Has Nick Sayers ever debated James White on the KJV issue? I'd love to see that. James White talks in circles and glorifies his scholarship.
The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Has Nick Sayers ever debated James White on the KJV issue? I'd love to see that. James White talks in circles and glorifies his scholarship.
Why don't you tell us why you love the corrupt bibles so much? So far all you have done is speak disparagingly about those who reject these bibles. So now tell us what is good about these corruptions and back it up with manuscript evidence. You will find nothing.
"The number of variations adopted by the Revisers, which are generally based upon the principles advocated by Westcott and Hort, has been estimated by Dr. Scrivener at 5,337 (Burgon's 'Revision Revised,' p. 405).
Burgon examined Aleph and B (the principal manuscripts used by Westcott &Hort) and discovered this:
But here an important consideration claims special attention. We allude to the result of increased acquaintance with certain of the oldest extant codices of the N. T. Two of these,—viz. a copy in the Vatican technically indicated by the letter b, and the recently-discovered Sinaitic codex, styled after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet א,—are thought to belong to the IVth century. Two are assigned to the Vth, viz. the Alexandrian (a) in the British Museum, and the rescript codex preserved at Paris, designated c. One is probably of the VIth, viz. the codex Bezæ (d) preserved at Cambridge. Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices (b א c d), but especially b and א, have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another...
On being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify, 1132 (in all 7578):—the corresponding figures for א being severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree. (pp 011,012)
They have talked in person and online if I recall correctly but there has never been any official debate. At this time, James White appears to not want to deal with the points Nick has put forth to him.
On a side note: Nick does talk with Turretin Fan a lot and he is a friend of White. Nick has debated with Terretin Fan before.
Not to pretend to be an expert here, but I had no trouble figuring out the point, He lowered himself in some capacity to become a mortal man. How does anyone draw the conclusion from any of the wordings that jesus lost his power If they read any of the gospels?
People see things in Scripture they want to see even if it goes against what the Bible plainly says. There are a few biblical topics I could bring up as an example, but I won't share here so as not to derail this topic. There are Christians today who see Jesus as stripped of His power and relying solely on the power of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. While Jesus did operate by the power of the Father, and the Spirit, He also did things by His own power, as well.
The traditional Kenosis teaching in evangelical Christianity by my understanding so far teaches that Jesus had power as the unique Son of God, but He simply did not use that power during His earthly ministry and He relied on the power of the Father, and the Spirit. I also believe this teaching is false or unbiblical. I have given clear examples in Scripture were Jesus USED HIS OWN POWER (as the Son of God) during His earthly ministry.
....
@John146 @GaryA @fredoheaven @GRACE_ambassador @HealthAndHappiness
Just thought you guys might like to know I have a debate coming up in defending the KJV.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.
....
Just thought you guys might like to know I have a debate coming up in defending the KJV.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.
....
The main argument against KJ English in my experience is the D grade I received in a college Shakespeare class.
(Luckily my only one :^)
For sure.
I would love to see you posting in the YouTube comments, my friend (If it is God's will).
May you be well in the Lord;
And may the Lord Jesus get all the glory.
...
"Is It Biblically Mandated to Exclusively Use the KJV in English-Speaking Churches?"
This question has a terrible grammatical construction for being the resolution of a debate.
At face value, it is asking if the Bible [itself] has mandated the exclusive use of the KJV in English-speaking churches.
As such, whoever is making this question the resolution of the debate has lost the debate already. The answer is 'no'.
The Bible makes no specific regard to the KJV. Therefore, it cannot be said to mandate the use of the KJV in English-speaking churches.
In the "open" sense of "has anyone mandated" - the answer is 'yes' - groups of churches have indeed made such a proclamation.
In the "forward" sense of "when it is mandated, is it biblical to do so?" - now we are getting closer to the "intent" of the resolution.
(If I properly understand the intent of the resolution.)
But - why deal with all of that confusion when you can just pose the question this way? :
"Is It Biblical to Mandate the Exclusive Use of the KJV in English-Speaking Churches?"
Now it is someone/something outside of the Bible that is doing the mandating.
As such, it is more open for honest debate.
Notwithstanding, debate resolutions are not normally in the form of a question; rather, they are usually posed as a propositional statement.
One statement might be:
"It is Biblical to Mandate the Exclusive Use of the KJV in English-Speaking Churches."
whereas, the opposing statement would be:
"It is not Biblical to Mandate the Exclusive Use of the KJV in English-Speaking Churches."
Just an observation...
"Is It Biblically Mandated to Exclusively Use the KJV in English-Speaking Churches?"
This question has a terrible grammatical construction for being the resolution of a debate.
At face value, it is asking if the Bible [itself] has mandated the exclusive use of the KJV in English-speaking churches.
As such, whoever is making this question the resolution of the debate has lost the debate already. The answer is 'no'.
The Bible makes no specific regard to the KJV. Therefore, it cannot be said to mandate the use of the KJV in English-speaking churches.
In the "open" sense of "has anyone mandated" - the answer is 'yes' - groups of churches have indeed made such a proclamation.
In the "forward" sense of "when it is mandated, is it biblical to do so?" - now we are getting closer to the "intent" of the resolution.
(If I properly understand the intent of the resolution.)
But - why deal with all of that confusion when you can just pose the question this way? :
"Is It Biblical to Mandate the Exclusive Use of the KJV in English-Speaking Churches?"
Now it is someone/something outside of the Bible that is doing the mandating.
As such, it is more open for honest debate.
Notwithstanding, debate resolutions are not normally in the form of a question; rather, they are usually posed as a propositional statement.
One statement might be:
"It is Biblical to Mandate the Exclusive Use of the KJV in English-Speaking Churches."
whereas, the opposing statement would be:
"It is not Biblical to Mandate the Exclusive Use of the KJV in English-Speaking Churches."
Just an observation...
I stated to my opponent that there is no direct command that says something like, "Thou shalt use the KJV-only in English-speaking churches." However, I do believe the Bible does affirm to us this fact indirectly. Meaning, the Bible implies strongly in two verses that there is one Word of God. This one Word is perfect, and has taken different forms through history (Hebrew, (incomplete) Greek, Latin, and English), and will continue to last forever (according to Scripture). My two points in Scripture help us to identify God's Word today (Just as the Latin-speaking Christians would have identified their perfect Bible at one point in time before the KJV). In helping to further back up these two points in Scripture (in further identifying this Word), I have supporting evidence in three specific categories.
Its like the Trinity. Does the Bible mandate you to exclusively worship the Trinity? No, not directly, but I believe it does so indirectly.
....
While some may disagree with me, I believe today it is by the Word that we know Jesus and have a deeper appreciation of His name.
This would not only be His name in the English, but in Hebrew, and Greek, too. While Jesus is the name above all names,, the Lord has many other amazing names, as well. The "I AM" is one of my favorites.
Another thing I loved about Jesus is He quoted Scripture a lot.
This was the sword that defeated the devil.
....
