Doug Kutilek loses debate.

After not answer any of the following:

"Mr. Kutilek, what did you mean when you stated that the ESV translators were "inerrantists"? What do they believe is inerrant? Is that referring to preservation or inspiration? I was wondering if you could tell me where the inerrant scripture is right now, perhaps you could name one book (or the manuscripts that collectively make up) what you believe is the infallible word of God (whether it is in English, Greek, Hebrew, etc.)."

Questions for the anti-KJV.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/questions-for-anti-kjv.html 
 
Hoss vs Doug Kutilek, preservation of scripture.  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/hoss-vs-doug-kutilek-preservation-of.html

Doug Kutilek sent me this message.

"Eli--

 

IF you'd read my review of the ESV, you would have noticed that there is a web-link where the publishers identify the translators by name, and explain their qulaifications, their view of inspiration, etc.

 

(By the way--where is the "inspired original" KJV?   The translators' manuscript diappeared from history at the time of the London Fire of 1666.  All we have now are fallible and varying printed editions, no two being alike, and therefore none evidencing "perfect preservation.")

 

And as for your questions--your misguided remarks on Col. 1:14 were answered in detail in my essay on Greek texts and the blood of Christ; your bogus criticism re: Luke 2:33 was answered in the paper on the virgin birth; your false interpretation of Ps. 12 was answered in the the two essays on that Psalm; your question regarding I John 5:7 was answered in the study of that text (I could have sent you an additional one regarding Luther's exclusion of that clause from all of his German Bibles); etc.  I could answer every other one of your "objections" to the ESV, but if you are not a serious enough student to discover what I wrote in these, there is no point in saying more.  If you are content in your blinding ignorance, then I will leave you there.  I have provided you with evidence; I am not obligated to provide you with understanding, too.

 

Doug Kutilek"

 

Here is my response.

 

"Doug--

IF you'd read my review of your anti-preservation article, you would have noticed that you have been utterly refuted on the preservation issue.

(By the way--why didn't you answer my brief questions? "Mr. Kutilek, what did you mean when you stated that the ESV translators were "inerrantists"? What do they believe is inerrant? Is that referring to preservation or inspiration? I was wondering if you could tell me where the inerrant scripture is right now, perhaps you could name one book (or the manuscripts that collectively make up) what you believe is the infallible word of God (whether it is in English, Greek, Hebrew, etc.)."

And as for your ​essays, --what a mess. You did not use ANY verses to prove your satanic views on preservation. Nada. Nor can you answer my refute to your "bogus" preservation theories. The problem with your view of preservation is that you completely invented it--you don't back it with scripture.

Your theory (apparently) goes like this: God inspired the Bible--->Bible does not live and abide forever-----> God lost the Bible-----> Men have done their best over the years to preserve the Bible----> Man has done a pretty decent job of preserving God's book for Him----->Scholars like Doug Kutilek know what is part of the Bible and what is not and can find all the mistakes for the laypeople.----> Any verse in any bible that seems to be teaching "perfect preservation" does not really mean what it says.

Could you provide the scripture verses that teach that theory?

Meanwhile, if you want to call Joseph the father of Christ than you can go right ahead. If you want to omit the trinity from 1 John 5:7 than go ahead. If you want to kick the Lord's precious blood out of Col. 1:14 go right ahead......you are the one that will stand at the judgment seat of Christ for it--not me.

I found this statement of yours very typical of Bible correctors, see my comments in bold:

"...if you are not a serious enough student to discover what I wrote in these, there is no point in saying more.  If you are content in your blinding ignorance, then I will leave you there.  I have provided you with evidence; I am not obligated to provide you with understanding, too."

"....if you are not a serious enough student to discover what I wrote in these (not what the Bible says), there is no point in saying more.  If you are content in your blinding ignorance (All I did was give you scripture verses that I believed were true), then I will leave you there (I am cool with that).  I have provided you with evidence (YOUR evidence did not include scripture); I am not obligated to provide you with understanding, too (It is impossible for you to provide me with understanding even if you wanted to. You don't use or believe the Bible.)."

As for your question, ("where is the "inspired original" KJV"), that is also very typical of Bible correctors like yourself--always worrying about non-existent originals. I believe the Bible I have in my hand is the inspired word of God.

KUTILEK:(By the way--where is the "inspired original" KJV?   The translators' manuscript diappeared from history at the time of the London Fire of 1666.  All we have now are fallible and varying printed editions, no two being alike, and therefore none evidencing "perfect preservation.")

HOSS: Who cares where the original KJV is? It was destroyed. What makes you think we have "fallible copies"? I believe we have the  inspired/preserved words of God in our copies. That is the position Paul took (2 Tim. 3:15-17) and we are told to follow him (1 Cor. 4:16). KJB's have differed over the years with spelling, size, font, printers errors, etc......but that does not bother me. Those are not errors in the text itself.

You talk a lot about "evidence" but sadly you never incorporate the Bible as your evidence.

Have a great week! --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell"