Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[brandplucked]

A Bible Agnostic's philosophy

A Bible Agnostic's philosophy

Certainly the Bible itself never claims that any particular translation is the word of God that expresses perfectly the thought and intent of the original text. This is not a doctrine at all but rather an opinion of people who lived thousands of years after the Bible was written.

Part of the fallacy of the argument lies in the illogical 'all or nothing' thinking that posits that either every word of the original text is exactly conveyed in English or else the Bible version is not "The Word of God." This 'all or nothing' proposition is illogical in that it sets the bar too high for any translator or group of translators. If followed consistently it calls for an end to ongoing study and scholarship. After all "when the perfect is come" why is there a need to search for a clearer more accurate translation?

It was pointed out that some were uncomfortable with the revision of the cherished Bishops Bible which caused it to be replaced by the KJV The original KJV was revised too in the Cambridge edition. In order for the KJV to be the inspired version the hand of God would have had to be in this multi-staged revision process which is itself an extra-Biblical meta-narrative.

Hi Shasta. Your thinking is decidedly carnal and antibiblical, if not anti-God.

The Bible itself claims to be the inspired words of the living God who cannot lie and has promised both to preserve His words and that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

This "all or nothing" view may set the bar too high for your scholars and translators, but it is not too high for the sovereign God of the universe.

You even answered your own question when you said: "After all "when the perfect is come" why is there a need to search for a clearer more accurate translation?"

Your problem is that you don't believe the perfect words of God have come and you don't know where to find them because you don't know what they are for sure.

"In order for the KJV to be the inspired version the hand of God would have had to be in this multi-staged revision process..."

Imagine that. Ya think maybe our God is capable of such a thing? He took a 7 days process to finish creation, didn't He? Why didn't He do it in just one day and be done with it?

You are still thinking the Bible is a human book and God is somehow outside of the picture when it comes to preserving His words and giving us "the book of the LORD" (Isaiah 34:16)

Think about it.

God bless.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Sprawl is the nature of a forum. It is literally impossible to guide a discussion in an open forum.

Decades of wisdom and experience talking, here.

 

[False Prophet]

There are no original MSS. Scrolls were written out by hand on papyrus reeds. Paper was invented by the Chinese around AD100. So the originals have long perished. Only the copies remain. The Dead Sea scrolls were not around when the KJV was published in 1611. I believe that revisions were made until 1769 when dogma took over saying, "Our literature is divinely inspired."

 

[genuineoriginal]

So is verse 6 just stuck in there?

It is the punctuation that is just stuck into the Psalm to alter its intended meaning.

Here is how the KJV renders the verses.

Psalm 12:6-7 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

This makes it look like the words of the LORD are purified like silver.

However, the Bible clearly shows that it is the people that are kept and preserved that are purified like silver.

Malachi 3:3 3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.​

Ezekiel 22:22 22 As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the Lord have poured out my fury upon you.​

Zechariah 13:9 9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.​

The Bible also shows that it is the righteous and upright that are kept.

Psalm 145:20 20 The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.​

Psalm 121:5-8 5 The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand. 6 The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night. 7 The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul. 8 The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore.​

Here is an alternate punctuation based on those verses.

The words of the Lord are pure words. As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

 

[Desert Reign]

Knight,

The comments here in the Grandstand are all too much against the KJVO position. Were you planning on monitoring and directing the Grandstand to ensure it is more a 50/50 thing (i.e. ensure that the KJVO position was clearly better), or was the intent to just let the anti-KJVOers win out through their better logic and analysis? If you are too busy, I would love to help monitor it for you, I am the ideal person for the new role, with loads of experience of this kind of thing. I have made 3 posts in TOL so I am quite a dab hand at it and I have even done some translation myself. In fact, if ever you are feeling tired and need a rest, I would be more than happy to help you out as a special favour by taking over the forum myself. Only temporarily of course. Just until you die or are too old to run it yourself.

Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.

That's so cool of you to offer your services, James. I am sure if you send Knight a decent donation that he will consider your offer favourably.

 

[Brother Vinny]

That's so cool of you to offer your services, James. I am sure if you send Knight a decent donation that he will consider your offer favourably.

 

[Danoh]

Dear Brandplucked,
I am not disputing your translation. I am disputing your interpretation of it. All your comparisons don't address that. Anyone reading the psalm in its entirety (only a few verses) can see that it doesn't mean what you say it does. It is only when you take that one verse out of its context that it is made to look like what you say it does. Spurgeon's opinion is no more authoritative than mine. You simply haven't provided any evidence that the Bible teaches that there will be a set of words which fully consolidate God's word to man. Indeed, it is very clear that God's word to man is ongoing. Of course Jesus himself, the divine son, is the epitome of that communication - the self-revelation of God to us. But that doesn't stop God from talking to us daily, just as he did throughout the history of Israel and to the present day. The exclusivity you claim for the KJV is simply not supported by any of scripture. Your focus on just a single verse is also telling. It demonstrates the paucity of evidence you have. Your position is just wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
From the looks of brandplucked's arguments, the KJO side is claiming that there was never ever a completely inerrant Bible in all of history that could have survived to become the KJV.
They claim that through some miracle God made the KJV as the first complete and inerrant Bible in all of history.

Yep. That's what it looks like. It looks irrational to the point of a pathology.

:chuckle: For, as usual, your own dogmatism does provide a chuckle.

DR, it is obvious the man is well aware of more than one passage of Scripture, but was posting on that one as his example (off-based or not).

You are as dogmatic in these issues as both sides tend to be. And that can only blind one to the needed objectivity.

In this, TOL is often an acronym for Those Objectively Lacking, lol

Try your "haven't provided any evidence that the Bible teaches that there will be a set of words which fully consolidate God's word to man" assertion against the various passages like Matthew 4:4 and 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

And how is "that doesn't stop God from talking to us daily, just as he did throughout the history of Israel and to the present day," any kind of an argument other than for those who assert "the Spirit's leading" and or some "still small voice," in everything from which turn to make in traffic, to what shoes to buy?

My point is, try to be a bit more neither for nor against. Only from there does one begin to see not only both sides a bit clearer, but one's own lens even as one applies it.

That applies to all of us.

 

[Danoh]

:chuckle: For, as usual, your own dogmatism does provide a chuckle.

DR, it is obvious the man is well aware of more than one passage of Scripture, but was posting on that one as his example (off-based or not).

You are as dogmatic in these issues as both sides tend to be. And that can only blind one to the needed objectivity.

In this, TOL is often an acronym for Those Objectively Lacking, lol

Try your "haven't provided any evidence that the Bible teaches that there will be a set of words which fully consolidate God's word to man" assertion against the various passages like Matthew 4:4 and 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

And how is "that doesn't stop God from talking to us daily, just as he did throughout the history of Israel and to the present day," any kind of an argument other than for those who assert "the Spirit's leading" and or some "still small voice," in everything from which turn to make in traffic, to what shoes to buy?

My point is, try to be a bit more...neither for, nor against a thing.

Only from there does one begin to see not only both sides a bit clearer, but one's own lens even as one applies it.

That applies to all of us.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Ya think maybe our God is capable of such a thing? He took a 7 days process to finish creation, didn't He? Why didn't He do it in just one day and be done with it?

I have found that KJO advocates (and others) love to question why God does something His way instead of the way they think He should have done it.

You are still thinking the Bible is a human book and God is somehow outside of the picture when it comes to preserving His words and giving us "the book of the LORD" (Isaiah 34:16)

It is a shame that KJO advocates do not have the Apocrypha.
In 2 Esdras Chapter 14 is a fascinating tale of God using Ezra to replace the books of the Bible that had been burnt and lost to mankind.

 

[Desert Reign]

My point is, try to be a bit more neither for nor against. Only from there does one begin to see not only both sides a bit clearer, but one's own lens even as one applies it.

That applies to all of us.

Thanks for your advice. If you have anything important to say, do let me know.

George Affleck:
That's because you're still focused on the printed book. The Word of God exists inerrantly because God promised to preserve it. If he decides, during one period of history that it should be preserved as ketchup written in the Sahara sand, it will be so. If he decides to preserve it as literature, it will be so. The medium is not the essence of the truth, just the vehicle. The essence of the truth is preserved revelation.

Now, where is it?

I'd like to just add that Mr. Kinney has expressed the view that in all previous history (and I would say this goes back to Moses) there was never a preserved text of 'God's Word'. There was no papyrus, stone or ketchup in the sand at all. Until 1769. So he would interpret your supposed promise of God to preserve his inerrant word as meaning that one day, at a specific time in the future, namely 1769 a.d., God would make good his promise but until then no one could have access to an inerrant version of that word.

Do you agree with Mr. Kinney on this GA?

 

[Brother Vinny]

It is a shame that KJO advocates do not have the Apocrypha.
In 2 Esdras Chapter 14 is a fascinating tale of God using Ezra to replace the books of the Bible that had been burnt and lost to mankind.

Ironic when you consider the Apocrypha were included in the 1611 KJV.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Ironic when you consider the Apocrypha were included in the 1611 KJV.

Yes, isn't it.

Especially considering that the KJO advocates only love the version where the Apocrypha has been removed.

 

[mamatuzzo]

Looking forward to this debate!!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The actual debate isn't that interesting, and it isn't going to resolve anything.
What is interesting to me is the attitude of each side.


1. KJB- we want there to be a perfect word of God available, we want a book that we can believe no matter what, even when we don't understand it. We want to be under it's authority.

2. Non KJB- in most cases, they do not really want there to be a perfect word of God available. They are happy with a "reasonably accurate" account, and with hundreds of versions that capture "the main message". But they want the lee way to be able to dabble with all versions and be their own authority to some degree.


If a gun was to your head, and you had to know what God said on a particular matter, where would you turn?

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, isn't it.

Especially considering that the KJO advocates only love the version where the Apocrypha has been removed.

A·poc·ry·pha
əˈpäkrəfə/
noun
singular proper noun: Apocrypha

1. biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture.
   
   
   • writings or reports not considered genuine.
     plural noun: apocrypha
     
     
   
   
   
   

 

[Brother Vinny]

1. KJB- we want there to be a perfect word of God available, we want a book that we can believe no matter what, even when we don't understand it. We want to be under it's authority.

Is it possible that your desire is unreasonable? And intense enough to the point where confirmation bias of the evidence you believe supports the fulfillment of that desire blinds you to the evidence contrary to it?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Is it possible that your desire is unreasonable? And intense enough to the point where confirmation bias of the evidence you believe supports the fulfillment of that desire blinds you to the evidence contrary to it?

It's possible.

There is evidence for it, and against. I have decided that I am going to believe that God preserved his words perfectly, and that I have it.
And I'm going to believe what I read. That's all anyone of us can do. It is called faith.

 

[genuineoriginal]

A·poc·ry·pha
əˈpäkrəfə/
noun
singular proper noun: Apocrypha

1. biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture.
   • writings or reports not considered genuine.
     plural noun: apocrypha

_____
Apocrypha

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.

Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago.
_____​

Most KJO advocates are using an incomplete Bible.
We have been without the Apocrypha for only 130 years.

 

[ranecks]

Fact check on 2Chron 32:5

Fact check on 2Chron 32:5

Will Kinney is correct when he says that the Bishop's Bible has "repaired" in 2 Chronicles 32:5

 

[Right Divider]

_____
Apocrypha

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.

Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago.
_____​

Most KJO advocates are using an incomplete Bible.
We have been without the Apocrypha for only 130 years.

I, like many other, do not consider those to be genuine.