My KJV Debate with Jeffrey Dollar
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- 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.
@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
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
I would love to hear your thoughts.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.
Sincerely,
Bible Highlighter.
...
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
- 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. - Rehearsing My Slides
I need to practice delivering my slides more smoothly and concisely within a limited time frame. - Time Management
Investing in a professional desk timer would help me track my time more effectively during a debate. - Minimizing Distractions
I need to ensure that I am not pressing buttons too loudly during my slide presentation. - Structuring My Closing Statement
For my ten-minute closing statement, I should prepare a written speech and rehearse it thoroughly. - 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. - 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. - 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.
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
- 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. - 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. - 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.
...
-
1
-
1
- Show all
It's unfortunate that the premise of the debate is not even stated until after the nine minute mark. The premise is "Is it biblically mandated to exclusively use the KJV in English-speaking churches?"
Frankly, given that, there was no need for the debate; neither the KJV nor "English-speaking churches" are mentioned in Scripture.
If that weren't enough, the premise UTTERLY fails because English-speaking churches existed over 100 years before the publication of the KJV.
Next time, consider the wording of the premise before wasting your time preparing.
Frankly, given that, there was no need for the debate; neither the KJV nor "English-speaking churches" are mentioned in Scripture.
If that weren't enough, the premise UTTERLY fails because English-speaking churches existed over 100 years before the publication of the KJV.
Next time, consider the wording of the premise before wasting your time preparing.
-
3
-
3
-
1
- Show all
@Bible_Highlighter, at about the 19 minute mark, you state that the word of God is "incorruptible".
If that is true, why do you think it was possible for Westcott and Hort to corrupt the word of God? Either the word of God is incorruptible AND Westcott/Hort did not corrupt it, or the word of God IS "corruptible" and the KJV translators are at least potentially guilty of doing so.
Here's the bigger problem: Peter did not actually say that the word of God is incorruptible (as you claim). He said this:
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
The SEED is incorruptible. We have been born again of INCORRUPTIBLE SEED. Peter did not add any adjective to "the word of God" here, but you claim that he did.
YOU LEFT WORDS OUT, "taking away from the word of God", misrepresenting the text, and violating Revelation 22:19, which you had just finished discussing!
I'm not even halfway through your opening statement and you have already failed.
If that is true, why do you think it was possible for Westcott and Hort to corrupt the word of God? Either the word of God is incorruptible AND Westcott/Hort did not corrupt it, or the word of God IS "corruptible" and the KJV translators are at least potentially guilty of doing so.
Here's the bigger problem: Peter did not actually say that the word of God is incorruptible (as you claim). He said this:
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
The SEED is incorruptible. We have been born again of INCORRUPTIBLE SEED. Peter did not add any adjective to "the word of God" here, but you claim that he did.
YOU LEFT WORDS OUT, "taking away from the word of God", misrepresenting the text, and violating Revelation 22:19, which you had just finished discussing!
I'm not even halfway through your opening statement and you have already failed.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I am staunchly KJV-only. I was saved over a decade ago now... Spent 7 years using what ever translation I fancied till one day I decided to ask God what Bible he created. Became KJV onlyist after a few months of research. And have stayed KJV only due to research, prayer, and the Holy Ghost.
I'll listen to your debate and tell you my thoughts,
I skipped to the intro at roughly 2:30 and right now listening to Dollar's intro which already he is appealing to authority and attacking people who have supposedly held the position... Snakey Snakey....
Your intro at roughly 5 minutes is better and more personable intro on who you are and stuff. You rambled a bit from the topic of Scripture being infallible to your salvation back to the other topic back to last. NOTHING WRONG with that. Just shows you were not reading a necessarily pre-rehersed script but were ad-libbing.
SO already by the intro's. One could assume debate is going to go with Dollar appealing to authority and trying to shotgun information while you are more reactionary and trying to give your personal research or experience.
Now on your intro at 11 minutes.
Im at roughly 12 minutes... If you are going to be going through slides in a few seconds, don't add very vibrant pictures or pics at all. It draws the persons eyes away from the text then the slide changes... They are distracting... Pictures are best used when you are going to linger on a slide to keep the attention of those who don't really pay attention.
(Later on you use pictures correctly with clipart and the such, but your first few slides the pictures were overwhelming IMO.)
You put a LOT of effort into this, that is apparent.
Now, at 14:21 I disagree with how you made your conclusion of your premise.
Instead of going "we would logically come to this position" because then your opponent goes "I and my friends did not come to that conclusion and we have PHD's so therefore you are wrong...."
It is better to go with a structured argument such as Isaiah 28, Precept upon Precept, line upon line... IN ANOTHER TOUNGUE... Precept upon Precept... Psalm 12:6-7 the WORDS of the Lord are PURE.....
Therefore since the Book of the Lord is Scripture, and Scripture says it is PURE and given by God into other languages....
It's the same place you are trying to go, but doesn't allow for GUESS WORK...
And if your opponent counters with the KJV was written by men... you can counter with 1 thess 2:13
Your 1st Corinthians argument was good and concise, could again have reinforced it, but with that argument I think it's best to let them attack it so they can trap themselves instead of defending it. Because when they attack it the trap is quick and easy.
3rd pillar, Ephesians-Romans 10:17 argument was sound.
4th pillar, YES this is where you build your argument.
19:10 AMEN! AMEN! Yes, I wish you would have come out the gate like this, STRAIGHT to the point attack them from the start, don't play their game of prefacing..... TWO EDGED SWORD!
20:20, we differ there, they do not potentially lead to that. THEY DO CAUSE THAT, that is the GOAL of them.
22:40, not only singular and plural pronouns... INDICATIVE TENSE!
So english does not singular or plural, it also does not have INDICATIVE tense.
If I say "I am going to the store" when am I going? Today? Tomorrow? Right now? In an hour? WHEN?
You have to guess...
But eth and est are INDICATIVE which means in the present moment Fact, letting you know that it is RIGHT NOW FACT.
No modern perversion has Indicative or Plural and Singular pronouns both of which are in "the greek and hebrew"... Surely if someone wanted "the greek and hebrew" in English they would go to the KJV which actually has the tenses and pronouns of those languages.
24:00, good point thank you I learned something new today. I didn't know they attack in Matthew 1:1, first verse in the NT, attacked. Poetic.
For the past 10 minutes, AMEN!!!!
AMEN! AMEN!
Now, one critique is that you didn't show they attack salvation.
1 Cor 1:18
The change Preaching into "the message" and "the word" (lowercase)... The same perversions who change it to "the word" also use "the word" lowercase in 1 John 1 to refer to Jesus showing that they are saying Jesus is a fool.
"The Message" is the gospel, which the modern perversions are calling a fool.
But we know it is PREACHING that is foolish because Ecclesiastes says a man with many words is a fool, and preaching is MANY WORDS.
Then at the end they change SAVED past tense, to BEING SAVED future tense for no rhyme or reason except to cause doubt in salvation.
In all, good job. I will watch the rest later (likely in segments). Dude, you did PHENOMENAL.
Note: I am being hyper critical in this. The reason being is I think you were being hyper critical on yourself in the post.
As far as your time management, I see no issue so far, your introduction was not well managed, but that is fine it was personable.
Your slides were well rehersed I see no issue there, NONE.
Your public speaking is fine, the "umms" were not distracting, I can recall one time where I noticed a pause with an"um" which is FINE you are human, no issue. 1 Pause in 30 minutes... You can't do better.
The pacing was random, sometimes to fast, sometimes to slow. I know you were trying to cram at the end, you felt rushed... SO It is not a big deal, ESPECIALLY since this is on YOUTUBE, where people can pause and rewind.
Speaking fast can actually be a BLESSING today for children are used to videos that a at 1.5x speed. They dislike slower pacing today.
As far as your other points, I will see when I get there...
I'll listen to your debate and tell you my thoughts,
I skipped to the intro at roughly 2:30 and right now listening to Dollar's intro which already he is appealing to authority and attacking people who have supposedly held the position... Snakey Snakey....
Your intro at roughly 5 minutes is better and more personable intro on who you are and stuff. You rambled a bit from the topic of Scripture being infallible to your salvation back to the other topic back to last. NOTHING WRONG with that. Just shows you were not reading a necessarily pre-rehersed script but were ad-libbing.
SO already by the intro's. One could assume debate is going to go with Dollar appealing to authority and trying to shotgun information while you are more reactionary and trying to give your personal research or experience.
Now on your intro at 11 minutes.
Im at roughly 12 minutes... If you are going to be going through slides in a few seconds, don't add very vibrant pictures or pics at all. It draws the persons eyes away from the text then the slide changes... They are distracting... Pictures are best used when you are going to linger on a slide to keep the attention of those who don't really pay attention.
(Later on you use pictures correctly with clipart and the such, but your first few slides the pictures were overwhelming IMO.)
You put a LOT of effort into this, that is apparent.
Now, at 14:21 I disagree with how you made your conclusion of your premise.
Instead of going "we would logically come to this position" because then your opponent goes "I and my friends did not come to that conclusion and we have PHD's so therefore you are wrong...."
It is better to go with a structured argument such as Isaiah 28, Precept upon Precept, line upon line... IN ANOTHER TOUNGUE... Precept upon Precept... Psalm 12:6-7 the WORDS of the Lord are PURE.....
Therefore since the Book of the Lord is Scripture, and Scripture says it is PURE and given by God into other languages....
It's the same place you are trying to go, but doesn't allow for GUESS WORK...
And if your opponent counters with the KJV was written by men... you can counter with 1 thess 2:13
Your 1st Corinthians argument was good and concise, could again have reinforced it, but with that argument I think it's best to let them attack it so they can trap themselves instead of defending it. Because when they attack it the trap is quick and easy.
3rd pillar, Ephesians-Romans 10:17 argument was sound.
4th pillar, YES this is where you build your argument.
19:10 AMEN! AMEN! Yes, I wish you would have come out the gate like this, STRAIGHT to the point attack them from the start, don't play their game of prefacing..... TWO EDGED SWORD!
20:20, we differ there, they do not potentially lead to that. THEY DO CAUSE THAT, that is the GOAL of them.
22:40, not only singular and plural pronouns... INDICATIVE TENSE!
So english does not singular or plural, it also does not have INDICATIVE tense.
If I say "I am going to the store" when am I going? Today? Tomorrow? Right now? In an hour? WHEN?
You have to guess...
But eth and est are INDICATIVE which means in the present moment Fact, letting you know that it is RIGHT NOW FACT.
No modern perversion has Indicative or Plural and Singular pronouns both of which are in "the greek and hebrew"... Surely if someone wanted "the greek and hebrew" in English they would go to the KJV which actually has the tenses and pronouns of those languages.
24:00, good point thank you I learned something new today. I didn't know they attack in Matthew 1:1, first verse in the NT, attacked. Poetic.
For the past 10 minutes, AMEN!!!!
AMEN! AMEN!
Now, one critique is that you didn't show they attack salvation.
1 Cor 1:18
The change Preaching into "the message" and "the word" (lowercase)... The same perversions who change it to "the word" also use "the word" lowercase in 1 John 1 to refer to Jesus showing that they are saying Jesus is a fool.
"The Message" is the gospel, which the modern perversions are calling a fool.
But we know it is PREACHING that is foolish because Ecclesiastes says a man with many words is a fool, and preaching is MANY WORDS.
Then at the end they change SAVED past tense, to BEING SAVED future tense for no rhyme or reason except to cause doubt in salvation.
In all, good job. I will watch the rest later (likely in segments). Dude, you did PHENOMENAL.
Note: I am being hyper critical in this. The reason being is I think you were being hyper critical on yourself in the post.
As far as your time management, I see no issue so far, your introduction was not well managed, but that is fine it was personable.
Your slides were well rehersed I see no issue there, NONE.
Your public speaking is fine, the "umms" were not distracting, I can recall one time where I noticed a pause with an"um" which is FINE you are human, no issue. 1 Pause in 30 minutes... You can't do better.
The pacing was random, sometimes to fast, sometimes to slow. I know you were trying to cram at the end, you felt rushed... SO It is not a big deal, ESPECIALLY since this is on YOUTUBE, where people can pause and rewind.
Speaking fast can actually be a BLESSING today for children are used to videos that a at 1.5x speed. They dislike slower pacing today.
As far as your other points, I will see when I get there...
Amazing buddy, so let's get this straight... You just said...
1.) A person is born again with incorruptible seed.
2.) This incorruptible seed comes from a corrupted/corruptable word of God.
3.) Therefore the word of God is not incorruptible in 1 Peter 1:23, but instead it is only the seed that is incorruptible.
Well, you separated 1 Peter 1:23 into TWO statements, 1 about seed, 1 about the word of God, dissecting it through the word by.
If that is the case, and the word of God is corrupted as you claim..... How does it live and abide forever? Afterall, anything corrupted is destroyed by God in the fire (1st Cor 3)...
Hey, but let's ignore that liveth and abideth forever contradicts your argument and shows the word of God is pure.
let's go look at what Jesus who is God Himself, lets see what He said.
Matthew 7:15-20
Look at that, Jesus says good things only come from good.
So, if an incorruptible seed is coming from the word of God, how can the word of God be corruptible? You just called Jesus a liar.
Imagine calling Jesus a liar, all because you hate the pure and perfect word of God!
What does Scripture say about people who call Jesus accursed?
1 Corinthians 12:3
I'll go with what God Himself said, if something is incorruptible... it can only be brought forth by something that is itself incorruptible.
No, I did not say that. Don't pretend to quote my words and then butcher them. Use the "Post reply" button and quote my words exactly as I wrote them.
The KJV translators put the word "by" there; I didn't. I discussed it as two distinct clauses because the text has two distinct clauses:
of incorruptible seed
by the word of God....
That's three for three misrepresenting what I wrote.
That's four.
Either quote my words exactly and deal with them honestly, or continue being a shining example of everything wrong with KJV-onlyists.
The KJV translators put the word "by" there; I didn't. I discussed it as two distinct clauses because the text has two distinct clauses:
of incorruptible seed
by the word of God....
That's three for three misrepresenting what I wrote.
That's four.
Either quote my words exactly and deal with them honestly, or continue being a shining example of everything wrong with KJV-onlyists.
-
2
- Show all
@Dino246
Come on buddy, you said the SEED is incorruptable not the word of God... Let me quote you exactly:
QUOTED FROM DINO POST #7
I took none of your words out of context. You said the word of God is not incorruptible, it is the seed that is incorruptible. You said that incorruptible does NOT apply to the word of God.
And I gave you two proofs of how you are a fool.
Proof 1. Peter in the same passage says the word of God liveth and abideth forever... Anything that is NOT incorruptible gets destroyed at the new heaven and new earth.... Therefore to live FOREVER it has to be Incorruptible. (1 peter1:23)
Proof 2. Jesus says good can only come from good. Incorruptible is PERFECTION, and since this incorruptible seed comes from the word of God according to Peter... Therefore according to Jesus the word of God has to be Incorruptible. (Matthew 7:15-20)
You called Jesus a liar, you just don't know enough scripture to know that you did that... Now that I have shown you that you are wrong both within the passage and by God's very mouth... Maybe you will stop calling God a liar.
Come on buddy, you said the SEED is incorruptable not the word of God... Let me quote you exactly:
QUOTED FROM DINO POST #7
I took none of your words out of context. You said the word of God is not incorruptible, it is the seed that is incorruptible. You said that incorruptible does NOT apply to the word of God.
And I gave you two proofs of how you are a fool.
Proof 1. Peter in the same passage says the word of God liveth and abideth forever... Anything that is NOT incorruptible gets destroyed at the new heaven and new earth.... Therefore to live FOREVER it has to be Incorruptible. (1 peter1:23)
Proof 2. Jesus says good can only come from good. Incorruptible is PERFECTION, and since this incorruptible seed comes from the word of God according to Peter... Therefore according to Jesus the word of God has to be Incorruptible. (Matthew 7:15-20)
You called Jesus a liar, you just don't know enough scripture to know that you did that... Now that I have shown you that you are wrong both within the passage and by God's very mouth... Maybe you will stop calling God a liar.
-
1
- Show all
No, I did not.
Yes, I said that, because Peter wrote that.
No, I said this: "Peter did not add any adjective to "the word of God" here."
You would do well to learn how punctuation works in written English and to read a whole lot more carefully so you don't continue to make vile accusations rooted in your own ignorant misunderstanding. You might get away with them here, but you will answer to God for them (Matthew 12:36).
Yes, I said that, because Peter wrote that.
No, I said this: "Peter did not add any adjective to "the word of God" here."
You would do well to learn how punctuation works in written English and to read a whole lot more carefully so you don't continue to make vile accusations rooted in your own ignorant misunderstanding. You might get away with them here, but you will answer to God for them (Matthew 12:36).
God's Word was never intended only for Christians who lived in the past only but it is for believers today, as well.
If the Bible teaches that His Word is pure, and that it would be preserved forever, then it would apply also to us today, as well.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Again, there are many things in the Bible that does not directly command you to do them, but we know not to do them because of indirect references or inferences by other Scripture verses.
....
If the Bible teaches that His Word is pure, and that it would be preserved forever, then it would apply also to us today, as well.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Again, there are many things in the Bible that does not directly command you to do them, but we know not to do them because of indirect references or inferences by other Scripture verses.
....
There are Christians who believe English speaking Christians can only be saved by hearing words from a KJV. I don't believe that. I believe a person can be saved by the gospel message from a Modern Bible. However, I also believe that while a Christian can even live out their faith correctly in some cases with a Modern Bible, I believe there are other cases where they can fall the traps in the Modern Bible Movement by believing the false doctrines contained with them, or they can go down the road of Textual Criticism and delete from God's word and or apostatize.
....
....
I already answered this point with you before in another KJV thread.
You can check that post out here.
In context, 1 Peter 2:2 says, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:"
So this is talking about the communicated Word of God.
The meat of the Word is to discern between good and evil (See: Hebrew 5:13-14).
Anyway, what makes this even more deceptive on the part of Modern Bibles is that they corrupt 1 Peter 2:2, as well.
Not a chance because God would not use liberal heretics (Westcott and Hort) who employed various forms of deception to preserve His perfect Word. Westcott and Hort even had fellowship with a Unitarian on the English Revised Version, as well. Unitarians even loved the bibles created by German Rationalists that influenced Westcott and Hort, as well. So this goes deeper than you can possibly imagine. But again, it does not take a detective to figure out that the Modern Bible Movement is so obviously false. Just start looking at all the false doctrines in Modern Bibles and it will become evident (Unless of course you don't want to see it). Its like politics. I know Democrats don't want to see all the good things that Trump is currently doing for our country (Exporting illegal criminals who raped and murdered our citizens, and stopping the financial fraud and waste in our government).
....
You can check that post out here.
In context, 1 Peter 2:2 says, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:"
So this is talking about the communicated Word of God.
The meat of the Word is to discern between good and evil (See: Hebrew 5:13-14).
Anyway, what makes this even more deceptive on the part of Modern Bibles is that they corrupt 1 Peter 2:2, as well.
Not a chance because God would not use liberal heretics (Westcott and Hort) who employed various forms of deception to preserve His perfect Word. Westcott and Hort even had fellowship with a Unitarian on the English Revised Version, as well. Unitarians even loved the bibles created by German Rationalists that influenced Westcott and Hort, as well. So this goes deeper than you can possibly imagine. But again, it does not take a detective to figure out that the Modern Bible Movement is so obviously false. Just start looking at all the false doctrines in Modern Bibles and it will become evident (Unless of course you don't want to see it). Its like politics. I know Democrats don't want to see all the good things that Trump is currently doing for our country (Exporting illegal criminals who raped and murdered our citizens, and stopping the financial fraud and waste in our government).
....