Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[tetelestai]

Her post is in regards to the KJB, and how other versions distort the verse.

It's her opinion about other bible translations because Gal 2:7 in modern versions completely destroys her Hyper-Dispensationalism.

She, and you, do the exact same thing as the SDA's.

MAD's proof text, and the SDA's proof text fall apart in modern translations.

Thus the link between King James Onlyism, MAD and SDA

For example, with Gal 2:7 in the NIV, there is no MAD. With Acts 13:42 in the ESV, there is no SDA.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Its a nice suggestion, but did you realize tet is here?

Yes, since john w hurt his feelings, every thread Tet is in becomes about the evils of dispensationalism, the evils of Darby/Bullinger, or the evils of the KJB.

 

[GuySmiley]

So . . . KJVO . . .

I don't see it as a big deal, if someone wants to stick to the KJVO. From this debate I've learned some of my favorite people on TOL are KJVO. Although I do see why it's a big deal from the other side.

brandplucked, I just don't like your style. You are so exaggerated in criticism of Original Onlyists (new term lol) when you admit to believing the same things about the KJV. Its just completely irrational.

 

[tetelestai]

I don't see it as a big deal, if someone wants to stick to the KJVO.

Not one non-KJVO cares if people want to be KJVO.

However, the KJVO's can't help themselves from insulting anyone who isn't KJVO, and can't help themselves from insulting every bible that isn't a KJB.

Will Kinney is Exhibit A. Almost every post of his has an insult.

 

[Shasta]

How do you answer those that question the NT and the obvious contradictions between the red letters, the 12 and what Paul taught? Do you really try and tell them it is the same and they just don't understand? Or do you point out the truth of one thing is for one group, and another thing is for the other group?

Well, I would rather not turn yet another thread into a discussion of MAD but I will answer your question. For one thing, Christ did at times deal with the Law since that covenant was still in effect but that was not His gospel. His Gospel was that which He directly taught His Apostles when He told them to "Go to all nations teaching them to observe whatsoever I command YOU." His teachings superseded the law and replaced it with something that would fulfill the essence of it. Part of His message was the promise of the Holy Spirit and the New Birth. He also promised eternal life if people believed in Him. All of this could not be brought to pass until He died but though He spoke from time to time about this and that He would be resurrected He did not explain how that would accomplish the redemptive purpose. Doing that would have given the secret away to the Enemy.

After the Resurrection He walked the disciples and the disciples who were headed to Emmaus through the whole of the Bible: The Torah, The Psalms and the Prophets, showing them how His death had been foretold and explaining the purpose of it. The reason He did not reveal it before was strategic and did not make His previous teachings part of another dispensation.

In Jesus life He revealed truths that are essential to the Gospel. For one, He revealed that He was the perfect representation of the Divine nature. He revealed His perfect humanity, divine origin and unique relationship to the Father. He even revealed that He existed with the Father before the world began. Paul mentions all these things in His letters because they are part of the gospel. Only Jesus could have been the sacrifice, mediator and, ultimately, only He is worthy to be the King of all.

Paul uses different terminology to express the Gospel because of his background. For instance he uses the word "justification" which is a legal term but, as far as I can tell, this is simply another way of looking at what the disciples and Jesus called "forgiveness." Forgiveness means the past sins are "released" and "let go." If our sins are "taken away" by the Lamb then we stand in righteous before God. "

Without the revelation of Who Christ is there is no basis for His work. The disciples learned about Christ through living with Him, observing Him and listening to His teaching. Paul encountered Jesus by revelation and learned that way. When he says "my gospel" he wasreferring to what was revealed to him. The scripture never says outright "there are two gospels. Here is what each is about." Rather that conclusion has arisen by making inferences. Every time I have asked for explicit statements of this sort I end up snipe hunting. I have also found no evidence that those that followed the Apostles had any knowledge of more than one gospel. Their extensive citations of the NT reveal that they thought all of it was equally inspired and relevant to believers.

I understand you are committed to this belief system and would rather not start another round of discussion about it since so much of TOL is already devoted to it.

 

[Shasta]

The last exchange I had with Will Kinney showed how a belief in the inerrancy is used to settle matters of scripture interpretation. In our discussion translators, not all translators just those who produced the KJV are given final say in determining the meaning of scriptures. They are like the Supreme Court which can make rulings that will from thenceforth render THE ORTHODOX VIEW for all Christendom. Unlike the Supreme Court their translation is like "the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not."

In this case we were talking about Daniel 3:25, the issue being whether the "fourth personage in the fire" was an angel or a Christophany. In case you ever wondered, the issue was settled when the Cambridge edition of the KJV translated this key phrase "and the appearance of the fourth is like the Son of God." For those who believe in the perfection of the KJV this should be enough. "The KJV says it. I believe it. That settles it."

Never mind that the word "son" does not have an article "the" preceding it or that the word "God" is not capitalized (since in the original text all letters were capitalized). Furthermore the word God is plural. Unlike the Hebrew word Elohim this word is the Aramaic Elahin which, unlike Elohim, is always used for multiple pagan deities.

I found much more linguistic support than this. I am just making a point. Other translation were said to be in collusion with the Church of Rome. Only the KJV was holding to the divinity of Christ. When I examined the link that was provided I found that while the words were many, the evidence was scant. At any rate, if the modern translation have strayed so far from the Truth why did men like Calvin and Luther believe this figure in the fire was an angel?

Of course I have always heard both views of Daniel 3:25 and it never made a difference as far as having fellowship with another believer. Such a difference of opinion is like throwing down the gauntlet to KJVO crowd (at least those who hold to inerrancy) because for them to be "wrong on a
single point of the law" makes them wrong on all of it. When something perfect is flawed in any way it is no longer perfect. Thus it is necessary to go to battle on any verse that questions the flawless KJV.

There is no need to explore lexicons or the writings of other scholars. "If the KJV says it, I believe it and that settles it." The English words of the KJV are believed to be perfect expressions of the Greek and Hebrew texts they came from so to read the English version is no different than reading the original text(which is somehow not supposed to exist anymore).

I grew up reading the KJV and when I quote the Bible I end up saying it in King James English. Many preachers I listen to quote from the KJV. It is a reasonably good translation however, that is different than claiming that it is inerrant in every verse and about every word. I think that position is extreme, divisive and discourages a person from searching the scriptures.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

I wonder who the first KJO believer will be to answer our 27 questions. Will Kinney might end up being the first, as he's already answered half of them. He has quite the head start on the rest.

 

[Yorzhik]

Would this be making "the originals" an idol?

The question requires that we define what is meant when either side accuses the other of making an idol. An idol is putting something above God. In the same way that permitting what God forbids is creating a law above God’s law, so too is forbidding what God permits for the same reasons. You didn’t answer the question about creating division in the church, but Will Kinney did:

I can see their point. This "pastor" would be preaching from a Bible he did not really believe is the authoritative and inerrant words of God. He would be a chameleon bible believer. And if you approved of his teaching, and he then goes on to promote the corrupted versions at other churches, it reflects back on the Bible believing church.

Why would you have a man like Bob Enyart teach the Bible at your church, when he doesn't believe it is the inerrant words of God? Maybe he should stick to that Hungarian Karoli bible thingy he told us is his infallible Standard. Even though he can't read it, maybe he could try to phonetically sound it out in front of the congregation. He would be making as much sense doing it that way as he is now with his evasive double-speak nonsense he has been giving us.

What Will Kinney is trying to do is pressure people to forbid what God permits with insults and disfellowship. So you can see why people that aren’t KJVO, seeing the focus on why the particular version matters to such a great deal that insults and disfellowshipping are deemed necessary, point to the version as a manifestation of law above God’s law.

Now, going on to your question about original autographs being made an idol. Original autographs are unique in that they cannot be changed even if they are wrong. DR has made this clear and I cannot state it better:

I do not believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs. Not because I don't think they were of the highest quality but because inerrancy simply doesn't apply to them. Whatever these original manuscripts said, that is what they are. They are to be interpreted as such. If a text indicates that Pi = 3 then that is what the text is. You can call it inerrant, you can call it errant, you can call it sausages - I don't really care what you call it. That is what God inspired it to be; it is not really my prerogative to judge it. Rather, let it judge me! It is there as a tool to teach and to train.

But the concept of inerrancy does apply to the copies of the original manuscripts because these can be compared (conceptually) to the originals. I am not saying that practically they can be compared but conceptually it makes sense to ascribe a greater or lesser degree of inerrancy to them in terms of how close they are to those originals. Hence, a manuscript that says words to the effect that Pi =3 could be said be said to be 100% inerrant in the sense that it is a 100% accurate reflection of what was in the original manuscript, regardless of whether you consider the original as in some way incorrect factually (or even theologically).

This is an important principle because it promotes discipline in the church. You can't go around altering the manuscripts just because you think there is a mistake in them. You have to copy exactly what is there. And spiritually speaking, you have to submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit through what is there and not what you think should be there. The alternative is just a recipe for a disaster.

Thus, an additional question you should ask yourself is: would it be right to create another language translation *from* the KJV without referring to the best copies of the original languages we have today? If you say “no” to that question, your accusation that people that view the original autographs as inerrant have the same position as KJVO is wrong.

So I hope you see that my answer is calm and straightforward. Here are my questions for you:
What constitutes an error in a translation? Wouldn’t a printing error count? If it doesn’t, then define what would constitute an error. And please note, that you can say “it matters to what degree the error is” as Will Kinney has implied in both the BR-XIV and this thread. And if it matters to what degree an error is, then quantify the amount of error required to bring an error up to the level of “real error” as opposed to “minor error that doesn’t count.”

 

[tetelestai]

What constitutes an error in a translation?

Good luck with that question.

I have asked STP over a dozen times in this thread what his definition of "error" is.

He hasn't come close to answering the question.

 

[Shasta]

The question requires that we define what is meant when either side accuses the other of making an idol. An idol is putting something above God. In the same way that permitting what God forbids is creating a law above God’s law, so too is forbidding what God permits for the same reasons. You didn’t answer the question about creating division in the church, but Will Kinney did:



What Will Kinney is trying to do is pressure people to forbid what God permits with insults and disfellowship. So you can see why people that aren’t KJVO, seeing the focus on why the particular version matters to such a great deal that insults and disfellowshipping are deemed necessary, point to the version as a manifestation of law above God’s law.

Now, going on to your question about original autographs being made an idol. Original autographs are unique in that they cannot be changed even if they are wrong. DR has made this clear and I cannot state it better:


Thus, an additional question you should ask yourself is: would it be right to create another language translation *from* the KJV without referring to the best copies of the original languages we have today? If you say “no” to that question, your accusation that people that view the original autographs as inerrant have the same position as KJVO is wrong.

So I hope you see that my answer is calm and straightforward. Here are my questions for you:
What constitutes an error in a translation? Wouldn’t a printing error count? If it doesn’t, then define what would constitute an error. And please note, that you can say “it matters to what degree the error is” as Will Kinney has implied in both the BR-XIV and this thread. And if it matters to what degree an error is, then quantify the amount of error required to bring an error up to the level of “real error” as opposed to “minor error that doesn’t count.”

The question to answer is what was Paul talking about when he said "all scriptures are God-breathed?" Was he talking about the OT only or did that extend to the Apostolic writings as well? Further, can it be said that translations are "God-breathed?" Historically the goal of translators was simply to give an accurate rendering of the original writings in the languages of the nations. I do not think they thought "we are producing something equal to the original text." This is why KJVO did bit arise when the translation was written. Only after a number of generations had looked to that book to supply truth was the translation given the respect of antiquity that people thought of that - the translation - as being synonymous with The Word of God. Familiarity and history lent it a certain degree of the respect the KJV has. When other versions showed up they seemed to be invaders by many.

 

[Desert Reign]

Now, going on to your question about original autographs being made an idol. Original autographs are unique in that they cannot be changed even if they are wrong. DR has made this clear and I cannot state it better:

Thanks.

Thus, an additional question you should ask yourself is: would it be right to create another language translation *from* the KJV without referring to the best copies of the original languages we have today? If you say “no” to that question, your accusation that people that view the original autographs as inerrant have the same position as KJVO is wrong.

If you have confidence in the first translation then I see no reason why you shouldn't translate into a third language. Assuming you don't have sufficient expertise to review the original mss yourself. You would have a twice removed translation. But so long as people understand the limitations of this then I wouldn't object. After all, the Gospel is being preached is it not?

I would however caution that in the case of the KJV, you would also need to be a relative expert in the KJV language. In my understanding, a lot of modern Bible translations are translated from modern English texts by local people who do not know Greek or Hebrew, only English. But I have never heard of such people being given a KJV as their base text!

It is not just KJVOnlyism here that is a culprit. There is a general idolisation of the scriptures as the 'Word of God'. The scriptures themselves do not state that they are inerrant and they certainly do not state that there are 66 defined books that form an authoritative canon. I sometimes get the impression that people no longer believe in a trinity. They believe in a 4 part God (whatever name that is called...): God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and God the Holy Scriptures.

I am sure they will deny this caricature but it doesn't seem exaggerated to me. The idea of inerrancy is to bolster the notion that in the Scriptures is the comlplete revelation of God. But if God is completely revealed in them then, like Jesus himself, they carry all the divine nature. 'All the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily...' could be said equally of the scriptures if some people's concept of the Bible is to be believed. The scriptures are a useful tool. When you see them this way, they can be liberated from theological dressing up so that they can be understood for what they are. So that they can be interacted with. As I tried to hint at in a more witty way earlier, this whole attitude encourages you to put the Bible on your shelf and feel comforted by its presence in your home. But to read it and be blessed by it in practical ways is just an afterthought. Who cares, whether there are 66 books or whether the Apocrypha should be included? Who cares whether C. S. Lewis's book 'Mere Christianity' was inspired by God or 'Celebration of Discipline' by Richard Foster? It is the reading of them that is important.

So I hope you see that my answer is calm and straightforward. Here are my questions for you:
What constitutes an error in a translation? Wouldn’t a printing error count? If it doesn’t, then define what would constitute an error. And please note, that you can say “it matters to what degree the error is” as Will Kinney has implied in both the BR-XIV and this thread. And if it matters to what degree an error is, then quantify the amount of error required to bring an error up to the level of “real error” as opposed to “minor error that doesn’t count.”

If there were an exact set of rules that define a perfect translation(s) then we would not be having such a debate at all. As I said to BE earlier, we live in the real world and we have to make decisions. Some don't like having to make decisions and want life handed to them on a plate. Like in my job, sometimes a boss will say to you 'can you give me a summary in one sentence of the work you are doing for this client.' My response is 'You pay me a lot of dollars to do my job because you know there are few people who can do it with the expertise I have; and you now expect me to throw away what I have done and do it how a schoolboy would?' KJVOnlyism is an abnegation of responsibility in my view. If you are really interested in knowing all the nuances of the scriptures, then you need to go further and study the original languages, semantics, hermeneutics. Otherwise you take it as it is and you put your trust in the translators and in the oversight of the church. You cannot buy the kind of guarantee of accuracy and inerrancy that KJVOnlyists want. It doesn't exist.

And, to answer your last question, printing errors are the same as any other errors. Errors.

 

[George Affleck]

Original autographs are unique in that they cannot be changed even if they are wrong.

Oh, I know what you mean, like, because they don't exist and all?
But we could make a time machine...

 

[ccfromsc]

Point

Point


Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.

What was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer.

If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these details.

If there was no perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these details.

Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation? Please give specific verses with proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

 

[Right Divider]

Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.

What was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer.

If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these details.

If there was no perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these details.

Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation? Please give specific verses with proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

Like a broken record.....

 

[Yorzhik]

Oh, I know what you mean, like, because they don't exist and all?

No. Because they are the originals. It would also mean that we cannot change what we are confident are copies of the originals, even if they are wrong.

This wouldn't be true of only the bible, but any original autograph that we wanted to preserve.

 

[George Affleck]

No. Because they are the originals. It would also mean that we cannot change what we are confident are copies of the originals, even if they are wrong..

But can we change our confidence in the wrongness of the copies?

 

[George Affleck]

Sorry, I apologize, I was just havin' you on.

Look, to be honest, the place is closed down. All the delegates have gone home and there's just a few broken records left. I'm just watching the janitors sweep up the banners and popcorn and hoping to get a ride home.

The place was pretty much cleared out after the Ruckman stink bomb was tossed and it was downhill after that.

See ya!

 

[patrick jane]

I think, at the end of the day, we will read and believe every word of whatever Bible we've been reading lately, even when we change Bibles. I'll always be armed with my KJVs, and to each his own. (I do feel superior though since I have the best version).

 

[patrick jane]

Sorry, I apologize, I was just havin' you on.

Look, to be honest, the place is closed down. All the delegates have gone home and there's just a few broken records left. I'm just watching the janitors sweep up the banners and popcorn and hoping to get a ride home.

The place was pretty much cleared out after the Ruckman stink bomb was tossed and it was downhill after that.

See ya!

wait, what was the ruckman stink bomb ?

 

[tetelestai]

wait, what was the ruckman stink bomb ?

Peter Ruckman (a King James Onlyist) claims that the KJV can correct the Textus Receptus.

I don't know if that's what George meant, but that's what Ruckman claims.