Final Authority

Siegfried · Jan 24, 2003

Originally posted by BrianT:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pure Words:

Others believe that God is not dead and has providentially preserved His words. Every one I know who believes this (regardless of which language they speak) believes the 1611 AV to be the words of God for the last days.

You obviously don't know very many people.

[/QUOTE]Or anyone who lived prior to 1611. I weep for those people that God did not love enough to give a pure copy of His word.

I guess all KJVOs must be Calvinists who believe in double predestination. Everyone who lived before 1611 were those that God hated like Esau.

Bartholomew · Jan 24, 2003

Originally posted by BrianT:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Well, it was (and still is) in the words themsleves - the information conveyed by the words.

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.[/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.

Pretend you had no knowledge of the millennium, and were neither premill or amill. Then you heard both proclaimed, each from a different KJV-only supporter, pointing at his KJV as his authority for his view. How would you determine which view is correct? You would probably look at the issue for yourself, and read the KJV for yourself. But how can you be sure that *your* understanding is better than someone else's? How do you know, when you reach one conclusion or another, that you have the "final authority" on the matter?

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.

Would not God's eternal truth be the final authority, regardless (and even despite) of what conclusion you personally reached?

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

<blockquote>quote:<hr />e.g. the law of the land is the final legal authority of waht is legal and illegal. However, judges can disagree about what exactly a law means. Surely the law isn't any less a final authority when judges disagree?

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.[/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?

Like I previously mentioned, do not forget or underestimate the roll of the Holy Spirit. With a humble, open heart, and honest search for the truth, he will guide you there.

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

You can read a version other than the KJV (ie. an "imperfect Bible") and be guided to the "final authority" if you follow the Holy Spirit's leading. Without following the Holy Spirit's leading, you could read the KJV (ie. a "perfect Bible") and end up in left field. The ink-on-paper is not the final authority. It is a witness, a means to find the final authority.

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.

The point? All will eventually be explicitly given the final authority, when the creator of that authority returns. But our attitudes in relation to the Father and to each other may just be more important than how many doctrinal arguments we've won (Matt 25:31-46).

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?

In other words, even if we all agreed on which Bible to use, we'd *still* have disagreements and issues about "final authority".

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...]

Pure Words · Jan 24, 2003

In the spirit of the original question, I will share what my final authority was for the first six years after my convresion.

It was an amalgamation of: my own vain philosophy, my experiences, the charismatic experiences of others, feelings, biblical concepts, secular conservatism and anything else that could toss me about in the wind.

My life was miserable eventually and I realized that the problem was ME not God. I had not submitted to His authority. I prayed and studied earnestly to find HIS authority and I found it in the 1611 AV. Amen, aMEN, and AAAMEN!! Glory to God!

Pure Words · Jan 24, 2003

you can read my testimony at:

http://www.ifbweb.com/purewords/Bible_Doctrines/my_testimony.htm

Bartholomew · Jan 24, 2003

1. The KJV-only position is about *preservation*. By the very definition of the word, something that pops into existence is not preserving anything. Preservation is a continual, origin to completion, process.

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?

2. We would have absolutely no way of knowing, and even if we could know, there would be no way to prove it or verify 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.

And the only way we could know it is through extra-Biblical information, which according to your current thinking, is outside of the "final authority" and thus already not trustworthy.

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.)

As well, we would have no longer any way to argue against the Book of Mormon, or anyone else that claims reinspiration.

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.

3. It implies that the passages that you would depend on for such a view were actually lies until it happened.

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?

4. It implies that somehow we are more special and more deserving of God's word than the Christians from 80% of church history.

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?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Is it not possible that one of those older Bibles was completely true, and included all the scripture the people of that day needed?...Is it not possible that some other version was totally true, and God's final authroty for that day and age, irrespective of whether it agrees with the AV?

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

If that possibility exists, then you must admit that maybe tomorrow God will produce a new Bible that people of the future, and not people of the present, need... maybe the NIV is now the "final" authority, replacing the KJV just as the KJV was the "final" authority, replacing what was prior to it.

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.

There ultimately comes a point where you have to put in some faith. If you could prove God, you no longer need faith.

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.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
What about places the NIV and AV contradict? How do we know which is God's truth?

We deal with that in *exactly* the same way we deal with contradicting interpretations from two people both reading the KJV, as discussed above.[/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?

I hope this helps, and gives you and other honest seekers about version issues something to think about.

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

Final Authority

Siegfried

Member

Bartholomew

New Member

Pure Words

New Member

Pure Words

New Member

Bartholomew

New Member