Final Authority

Which is it? Depending on context, the same words can have a different meaning. And sometimes different words can have the same meaning. If you say the *meaning* is the final authority, you are beginning to agree with what I am saying.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, what is a word? I can say "dog". I can write "dog" with ink. I can write "dog" with chalk. I can write "dog" with a computer. Is it all the same word? Yes. But is the word the computer, or the ink? No. The word is the information conveyed by ink, by the air vibarations, or whatever. Yes, words can mean different things in different contexts, but that doesn't mean the words can't be the final authority. I try to understand the words - they are my final authority.

Surely there's a difference between "final authority" and "present opinion"? My conclusion isn't my authority; if it was, I would have no authority by which to change my mind.

But how could it? How can I know God's eternal truth without a finally authoritative person/book/etc. to tell me?

Which judge is correct? When they disagree, they both can't be. The final authority exists outside of the lawbooks, it is what ever is the truth, whatever meaning the lawbooks are trying to convey regardless of how clearly they convey it.</font>[/QUOTE]Are we not mixing up "truth" and "authority" here? How can truth be known without the law books? Surely we use the law books to determine the truth, not the other way around? And the law books are our final authority on what the truth is?

But many have had humble hearts and come to different, contradictory conclusions.

But how do I know that I'm being led by the Holy Spirit, and not decieved? I can't read 'God's perfect truth' to check. Again, I think you're mixing up truth and authority.

I agree very much with the second comment you make. However, if you say we'll all get a final authority when Jesus returns, are you also saying that we don't have the final authority now?

I don't agree. For example, I agree (at the moment) with Peter Ruckman about where the final auhority is. I also disagree with a lot that he teaches. But we're not arguing about the authority, we're arguing about the interpretation.
[to be continued...]

 

But didn't Moses break those stone tablets? But didn't God get him to write them again later? Didn't a similar thing happen in Jeremiah 36? Besides, Jesus said in Luke 21:18 "But there shall not an hair of your head perish." But their hairs certainly DID perish! Surely this promise is true of the RESURECTION. God will preserve these people through resurecting them. Equally, why can't he preserve the Bible by resurecting it?

Of course, it would come down to fatih, but so does every Christian's adherance to the Bible, rather than the Koran being true. You can look at lots of things, such as how it has been used by God, how capable the translators were, etc.

Yes, but the only way we can know the Bible is true is through extra-biblical information (e.g. was it really written close to the time?). Before you make the Bible your authority, you use some other authority to class it as such. BUT AFTER YOU HAVE DONE THIS, the Bible becomes your final authority. (Even internal consistency is only evidence AFTER you have decided, by some external authority, that it really is evidence.)

I wasn't suggesting reinspiration, but total perfection. If someone claimed the Book of Mormon was the perfected Bible, we could look at the evidence and make a decision. If we decided it was, the Book of Mormon would become the final authority. Otherwise, the AV (or whatever) would remain the final authority.

I refer you back to Jesus' promise about the hairs of the heads of the believers. Also, you believe God's word was preserved even though not in a perfect Bible. This is exactly what at least some KJVOs maintain about pre-1611; their only objection being that God COULD and DID perfect it afterwards. Additionally, even if that verse did require a perfect Bible all the way through history, that would only require ONE in all the world to be perfect. Would we be able to find that ONE Bible?

But this is exactly your position, isn't it? I mean, you think the believers at Corinth had the books of Corinthians PERFECT. However, you don't think we have them PERFECT. Were they more special than us?

What then of "final" authority? That is not "final", it is subject to the next revelation, the next Bible.</font>[/QUOTE]It would be final for us.

Yes, but the supposition (I'm not saying I believe it) was that earlier Bibles were perfect. And since no true things can contradict each other, the NIV and AV can't both be totally perfect.

So why is it wrong to put that faith God and the AV? Particularly after seeing the great feats God has worked with the AV. And yet those who do are often described as heretics on this board.

We deal with that in *exactly* the same way we deal with contradicting interpretations from two people both reading the KJV, as discussed above.</font>[/QUOTE]But there, we're taking them to the AV and looking what it says (we're taking it as final authority). What do we take them to in your position? Is anything we can read/hear/see taken to be the final authority? Do we hold out anyting and say it is perfect? If not, how do I know that tomorrow some new manuscript won't be found that was REALLY in the originals, and the verses we're basing our conclusions on aren't just later additions? That they're not really true?

It sure does - thanks for the help. I should say I'm still KJVO, but maybe I'm wrong. I'll be thinking about what you say.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew