The Moorman / White KJB Debate Review

Presenting a review of the Jack Moorman v. James White King James Bible debate with several example clips recorded from the live stream.

http://www.revelationtv.com/news/article/the_king_james_version_debate

A King James Bible onlyist assessment of several failures in Textus Receptus Only thinking.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Moorman
• debate
• White
• King
• James
• Bible
• KJB
• Cambridge
• Oxford
• 1769
• English
• Word
• Textus
• Receptus

[rpavich]

Did you even understand what Dr. White was getting at when he brought up the 1769 version?

From your video comments; it appears not.

If you did understand it...I'm sure that you can summarize in one sentence what he was getting at by bringing it up......

Please do so....

[bibleprotector]

@rpavich Your comment is completely misguided. There was no different "version" of the KJB in 1769. As for understanding the 1769 Edition, just look at my Youtube channel, I have a video about the 1769, and mention it many times on my Bible Protector website. Clearly, I do understand about the 1769 Edition.

[bibleprotector]

@Antheror Those Bibles are good, but they are not a perfect text or translation. Only the KJB is. Since we know English, and we can show that one English Bible is right, then it follows that we should promote it.

Luther's Deutch cannot be perfect since it does not match with the KJB. (Also, it is in middle High German).

[PanoramaOfScripture]

Here' is all you need to know about Jim White: White is a great debater (lawyer) but an awful theologian. If you stop him from pre-defining the debate with his flawed presuppositions from the start then he's got nothing. His only tactic to winning is molding the debates parameters to his position.

I've heard him debate TULIP two dozen times and he always wins the debate by pigeon holing the topics and his opponents don't understand the trap he's laid.

[bibleprotector]

@TextusReceptusBible Scrivener mentions Rev. 10:7 as one of the places where Beza's 1598 TR differs to the KJB & other TR editions. Scrivener lists plenty of others, including, Matt. 2:11, 9:18, 10:10, 10:25, 11:21, 13:24; Mark 4:18, 5:38, 6:45, 53, 9:42, 13:9, 15:3; Luke 3:30, 6:37, 8:37, 12:56, 17:35, 20:31, 22:42; John 8:42, 18:1, 15, 19:31, etc. And, Matt. 1:23, 20:15; Mark 1:21, 16:14, 20; Luke 7:12, 45, 8:5, 9:15, 12:1; John 4:5, 9:10, 12:17, 18:20, 21:12 which has "Christ" for "Lord".

[TextusReceptusBible]

@bibleprotector In my post I said Rev 22, not Rev 10:7. Beza left out "theos" in the Greek, but retained it in the latin, and in the footnotes, thus it was a typo. Again I ask if you can show me one place, I will believe you.

[bibleprotector]

@TextusReceptusBible The specific TR edited by Beza as printed in 1598 has variations which differ to the King James Bible ... (I am not talking about the critical apparatus, I am talking about what Beza selects as his main text). Now, it is obvious that there are differences, and it is the KJBO view that the English text is superior for its word/reading choices. Scrivener lists many, all the way to Revel. 10:7 (which is no typo, because that rendering is the same in Beza's last 3 editions).

[TextusReceptusBible]

@bibleprotector You have no real grounds to say that the Textus Receptus of 1598 in in any way inferior to the KJV of 1611. You are claiming that there are differences and imperfections, but I am challenging you to prove just one to me. If this was the theory of evolution, and I asked you to show me one transitional fossil, your argument would fail. Please show me one example where Beza's 1598 and the KJV 1611 differ, besides things like the Typo in Rev 22 in Beza, or your theory fails.

[bibleprotector]

@TextusReceptusBible It is a false criteria to make the judgment between the KJB only in 1611 v. Beza, when the same KJB exists today (e.g. PCE), as well as 1611. Italics are no issue. We are talking about words absent, added or different in Beza as compared to the KJB 1611-PCE. The fact is that Scrivener is not always wrong. He gave a whole list of differences between the KJB and Beza's 1598, some of which must be accurate listings (though not all).

Only the English TR (KJB) is perfect.

[bibleprotector]

@TextusReceptusBible I am quoting Scrivener when he says that massive listing are renderings not in the 1598 Beza. You picked one at random, but there are plenty of other examples listed there, besides the full lists in Scrivener's book.

As KJBO, we are sure the English Bible text is 100% correct. Beza's 1598 may be very close, but not perfect. Even Edward Hills wrote that the KJB is an independent variety of the TR, so he knew that there were variations between TR editions.