Featured Final Authority and Final Canonization

It can be objectively and factually pointed out that you are using incorrect reasoning.

It is a fact that the use of fallacies is incorrect reasoning.

Avoiding the KJV-only burden of proof, you use the begging the question fallacy in assuming your premise or opinion that the KJV is inerrant.

You also use other fallacies in your claims for a man-made KJV-only theory.

 

Perhaps he has been given food for thought. I hope so. I would not want his to give up his KJV, but his false doctrine regarding it.

As for human preservation, I quite agree with you on missionary translations. However, I also believe that the most important means of preservation is the actual living out of the Scriptures. I base that on God's commands in Deuteronomy 6:4-9, as well as Paul's statements to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:13,14; 2 Timothy 2:2). The best translation is the one most people will "read" which will be our lives transformed by His Word and grace.

 

Your authority is the original autographs which nearly everyone knows do not exist any more, and you think I am using incorrect reasoning?

That is a laugh. At least I believe in something that exists, you believe in texts that do not exist, but you talk about them as if they existed, and claim only these nonexistant texts are inerrant.

How can something that doesn't exist be inerrant? Pure lunacy.

 

It may be "lunacy" but it is "scriptural" - in any version.

 

How do you know that? The original autographs do not exist.

You have no idea what the original autographs said, and neither does Logos1560. Therefore you have no idea whether the King James is inerrant or not, because you cannot compare them. FACT.

 

Therefore you have no basis for your belief in the KJV either, except for your own man-made faith.

 

That is where you are wrong. My basis for belief is that God promised to preserve his words to all generations, he said that his words would not pass away. I do not have to understand how God preserved his word, I simply need to believe his promises.

It is like creation, I cannot scientifically prove it happened like the Genesis account, but I have God's word, and God cannot lie.

You and others on the other hand are looking for scholarly proof which you will never be able to find, as the original autographs disappeared almost 2000 years ago.

You guys just don't get the faith thing do you?

 

How do you know that the KJV is exactly, to the crossing of Ts and dotting of Is, what God promised to preserve against all other translations? If by faith only, what makes your faith better than my faith that it is not the only perfect or best translation ever made?

 

I certainly agree with this. Knowing the Word of God but not living it means that one does not understand it. This says it all: "Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee."

 

It's not some sort of competition. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. I am either correct, or I am wrong, the same for you. I hope I am correct, and that God will forgive me if I am wrong. But God knows I sincerely want to know the truth.

But years ago when I studied this subject I concluded that I would never find the answer through scholarship. There were many good scholarly books that supported the KJB, and many good scholarly books against it.

So in the end, I could only trust God and his promises. I sincerely believe God has promised to preserve his word to all generations. How he has done this I am not quite certain, but I believe it. When I looked at the two predominant texts, the Received Text and the Critical Text, the Received Text and KJB came out WAY ahead. I believe the KJB is the preserved word of God in English.

All that said, I have a difficult time believing anyone who really examines the texts could go with the Critical Text, it is a mess. But if that is what you believe and prefer, that is your right.

 

Neither can the followers of Ruckman-Riplinger claim an "original" English of the 1611 AV; There were two KJV publications (Oxford, Cambridge), some say three if you include the Nelson KJV.

There are differences. Howbeit the differences are small, someone has made mistakes. They are caused by man as God is incapable of the smallest mistake.

Even among the KJVO camp there is division concerning this reality.

While many KJVO lean towards the Cambridge Edition, some are even suspicious of the that edition:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

The fact that there is controvery in the KJVO camp concerning this matter proves that there is no complete "original" English hand written manuscript of the KJV commitee upon which to fall back

Therefore, the Ruckman-Riplinger camp have no "final authority" either.

These are the same dynamics which have existed for millenia.

God could have very easily preserved all of the original pen and ink manuscripts and perhaps He has but we presently don't have any of them including the 1611 English manuscript of the full Holy Bible which the KJV translators produced early on in the work (which also included the Apocrypha).

Hence the history of "corrections" for both editions went on for hundreds of years and yet they still don't agree.

HankD

 

You just argued yourself into a corner but you cannot see that yet.

Just as I said, your faith in the KJVO teaching is man-made, not from the Scriptures and not from God.

 

Ok, so tell us which Bible is THE Bible and why.

 

OK first of all which one, the Oxford or the Cambridge Edition?

Then where do I find that statement of exclusivity in a 1611 First Edition KJV?

Using your argument I also can claim the same for whatever version (English or otherwise) I or anyone else may chose as well with only a statement of faith.

If that is true then this debate is probably over.

Here is a URL to a First Edition KJV photographed page by page.
Please show me where the Apocrypha is denied as Scripture.

The fact that is placed between the testaments without a word of denial that the books are canonical and not at the end lends itself to the fact that the translators considered it authoritative.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1


HankD

 

I beliieve by faith that we have the perfect reconstructed Old and New Testaments (every yod and tittle) in the following publications:

1894 Scrivener Greek New Testament
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=70

929AD Codex Aleppo
http://www.aleppocodex.org/

If you want to take the time to scan through the archives, I made this same statement many years ago on this same board.

I didn't make it a hobby horse to ride upon.

The King James Translators had the same basic belief that inspiration must be based upon the texts of the original languages.

To The Reader - 1611 AV First Edition.

Scrivener simply used the various Traditional Texts to reconstruct what the various Traditional texts contained comparing to the English of the 1611 AV. But no matter the method I believe he reconstructed the true and perfect NT.

HankD

 

I beliieve by faith that we have the perfect reconstructed Old and New Testaments (every yod and tittle) in the following publications:

929 Aleppo Codex - a representative text of Aaron ben Asher Masoretic Text.
http://www.aleppocodex.org/

1894 Scrivener Greek New Testament
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=70

If you want to take the time to scan through the archives, I made this same statement many years ago on this same board.

I didn't make it a hobby horse to ride upon.

The King James Translators had the same basic belief that inspiration must be based upon the texts of the original languages.

To The Reader - 1611 AV First Edition.

Scrivener simply used the various Traditional Texts to reconstruct what the various Traditional texts contained comparing to the English of the 1611 AV. But no matter the method I believe he reconstructed the true and perfect NT.

HankD

 

Why do you just have a theory? I have a doctrine, not a theory. My doctrine is based squarely on the Word of God. Have you actually studied preservation in the KJV? Nothing you have said makes me think you have. If you had, you would know that the term "preserve" occurs in 54 verses in the Bible, and "keep" or some form of it occurs in 568 verses. Then you would go from there. (Someone would say, "Those verses are not all about the Bible." My reply would be, "Exactly. Figure that out.")

As for my doctrine (not theory), I briefly mentioned it, but you haven't interacted with that. All you've done is call me a deceiver (with no proof or explanation or Bible reference whatsoever) for saying the Greek NT is my final authority. Give me Scripture on that. You can't, because there is none. In fact, the Scripture supports me going to the original document for final authority. (But I know already you don't know where and won't ask me where. You don't want doctrine, you want theory.)

In the light of these facts, I have no duty to further explain my doctrine to you. It would be useless. On the other hand, here you are on a debate forum, and you refuse to debate. Logos has simply blown you away with his facts, and you can't answer, and you have no Scripture to back up your "theory."

Let me ask. Do you preserve the Word of God yourself? I gave Scripture that proves it is the believer's task to preserve the Word on earth. If you don't do so, you prove your theory to be inadequate.