My KJV Debate with Jeffrey Dollar

[tharkun]

See the links previously provided

 

[Dino246]

If you watched the debate, you would see "my list of false doctrines" I gave. In fact, I gave a different list to you many times before, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. But a few posts back, I did give a few of them again here.

If you want a more detailed analysis: At the 23 minute and 17 second mark of my debate, you can see the doctrinal section of my slides that show you the differences between the Modern Bibles and the KJV that I believe are very serious.

You didn't read my post very carefully. I'm not interested in blather about "Modern Bibles", and I'm not interested in a list of various issues in various translations. If you have evidence of "errors" (clear, blatant, and multiple) in ONE SPECIFIC TRANSLATION, then please share. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude that you're just spewing empty rhetoric and have nothing with which to back it up.

 

[fredoheaven]

See the links previously provided

could you have a new one? Or are you willing to document Genesis 1:1? What are your thoughts why Kjb is in error? Thanks

 

[tharkun]

The error in Gen 1:1 is documented in one of the links provided previously. Did you even look at the links?

 

[NightTwister]

That's not a good argument...

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

It's a great argument. You just don't like it.

Your eisegesis doesn't work either. Those verses have nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Dino246]

It's a great argument. You just don't like it.

Your eisegesis doesn't work either. Those verses have nothing to do with what I said.

With respect, don't waste your time with him. He will throw one bad argument after another, and when refuted, he will sidestep instead of admitting that he's wrong...

like every other KJV-onlyist I have ever encountered.

Then in a few months, he'll throw the same refuted argument again, because he doesn't learn.

 

[fredoheaven]

The error in Gen 1:1 is documented in one of the links provided previously. Did you even look at the links?

Umm, a snippet view of the link you provided just give a snippet opinion and no documentation so far for any heberw grammatical rules. So my snippet view on the article of Genesis 1:1 is incorrect.. It is because the Heb word is plural it demands to be plural in the English language. A linguistic feature of majesty or intensity was not discussed which simply mean Hebrew translation to English is dependent on the context.

 

[NightTwister]

With respect, don't waste your time with him. He will throw one bad argument after another, and when refuted, he will sidestep instead of admitting that he's wrong...

like every other KJV-onlyist I have ever encountered.

Then in a few months, he'll throw the same refuted argument again, because he doesn't learn.

I think it's important to call out idolatry.

 

[Mem]

I think it's important to call out idolatry.

Of all the available bible versions, I'm trying to understand why God would choose to name His 'purest' translation after a homosexual king.

 

[John146]

It's a great argument. You just don't like it.

Your eisegesis doesn't work either. Those verses have nothing to do with what I said.

Absolutely it does. God’s word was only made available to a small percentage of people.

But I’m talking about the preservation of his word in the English language. If God desires, he can preserve his words in any language. But he never promised to preserve his word in every language, but only that his word would be preserved.

 

[tharkun]

Umm, a snippet view of the link you provided just give a snippet opinion and no documentation so far for any heberw grammatical rules. So my snippet view on the article of Genesis 1:1 is incorrect.. It is because the Heb word is plural it demands to be plural in the English language. A linguistic feature of majesty or intensity was not discussed which simply mean Hebrew translation to English is dependent on the context.

ok, to be clear - ha'shemayim means 'the heavens' not 'the heaven' as KJV has it. The -im ending is the masculine plural indicator in Hebrew. KJV is simply in error at this point. I don't know how much simpler to make it. Granted, this is a small error, but it easily dispels the notion that the KJV is somehow 'pure' and 'perfect'.

"[T]he King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore? " - Daniel B Wallace

 

[ResidentAlien]

King James onlyists believe the KJV English is perfect and can actually be used to correct the Greek. So the KJV isn't in error, the Greek is.

 

[NightTwister]

Absolutely it does. God’s word was only made available to a small percentage of people

That's what the Catholics said for centuries.

 

[Edify]

@John146 @GaryA @fredoheaven @GRACE_ambassador @HealthAndHappiness @LeeLoving

Hello everyone,

I would like to open up a discussion about my debate if you are interested in sharing your thoughts.

This was my first debate, so I appreciate your patience.

While I believe I presented some strong points in defense of the debate question through my slide presentation, I also recognize several areas where I could improve, especially if I were to participate in a live video debate on a future biblical topic.

Areas for Improvement

1. Public Speaking Practice
   I need to work on eliminating filler words like “um” and improving my delivery. Joining a Toastmasters Club would help me refine my speaking skills.
2. Rehearsing My Slides
   I need to practice delivering my slides more smoothly and concisely within a limited time frame.
3. Time Management
   Investing in a professional desk timer would help me track my time more effectively during a debate.
4. Minimizing Distractions
   I need to ensure that I am not pressing buttons too loudly during my slide presentation.
5. Structuring My Closing Statement
   For my ten-minute closing statement, I should prepare a written speech and rehearse it thoroughly.
6. Balancing Depth and Clarity
   While I do not regret using a detailed slide presentation, my time was limited, and I felt rushed. Since I tend to focus on details, I want to ensure that I provide enough information for an informed decision while still being concise.
   a. Perhaps I should have streamlined my doctrinal points and focused on just a few key ones, reinforcing them more effectively.
   b. Most of my preparation time was spent creating the slides. If I debate again, I believe I will need at least three to four months to properly prepare. Crafting slides that are both content-rich and visually appealing is incredibly time-consuming. Debating is far more challenging than it looks. Speaking effectively and staying within time limits requires serious effort.
7. Handling Audience Questions
   Some of the audience’s questions were worded in a way that was unclear to me. If I debate again, I might screen capture the questions and use ChatGPT for clarification.
8. Developing Quick Rebuttal Skills
   I need to improve my ability to take notes in real-time and formulate concise, effective rebuttals on the spot. While I have honed my written debate skills over many years on Christian forums, verbal debates require a different skill set, and I need to practice that more.

Reflections on the Debate
Despite my personal challenges, I believe my opponent failed to directly address my key points. He did not successfully refute any of my four scriptural pillars.

I do believe I had some moments of victory, but my lack of debate experience prevented me from delivering the stronger impact I was aiming for.

Good News and Next Steps

1. Sharing My Slides
   Once I complete the section on textual differences in my doctrines, I plan to upload my slide presentation here for download. I hope this resource blesses the body of Christ and strengthens believers’ trust in God's perfect words.
2. Revised Presentation Video
   I am planning to record and upload a professionally rehearsed version of my opening ten-minute debate slide presentation. This version will allow me to explain everything properly without being rushed or making mistakes.
3. A More Thoughtful Response to Jeff Dollar
   I may create a detailed video response addressing Jeff Dollar’s points from the debate. Since I am a details guy, I do not want to leave any stone unturned. I want to ensure that Jeff and other Christians receive a prayerfully considered, well-thought-out reply to the key issues raised.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.

Sincerely,

Bible Highlighter.


...

I do not recommend asking this site for pointers on debating when most in this forum only like to argue.
It's kind of like asking a warmonger what's the best way to promote peace.

 

[John146]

That's what the Catholics said for centuries.

Sure they did, but it was not the truth. God's word went out only to the nation of Israel for a very long time.

 

[HeIsHere]

If only you had asked...

"Jesus said to him, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen."

A believer may harbor unbelief. And I was specific about their type of unbelief: they do not believe the word is in them so they fight to preserve an external representation of the Word.

Yes, that may be true for some, I think the reasons vary as to why people take the KJV-only position.

I do appreciate the clarification.

 

[Blain]

The way I see it this whole argument could be resolved with one question is God limited by mans translation? not to mention if the spirit of truth which abides in us leads us to all truths why would a mere matter of translation make any difference?
so in my understanding at least there is only one way to answer this

 

[NightTwister]

Sure they did, but it was not the truth. God's word went out only to the nation of Israel for a very long time.

Red Herring.

 

[fredoheaven]

ok, to be clear - ha'shemayim means 'the heavens' not 'the heaven' as KJV has it. The -im ending is the masculine plural indicator in Hebrew. KJV is simply in error at this point. I don't know how much simpler to make it. Granted, this is a small error, but it easily dispels the notion that the KJV is somehow 'pure' and 'perfect'.

"[T]he King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore? " - Daniel B Wallace

I appreciate your input, but quoting DBW is irrelevant. You're essentially reiterating the article's points. However, the article disregards the legitimate translation of masculine plural forms into English singulars. Notably, Daniel B. Wallace's Net Bible supports this translation approach, as seen in Genesis 1:8, where 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) is translated as 'sky.' Furthermore, the article lacks documentation, rendering it speculative

Thanks

 

[tharkun]

I appreciate your input, but quoting DBW is irrelevant. You're essentially reiterating the article's points. However, the article disregards the legitimate translation of masculine plural forms into English singulars. Notably, Daniel B. Wallace's Net Bible supports this translation approach, as seen in Genesis 1:8, where 'שָׁמַיִם' (shamayim) is translated as 'sky.' Furthermore, the article lacks documentation, rendering it speculative

Thanks

The question is not can Hebrew masculine forms be translated into English singulars; rather, the question is if it should be in the case of Gen 1:1. The context would demand plural, not singular. Gen 1:8 is appropriately singular because samayim is referring to raqia, which itself is singular. That is not speculative; it's Hebrew grammar. So no problem, and the KJV is still in error in Gen 1:1. Regardless I have seen no documention from you on why a singular heaven in Gen 1:1 is approporiate as per the KJV, and so, by your logic, rendering your opinion speculative. And given that 'DBW' is a PhD, his opinion is hardly irrelevant.