent posts by clicking on my name.

By the way, I decided to add a permanent link to a page of posts which I thought were interesting at the bottom of my signature on each post now. So you can click on that too if you want.

Will do! As soon as I get to a proper computer!

Also this makes me think that in the Supplemental Materials thread, we should post comments, especially reviews/analyses of the debate. We'd like to make this a resource, like a Christian Snopes for KJO.

- Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

Whilst I am sure the debate will be interesting, for me it is a foregone conclusion. Having also debated in some detail with a few KJVO members here, and not once received an answer to obvious and straightforward questions, my guess is that quite a number of questions will also remain unanswered even in a debate at this high level.
Note that I am in no way against the KJV. The KJV was one of the first Bibles I ever read and the NKJV remains one of my most valued translations. It is the O that is the problem.

The arguments against the O are simple and powerful and no amount of detail or logic can overcome them. Indeed, the greatest ploy of KJVOnlyists in my experience has been to make the arguments more complicated than they need be to create a shield against the obvious.

Spot on. Thanks D.R.

 

[chrysostom]

Whilst I am sure the debate will be interesting, for me it is a foregone conclusion. Having also debated in some detail with a few KJVO members here, and not once received an answer to obvious and straightforward questions, my guess is that quite a number of questions will also remain unanswered even in a debate at this high level.
Note that I am in no way against the KJV. The KJV was one of the first Bibles I ever read and the NKJV remains one of my most valued translations. It is the O that is the problem.

The arguments against the O are simple and powerful and no amount of detail or logic can overcome them. Indeed, the greatest ploy of KJVOnlyists in my experience has been to make the arguments more complicated than they need be to create a shield against the obvious.

Spot on. Thanks D.R.

amen

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

amen

How is it that God can use men to maintain perfection in "sacred tradition" but not for "sacred scripture"?

This is convenient for your church.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It has been shown to contain errors.

You need originals to prove that.

I will take my hat off to anyone that believes God preserved his words, and takes a stand with one.

:e4e:

 

[Bob Enyart]

Hey, does anyone have thoughts on the observation we made in Round Five of Kinney's careful combination of terms he uses and his tactical avoidance of ever claiming that the KJB is "100% inerrant"? If so, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks, - Bob

 

[patrick jane]

Hey, does anyone have thoughts on the observation we made in Round Five of Kinney's careful combination of terms he uses and his tactical avoidance of ever claiming that the KJB is "100% inerrant"? If so, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks, - Bob

It depends on how the errors are judged. Small errors are allowed by God

 

[Nick M]

Saying that the KJB is better than other translations or that it even is the best translation is a tactical retreat to save face now that they cannot argue anymore that it is inerrant which has been disproved.

There are things in it that are correct and things that clearly are not.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Saying that the KJB is better than other translations or that it even is the best translation is a tactical retreat to save face now that they cannot argue anymore that it is inerrant which has been disproved.

:think:

The KJV is a better Bible than other translations in many ways.
That is an undisputed fact.

What is disputed is whether the KJV is a better translation that the others.

 

[George Affleck]

Wow! Bob Enyart and Will Duffy have stooped to new lows.
WiKiLiD? Seriously?

Do they think this helps their cause?

That's it for me. Putting words in Will Kinney's mouth is even more slimy than trying to tie him to Ruckman. I'm glad they did this. It shows their true colours. Would you buy a used car from these men?

 

[chrysostom]

:think:

The KJV is a better Bible than other translations in many ways.
That is an undisputed fact.

What is disputed is whether the KJV is a better translation that the others.

how can you say that?

don't words have any meaning for you?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

don't words have any meaning for you?

:chuckle:

chrysostom: "Rome is the New Jerusalem."

 

[Desert Reign]

It has been shown to contain errors.

You need originals to prove that.

I will take my hat off to anyone that believes God preserved his words, and takes a stand with one.
:e4e:

1. The originals were the Textus Receptus and the various versions of it are available on record. It is clear that the KJB translators made mistakes and BE/WD have given clear examples of it earlier in this thread, as has Shasta.
2. If you are referring to Psalm 12:6-7, in my experience these 2 verses are usually cited together by KJVOnlyists without also citing the broader context of the Psalm. It is obvious that this supposed meaning can only be arrived at by taking the verses in isolation, thus hiding from the reader that they are not in reference to the words of God at all but to oppressed and poor people. Earlier in the debate I have made a number of detailed comments about this and it is clear that the KJVO doctrine of the verbal preservation of a book is not in the Bible at all. So no I don't take that stand. God has entrusted his words to us, in the same way he entrusted the preaching of the Gospel to 12 lowly Galileans. Those Apostles made mistakes but it did not stop the spread of the glorious Gospel. Scribes made mistakes copying the scriptures but it has not stopped God's word from spreading either.

Hey, does anyone have thoughts on the observation we made in Round Five of Kinney's careful combination of terms he uses and his tactical avoidance of ever claiming that the KJB is "100% inerrant"? If so, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks, - Bob

Not really. Only that all of his replies in the debate were tactical avoidance of the questions you posed. He also used other methods of avoidance, including bullying others with his insistent 'show me the 100% inerrant text that YOU believe in', that kind of thing - trying to get his opponents wrong-footed. I dealt with that particular issue earlier in the debate when I confirmed point blanc that I did not believe in such a thing. See my response to STP above and my interaction with BP linked in my sig below.

:think:

The KJV is a better Bible than other translations in many ways.
That is an undisputed fact.

What is disputed is whether the KJV is a better translation that the others.

Sorry, GO, I don't understand your point.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Wow! Bob Enyart and Will Duffy have stooped to new lows.
WiKiLiD? Seriously?

Do they think this helps their cause?

That's it for me. Putting words in Will Kinney's mouth is even more slimy than trying to tie him to Ruckman. I'm glad they did this. It shows their true colours. Would you buy a used car from these men?

I had the same thought about WiKiLiD.

I would love for brandplucked or the Moderators of the debate to provide a statement from brandplucked stating that he confirms that those were his words, he denies that those were his words, or even stating that he can neither confirm nor deny that those were his words.

It is too convenient for Bob Enyart and Will Duffy to claim a face to face conversation, and fill in all the answers as if they were from their opponent, and in a manner supportive to their arguments, in the final round of the debate without allowing the opponent or a moderator to validate whether this took place.

I do not believe that Bob Enyart and Will Duffy have manufactured the conversation, but even they should be able to admit that this would look extremely fishy to anyone that only reads the debate.

An official statement from either brandplucked or the Moderators would help in this regard.

 

[genuineoriginal]

how can you say that?

don't words have any meaning for you?

Which statement do you have problems with?

 

[Desert Reign]

I had the same thought about WiKiLiD.

I would love for brandplucked or the Moderators of the debate to provide a statement from brandplucked stating that he confirms that those were his words, he denies that those were his words, or even stating that he can neither confirm nor deny that those were his words.

It is too convenient for Bob Enyart and Will Duffy to claim a face to face conversation, and fill in all the answers as if they were from their opponent, and in a manner supportive to their arguments, in the final round of the debate without allowing the opponent or a moderator to validate whether this took place.

I do not believe that Bob Enyart and Will Duffy have manufactured the conversation, but even they should be able to admit that this would look extremely fishy to anyone that only reads the debate.

An official statement from either brandplucked or the Moderators would help in this regard.

Aw, loosen up a bit. It is a debate ploy. It is a device of rhetoric. I mean it does say in TOL rules that we do vigorous debate here! If I was the debate moderator I would have terminated the debate early and declared BE/WD the winners because WK refused to answer so many direct questions and because he posted so much copied material. BE/WD's use of WiKiLiD is a considerably restrained way of highlighting WK's lacunae if you ask me.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Aw, loosen up a bit. It is a debate ploy. It is a device of rhetoric. I mean it does say in TOL rules that we do vigorous debate here! If I was the debate moderator I would have terminated the debate early and declared BE/WD the winners because WK refused to answer so many direct questions and because he posted so much copied material. BE/WD's use of WiKiLiD is a considerably restrained way of highlighting WK's lacunae if you ask me.

So, you think I fell victim to Poe's Law?

:think:

I still believe that the WiKiLiD answers might be based on a visit and conversation between the debaters in real life, since Will Kinney does live so close to Bob Enyart's church.

But, this may just have been a rhetorical way of poking fun at the lack of responses, in which case the "neither confirm nor deny" remark would be the best one from brandplucked.

 

[George Affleck]

Aw, loosen up a bit. It is a debate ploy. It is a device of rhetoric.

No, it's designed to increase the fog so the average person cannot follow along.

 

[Desert Reign]

No, it's designed to increase the fog so the average person cannot follow along.

Like you, you mean? I mean, is everyone who writes in a way you find difficult to understand doing something wrong? Does everyone who writes have a duty to write in such a way that you personally understand first time?

And by the way, I confess to having a vested interest here. Yes, I might as well be honest. I use all sorts of rhetorical devices to make my points. I try to vary it a bit for the sake of interest and because I know that different people respond to different ways of speaking. I use sarcasm, mimicry, exaggeration and whatever is handy at the time, even poetry. And I would say that I pretty much never use smileys or emoticons. (e.g. see GO's comment above about 'Poe's Law') I regard them as crass means of communicating, removing all the subtlety from my well-chosen words. And I know that lots of people misunderstand what I write here on TOL for this very reason. And guess what? So long as I have done my best to communicate, I don't care about that. I used to, but not now.

 

[heir]

It means you will take what one translation says verbatim in English as infallible and you will not look deeper into the text by using some of the very easy-to-use language tools to confirm it. It may make you more secure to treat the KJV that way but it inhibits you from diligently searching for the truth as hidden treasures. It also gives you permission to ignore all other translations even when they might have more clearly and accurately represented the text. Aside from that, this whole story about the emergence of the Cambridge edition of the KJV is extra-Biblical. Nowhere is it alluded to in scripture and, at no time did the translators of any edition claim that it was infallible. That comforting story is nothing more than a myth discovered through personal revelation.

Taking God at His word in the KJB does not hinder a saved individual from 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV. It facilitates it!

Your right, that I have the permission to ignore all other translations! It's called liberty! I know the truth and the truth has made me free! PTL! God has not left any of us helpless and at the mercy of religious men with an agenda to manipulate and spoil us (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV, Colossians 2:8 KJV)! We have all scripture that IS given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that we may be throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV) which are the work of the ministry! We can preach the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18-21 KJV), preach the word (2 Timothy 4:2-5 KJV), put on the whole armour of God and stand (Ephesians 6:10-20 KJV), be grounded and settled (Colossians 1:23-29 KJV), and even make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery (Ephesians 3:1-9 KJV).