Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

genuineoriginal

New member
(2 Sam 8:4 KJV) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

(1 Chron 18:4 KJV) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.


Error?

Yes, nobody uses the word "houghed" anymore.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
King James Onlyists are like politicians when it comes to answering questions.

Yes. I'm not sure t, but I think that point is also made in the debate.

Hey, which side, do you predict, the KJVOnlyists or our side, will do more in the coming days to promote this debate?

At BEL and here on TOL, we've long pointed out that one way to find out which side or sides think that they won the debate is to see which side(s) promote the debate. We've been talking up the debate almost daily on our BEL radio program, and on last Friday's and today's Real Science Radio show. And atop KGOV still, as for the last month, we have this:

KOJ-Debate-KGOV-Banner.png


So far Will Kinney's site has nothing. He mentions a dispute from my debate with James White, but still has no link or even a mention to TheologyOnline.com. And what do you think, will other leaders, or rank-and-file KJO promoters, link to this debate?

- Bob
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How does it?
Because, in general, those that view all translations as imperfect, but some better than others, have no problem with KJVO as long as the KJVO people have no problem with them in return.

But that isn't the case. The KJVO people have all kinds of problems with, for instance, a pastor with an important message that might use the NIV in his message. The KJVO people will break fellowship with that pastor even though the passages that pastor uses in his message are perfectly sound translations.

If you are saved, I will rejoice to spend eternity with you.
I'm saved. And I'd love to get a chance to talk with you in heaven if we never get a face-to-face here on earth.

Does MAD cause division among the brethren? Are you MAD?
MAD could cause division, but, again, it depends on who won't accept who because of the belief. As I've observed, and I'm thinking MAD is the same for nearly the same reasons, that Open View Christians can be friends with Settled View Christians, but more often than not it's not true the other way around.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
I finally got the image link right...

King James Onlyists are like politicians when it comes to answering questions.

Yes. I'm not sure t, but I think that point is also made in the debate.

Hey, which side, do you predict, the KJVOnlyists or our side, will do more in the coming days to promote this debate?

At BEL and here on TOL, we've long pointed out that one way to find out which side or sides think that they won the debate is to see which side(s) promote the debate. We've been talking up the debate almost daily on our BEL radio program, and on last Friday's and today's Real Science Radio show. And atop KGOV still, as for the last month, we have this:

KOJ-Debate-KGOV-Banner.png


So far Will Kinney's site has nothing. He mentions a dispute from my debate with James White, but still has no link or even a mention to TheologyOnline.com. And what do you think, will other leaders, or rank-and-file KJO promoters, link to this debate?

- Bob
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Hi C. Since you are a Vatican Version user (St. Joseph NAB) and an unbeliever in the existence of an inerrant Bible in any language, it would be interesting to see how your mind works (or, doesn't) when you affirm that the KJB has "translation errors".

So, why don't you give us your Number One All Time Big Hits "translation error" you think you have found in the KJB and prove that it is wrong. By the way, what is this absolute Standard you consult when you look at and compare the King James Bible?

Don't give me your bible agnostic laundry lists. Just your best shot example and we can then see if you are right or the Book is right and you are wrong.

Thanks.

Why do you open so many responses with an insult?
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
You say I don't have to believe you, but is it a sin to reject the assertion that Cambridge has the authority to maintain the purity of the KJB? If so, when did God communicate this rule to mankind?

Good questions Tico. Also, how did Cambridge beat out Oxford on this? Was it by mere human striving? Or by supernatural intervention? That's another question, I presume, that your typical KJO leader would be afraid to answer.

Oh yeah, and Tico, did you notice the offer that Will Duffy and I presented in Round Five, to expand the debate if any of the other KJO leaders, like Waite, Moorman, Schnoebelen, Riplinger, etc., want in? Think any of them will take us up on the offer?

- Bob E.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Hello again Will Kinney. You may not have noticed I wrote you some posts on pages 73 and 74. Posts numbers 1084 and 1096. I'm really looking forward to your answer so that I can get a 100% inerrant Bible for myself. I am certain that you are the expert on this subject so I am sure you can answer my questions in detail.
Thank you for spending the time.
DR

DR, we have a bit of left over sp in a syringe if you need it.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Thank you Bob,

I suppose brandplucked will never acknowledge that the marginal note does not have anything to do with rare animals and precious stones.

He will also do anything he can to try to avoid the words of the translators that say the margin notes are used to admonish the reader to seek further in the Hebrew and in the Greek and not dogmatize the English translation preemptorily.
Great point GO about the translators admonition. -Bob E.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Why don't you be honest with yourself for a change and admit that you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, and be done with it?

It is your lying to yourself about your beliefs that is holding you back.
Wow, you're on a roll GO. Insightful. And there's a finality to your challenge. - Bob E.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
GS was posting a reply to someone else, but then applied this to the debate itself...

So if you are trying to make a case for the KJV being inerrant... A good start would be to not claim there are errors in it.

...so far we've been told by both sides of the debate there are errors in the KJV, and WK now says we need to consult the underlying Greek and Hebrew.

Who was it earlier, GS, that was talking about a nail in the coffin... gold gilding on the lid, etc.? Was that Tambora?

- Bob E.
 
Last edited:

brandplucked

New member
Everybody's an expert. Just ask "genuine original"

Everybody's an expert. Just ask "genuine original"

"rightly dividing" is an English translation of the Greek ὀρθοτομέω orthotomeō.
to cut straight, to cut straight ways
to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly.​

It is a compound of two other Greek words

ὀρθός orthos
straight, upright, erect
straight forward, in a straight line
unharmed, safe
prosperous
attentive, expecting
right, just, righteous, upright
true, genuine, exact
decent
(geometry) right angle
(grammar) nominative​
τομός tomos
sharper
slice, piece
piece of land
(geometry) frustum
roll of papyrus, tome, volume​

The Latin Vulgate uses the phrase "recte tractantem"

recte
rightly, correctly​
tractantem
tugging, dragging, hauling
handling, managing
transacting, performing​

The "rightly" part of "rightly dividing" in the KJV is the same in the Latin.
The question comes with the "dividing" part, which the Latin translates as "handling".
The Latin translation appears to be as much in error as is the KJV English translation.

Dividing means separating into two parts.
The KJV translation causes a false doctrine that leads to spitting the scripture apart.

Cutting and slicing are methods of either dividing something or of opening something.

I am of the opinion that the better translation would be "rightly cutting open the word of truth" instead of "rightly separating the word of truth".

Hi go. You are neither genuine and much less original. As we have already seen so many times here, you are your own authority. You've got no inerrant Bible to give us, and you don't even believe such a thing exists. But you are more than eager to give us your own personal opinions about what the Bible should say if you were to write it.

You are just another frustrated wannabe who thinks way too much of himself.


"RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth"

Some bible critics have further criticized the King James Bible in this verse by telling us that "rightly dividing" is a wrong translation. One such man is pastor John Carpenter, who is one of the new Vatican Version users. The ESV has "rightly handling the word of truth". The NASB says: "accurately handling the word of truth" and the NIV has: "who correctly handles the word of truth."

Agreeing with the King James Bible's "rightly dividing the word of truth" are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza New Testament 1599 - "dividing the word of truth aright", the Bills Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, the Worsely Version 1770, Wesley's N.T. 1755, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, the Newcome N.T. 1796, The Revised Translation 1815, The Wakefield N.T. 1820, The Kneeland N.T. 1823, The Family Paraphrase Bible 1831, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, Webster's Translation 1833, The Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Longman Version 1841, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Calvin Version 1856, The Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, The Emphatic Diaglott Bible 1865, The Noyes Translation 1869, The Davidson N.T. 1876, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885, The New Covenant N.T. 1888, Darby 1890, The New Dispensation N.T. 1897, Young's translation 1898, the Godbey N.T. 1902, The Worrell N.T. 1904, The Coptic Version 1905, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Improved Bible 1913, The Sinaitic N.T. 1918, The Montgomery N.T. 1924, the NKJV 1982, The Recovery N.T. 1985, The Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, The 21st Century KJV 1994, the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglott Bible 2003, The Evidence Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Non-Ecclesiastical N.T. 2008, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Faithful N.T. 2009, the Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Disciples' Literal N.T. 2011, The Concordant Version 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The English Majority Text 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Mitchell N.T. 2014, and the Modern English Version 2014 all say "RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth."



The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.
 

brandplucked

New member
Division?

Division?

Why does KJVO cause division among the brethren?

It causes division between those who really believe God has given us a complete and inerrant Bible and those who do not. It's really just that simple.

By the way, truth always divides.
 
Top