Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
No way Brian. I gave up on you guys over there. Too many of you piling on your garbage and not really wanting answers. Your buddies over there bring up one question after another. I answer a question and they don't even acknowledge it. Instead they post what they think is another error. Unbound wanted proof that your silly claim about the KJB rejecting the Hebrew texts was bogus. I provided it and he didn't say Boo.
|
I cannot control what other people post, or how they deal with other people's posts. All I do is allow discussion, and try and keep the nastiness to a minimum. As for saying boo, during our discussion you didn't say boo about a great deal of my comments and questions. If you want to give up on posting on that board, you could have at least had the courtesy to let me know you were abandoning our conversation instead of spamming your reply (containing my full name) to several message boards (including this one) without telling me.
Quote:
|
I also noticed that you never acknowledged your laundry list was just a bunch of unfounded nonsense.
|
Perhaps you missed where I said "You are correct I have not yet checked into that list myself. I am currently traveling and do not have access to my library or my notes. However, I will look into those examples in more detail for myself when I return home. However, I see that Brandplucked said of Gen 41:56 "Well the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, NIV, 1917, 1936 all translated it the same way as the KJB." He says similar about Jeremiah 50:11. I will try to provide more legitimate ones at a future date, but his comment indicates that he agrees that the KJV does follow the LXX over the Masoretic in at least these two instances - which was what he asked for."
Quote:
|
If you want to keep discussing this with me, then address it here. Your call.
|
Very well, if you refuse to discuss things there, I will continue it here with you. But I ask that you keep the discussion here and not start spamming your replies and my name all over the place again. Let's begin....
Quote:
Let's take this one step at a time. First, is my statement concerning what you personally believe about a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible accurate? Is it true that you do not believe that such a thing exists now or ever did exist?
No fancy footwork please. Just a straight Yes or, if a No, then a brief explanation would be appreciated.
|
You already know the answer. Near the beginning of our discussion you said, "you have to admit that the end result is that you do not have a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language and you deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now." I replied, "it is logically contradictory to on one hand claim the Bible is the only source of doctrine, while on the other hand making doctrinal claims (about the Bible, Mary, anything) that are not found in the Bible. So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now'". I deny that doctrine, because that doctrine is not found in the Bible. You then said "I at least want to thank you for being upfront about the fact that you do not believe in an inerrant Bible."
I then started asking (for 3.5 pages worth of replies) for you to explain WHY
you believe it - WHY you believe an extra-Biblical doctrine while claiming the Bible is the only source of doctrine. I asked you WHY it's a problem for me to believe this when
you believe the exact same thing about the first 80% of church history. You talked about a "prophecy" about the KJV, but you never explained how that answers my question, nor answered my follow up questions and points about that either. You kept saying "Good questions", but you didn't answer the heart of the matter. Are you willing to answer the questions here, or am I wasting my time?