Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[tetelestai]

Why? You are a fraud.

Once again, you won't answer the question.

Just be honest and admit you won't answer the question.

All you are doing here is showing how foolish King James Onlyism really is.

You claim the KJB is inerrant, but at the same time refuse to define "error".

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Once again, you won't answer the question.

Just be honest and admit you won't answer the question.

All you are doing here is showing how foolish King James Onlyism really is.

You claim the KJB is inerrant, but at the same time refuse to define "error".

This is how it went down.

STP: "Tell us which versions have errors and which versions do not have errors."

Tet: "Define error."

STP: "Use the definition you used when you claimed that the KJV was without error."


No answer. Just misdirection.
Just tell us which versions are okay to "use".

 

[Desert Reign]

I think it might help matters if you linked the post where Tet made the claim that the KJV was inerrant. I also seem to recall that myself. Then he can explain it to you if he hasn't already done so.

 

[tetelestai]

I think it might help matters if you linked the post where Tet made the claim that the KJV was inerrant.

I said the KJV was without errors.

I also said the NIV and most other translations were without errors.

Then I said they all have errors.

I made it clear that it depends on the definition of what an "error" is.

Once STP or any other KJVO defines "error" for us, then I can clarify my statements.

STP won't define "error" despite me asking him over and over again, and despite another person asking him to define "error".

I guarantee STP will NOT do it. He can't do, or he will refute King James Onlyism.

That's why he plays games, and won't answer the question.

 

[Desert Reign]

I said the KJV was without errors.

I also said the NIV and most other translations were without errors.

Then I said they all have errors.

I made it clear that it depends on the definition of what an "error" is.

Once STP or any other KJVO defines "error" for us, then I can clarify my statements.

STP won't define "error" despite me asking him over and over again, and despite another person asking him to define "error".

I guarantee STP will NOT do it. He can't do, or he will refute King James Onlyism.

That's why he plays games, and won't answer the question.

But if you said that the KJB was without errors, then you must have had something in mind when you said it?

Perhaps you should offer a retraction and correct what you said to

'It may be possible to construct a definition of an error which makes the KJB inerrant but such a definition would also make other translations inerrant by that same definition.' On the face of it, you made an absolute statement: the KJB is without error.

Or something like that.

 

[tetelestai]

It may be possible to construct a definition of an error which makes the KJB inerrant but such a definition would also make other translations inerrant by that same definition.

That's perfect.

That's exactly what I have been trying to say.

Now, if STP can tell us his definition of "error", then we can determine if his definition makes the KJB inerrant, and all other versions full of errors.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Now, if STP can tell us his definition of "error", then we can determine if his definition makes the KJB inerrant, and all other versions full of errors.

Use the definition you used when you said "The KJV is without error" and tell us if all versions are without errors, or if all versions have errors.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I also said the NIV and most other translations were without errors.

Then I said they all have errors.

Which are we to believe?

 

[tetelestai]

Use the definition you used

We want to hear your definition.

You're the King James Onlyist, not me.

 

[tetelestai]

Which are we to believe?

Again, it depends on how you define "error".

Why won't you tell us?

Why are you so afraid of the question?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

We want to hear your definition.

You're the King James Onlyist, not me.

You said the KJV was without error, and that most versions were without error.

Which ones do have errors, that we need to avoid?

 

[tetelestai]

You said the KJV was without error, and that most versions were without error.

Which ones do have errors, that we need to avoid?

You're really embarrassing yourself.

Until you define "error", I can't answer your questions.

Just tell us what you consider an error.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Until you define "error", I can't answer your questions.

This is how it went down.

STP: "Tell us which versions have errors and which versions do not have errors."

Tet: "Define error."

STP: "Use the definition you used when you claimed that the KJV was without error."


No answer. Just misdirection.
Just tell us which versions are okay to "use".

 

[Desert Reign]

That's perfect.

That's exactly what I have been trying to say.

Now, if STP can tell us his definition of "error", then we can determine if his definition makes the KJB inerrant, and all other versions full of errors.

Tet, you already know which side of the debate I am on. I have made that perfectly clear.

I am just trying to be fair in the process of the argument going on here. Initially you made a statement that the KJB was without error. I guessed what you meant from the context but I wasn't sure.
Now that you have retracted your first statement and clarified that my understanding was correct, this still doesn't leave you in the driving seat. I will tell you why:
If you agree with me as per above, then what you are saying is purely hypothetical:
'There may be some definition of error which makes the KJB inerrant but such a definition would probably make all other translations inerrant as well.'

Because this is a hypothetical statement, in terms of a debate, you can't then get your interlocutor to supply you with a definition of your hypothetical error. It is your onus to do that. In your view, if such a definition existed, it would destroy the KJVO position. Therefore you can't ask your opponent to give it to you. You are just asking him to defeat his own position. Of course he isn't going to do that. You may be right in substance, but in terms of the debate, you can't win it like this. If you really want to pursue this line of argument, you need to ask a direct question: 'Is there a KJVO definition of errancy which has the effect of declaring the KJV to be without error whilst declaring all other translations to be errant?' You then need to wait for the answer before proceeding. You can't assume it is yes and then claim victory when no one gives you the definition you are looking for.

As I said, we are both on the same side. But my argument didn't hinge on some definition of 'inerrant' because I do not claim inerrancy for either any translation or the original autographs.

All I claimed was along the lines of: the version I can buy in the shops today is provably not the same one as one could buy in ths shops 50 years ago. Therefore they cannot both be without error. The onus is now on the KJVO side to disprove that. No one has. WK just ignored it. My argument doesn't require the KJVO side to define what an error is, unless they feel it would help in refuting my argument.

I suspect that if they did offer such a definition, then it would open them up to objective verification, which they would not do. So their answer is simply that you know the KJB is inerrant by faith. That is what their whole argument boils down to. They want to believe it and their desire is their own proof of its rightness.

 

[tetelestai]

'There may be some definition of error which makes the KJB inerrant but such a definition would probably make all other translations inerrant as well.'

Yes, that is my claim.

I also claim that a certain definition of "error" makes every bible have errors

Because this is a hypothetical statement, in terms of a debate, you can't then get your interlocutor to supply you with a definition of your hypothetical error.

I'm not asking him for my definition of "error", I'm asking what his is.

It is your onus to do that. In your view, if such a definition existed, it would destroy the KJVO position. Therefore you can't ask your opponent to give it to you. You are just asking him to defeat his own position. Of course he isn't going to do that.

How can KJVO's claim the KJB is inerrant, but not define what an error is?

It's not just me who asks. See the following quote:

What constitutes an error in a translation? Wouldn’t a printing error count? If it doesn’t, then define what would constitute an error.

You may be right in substance, but in terms of the debate, you can't win it like this. If you really want to pursue this line of argument, you need to ask a direct question: 'Is there a KJVO definition of errancy which has the effect of declaring the KJV to be without error whilst declaring all other translations to be errant?'

That's why I have been asking STP to define error.

Once he defines what an error is, then we can see which versions have errors.

You then need to wait for the answer before proceeding.

Neither STP or Will has given their answer.

As I said, we are both on the same side. But my argument didn't hinge on some definition of 'inerrant' because I do not claim inerrancy for either any translation or the original autographs.

IMO, if a KJVO gives any definition for "error" they refute themselves, and KJVO at the same time.

All I claimed was along the lines of: the version I can buy in the shops today is provably not the same one as one could buy in ths shops 50 years ago. Therefore they cannot both be without error.

I agree

That's why they won't define error.

The onus is now on the KJVO side to disprove that. No one has.

Because they can't disprove it.

My argument doesn't require the KJVO side to define what an error is, unless they feel it would help in refuting my argument.

That's because when all the different KJB's are lined up against each other, any definition of error would prove KJVO wrong.

So their answer is simply that you know the KJB is inerrant by faith.

That's their only argument.

They lose every other argument.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

They lose every other argument.

Since that is settled, tell us which versions are without error, and which ones have errors.

We need to know which ones are safe to "use".

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I also claim that a certain definition of "error" makes every bible have errors

It depends on what the definition of "is" is. Tet Clinton?

 

[tetelestai]

It depends on what the definition of "is" is. Tet Clinton?

All you have to do is define what an "error" is when it comes to bible translations.

You have showed everyone that you cannot do it.

 

[Yorzhik]

Do you believe KJB believers put it above God?

That's one way to look at it. But I'll concede that minor point of the label used if you'll answer the questions like you said you'd try:

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.”

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That's one way to look at it. But I'll concede that minor point of the label used if you'll answer the questions like you said you'd try:

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.”

Words in the text that will not match what God inspired men to write down is an error.