Final Authority

You state your OPINION well, Will. Too bad that the decision you made was by using your head and looking at the 'evidence.' Why is the KJV the preserved word, and not others. Why can it not be the KJV that differs from the truly preserved text? This is unprovable. So, using your mind, your final authority, you have chosen the KJV based on evidence that in your opinion supports the KJV. Why is your decision more valid than someone who arrives at the view that the NASB is the preserved word of God?

And KJVOs have arbitrarily set up an Elizabethean translation as the one they point us to. Translated by Anglicans, at that!

Neal

 

Dear Will,

You commented...

First, I am TRO and do not hold to the Wescott and Hort theory.
I choose the Masoretic and Traditional Text (Scrivener 1894/5) as the reconstructed Word of God by faith. Books which I can have and hold in my hands. I can no more prove my "reconstruction" theory than others can prove the "reinspiration" theory of the KJV. But logic is on my side. Jesus spoke of "jots" and "tittles". The Word of God is preserved in the orginal languages.

Second, yes I need those texts to be translated just as has been done down through the ages including our beloved 1611KJV as well as in the year 2003 to "to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people"

Third, there is no certain text for the 1611 KJV since the original archetype from 1611 has been lost. Several hundred changes have been made in 4 major revisions of the KJV since 1611.
At least two major editions have been made of the 1769KJV, they are the Cambridge and the Oxford which do not agree (things different are not the same - as we are constantly reminded). Let us honestly face these and other facts concerning this monumental translation of the Word of God.

The original 1611KJV publication included the Apocrypha with cross references to it.
The original 1611KJV supported the liturgical calendar and saints days of the Church of England/Rome.
The original 1611KJV used marginal notes denoting uncertainty of words.
The original 1611KJV included a preface by the translators (one which supports a Church of Rome "saint") which made remarks like the following...

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. Cap 14.] ."

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

The original 1611KJV was translated and "authorized" by the Church of England which simultaneously baptized (sprinkled) babies, ordained "priests" celebrated the "Eucharist"(and many other Church of Rome heresies), all the while persecuting and excommunicating Baptists.

Which very Church the radical KJVO claim God gave the power of Translation "inspiration" though they themselves are not members of the same.

It saddens many that this KJVO heresy has forced us to point out the weaknesses of the KJ Bible and its translators and Church from whence it was born.
IMO The KJVO have done far more damage than good by drawing out the truth concerning the surrounding real facts (perhaps doing some good), with many of the KJVO leaders themselves disobeying the Word while supposedly defending the Word. The works of the flesh and discord among the brethren being manifest where ever they go including the BB:

James 3:5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.


HankD

[ March 30, 2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Mr. Kinney. It seems to me Mr. Griffin in principle stands where the Particular Baptists who authored the 1689 London confession of faith stood. If you check it out you will see that they regarded the original language texts they had, the Bomberg Masoretic text and some edition of the TR, as the absolutely final authority to resort to in matters of faith and practice etc. if and when the vulgar translation, the KJV or perhaps the Geneva Bible, was not sufficient to solve a doctrinal dispute. I stand with these Baptist forefathers who I regard as having been godly men. They were many times wiser than the KJV onlyite Baptists who claim to be their successors in the faith.

Then it is another issue which original language text editions one uses, because some are apparently inferior and some superior.

Once one has chosen the superior Hebrew and Greek texts with which to compare versions as to their translational quality one need not resort to own subjective opinions. No man need to be in ignorance as to the grammatical details of the available Greek texts of today with all fine tools such as morphologically tagged Greek texts. Where versions deviate from the verbally and plenary inspired wording one may take note of it, and it is possible to count deviations, and to classify the seriousness of them as well. Thus it is possible to assess the translational quality of a version with sufficient objectivity. For example each time the KJV omits to translate a divinely inspired definite article it deviates from its underlying Greek text, I speak of the NT as you notice. Every such omission lowers its quality. The same goes for any other version.

I smelled a straw man in your reply to Griffin.


Harald

 

Where? The Bible does not teach the type of "pure preservation" that your side needs for it to. It does teach preservation, and that is clearly testified to by the multitude of manuscripts.

Actually my position is found in Scripture. Scripture very often calls things that are not the KJV the word of God and expects people to respond in obedient submission to it. That is my position. The KJV is not the only word of God. The Bible clearly affirms that.

Notice how you changed the argument. We affirm that translations are the inspired by God. But the truth is that that is derivative inspiration, not direct inspiration. The KJV is not a perfect translation. This is evidenced by its many changes over the years.

Simply not true.

Sure it does. It mistranslates the word dialudzo. It inserts the name of God for the greek word Kurios in Acts 17 (I believe). It has a man that is 2 years older than his father. It records him as being 22 and 42 at the same time. As you like to say, things that are different are not the same. The man was either 22 or he was 42. He cannot be both at the same time.

Where?

And when the English langauge advanced you would have us believe that God stayed behind? I believe God wants to communicate to today's man in his own language. This is an argument with absolutely no weight. It is pure fluff.

I don't see anyway you can possibly say this. Again, it is an unprovable argument.

[qutoe]I find lies, false doctrine, foolish statements and flat out contradictions in the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc.</font>[/QUOTE]Then you are better than most. I certainly have not found these and no one has ever been able to show them yet. Perhaps you are able to.

Or maybe God didn't grant it and someone just started making it up. I think this is a far greater possibilities. Your arguments shows the depth to which you must go to prove your point ... and it just doesn't hold water. Verse number and chapter numbers?? Surely you jest ... You argue for perfection while overlooking the fact that your "perfect Bible" had to be changed numerous times. Your argument simply doesn't work.

As does mine.

Using this figure of speech, you just showed an error in teh KJV. The word is dialudzo and it means to strain out (as in get rid of), not to strain at (as in try to reach). It is a clear translational error.

Absolutely untrue.

No one disputes this. But it is clearly not the only word of God on this earth. Any faithful translation shares a place of authority with the KJV.

Of course. And most of those faithful will not be preaching from a KJV.

In the end, you have shown us that your final authority is not the KJV, but rather history, chapter and verse divisions, lack of knowledge of history and translation, and repeated false statements. I stand where I have firmly stood, in the orthodox position that Scripture teaches. I shall not be moved by the attempts to persuade against that position. What Scripture teaches, I will affirm fully.

 

I am interested at how you arrived at this conclusion. Are you implying that those of us who preach from a KJV have less faith than others? Will the Lord pass us by when He sees the KJV on our nightstand?

 

Because the majority of believers (both now and in church history) do not speak English. However, even among English speaking people, the majority do not use the KJV, according to the evidence available today. Many of them might not be the fundamentalist believers that I think they ought to be but we cannot doubt their salvation simply because of that. However, the largest fundamental churches that I know of all use modern versions.

Not at all. Simply commenting on the numbers involved.

Nope, not if you have been saved by Christ.

 

Why would you deny a baptist this privilege? If a bunch of baby-baptizing, non separation of church and state practicing, 17th century watered-down Roman Catholic theologians have the right to look at the original languages and translate it, I as a fundamental baptist who is a believer-priest with soul-liberty have a right to look at the original greek and translate it too. I refuse to let you tell me that I can't.

Why thank you! I thought you'd see it my way!!!

 

It seems that Pastor Larry is posing valid questions that no one is willing to deal with. Remember folks, don't make accusations or assertions that you cannot support.

Carry on....

 

Using this figure of speech, you just showed an error in teh KJV. The word is dialudzo and it means to strain out (as in get rid of), not to strain at (as in try to reach). It is a clear translational error.
</font>[/QUOTE]Not so fast, Pastor Larry! I agree with you that in present-day English "strain out" is a better translation of "διυλιζοντες" (diulizontes) than is "strain at", and I hold no brief for the KJVO position, but I would need something more than your say-so to convince me that this criticism was valid in 1611. In the absence of evidence to back up your assertion, I would assume this case was like the use of "suffer" to mean "permit", i.e. a case of a shift in English usage over the centuries, rather than a translation error by King James' boys. And BTW I don't see where in Acts 17 KJV has "God" for "Κυριος" (Kurios).

Haruo

 

Strain at and strain out are two different things. I don't live in 1611 so I can't really testify to what it meant then. And the people who read the KJV today don't live in 1611 so I can't see how it really matters. I have never seen anyone argue that strain at meant strain out. However, Scrivener (I believe) identified this as an error. The question is "What does the word mean?" ANy other translation is an error.

Acts 19:20 -- my fault.

 

As the years roll by and the Lord tarries our cherished KJV loses more and more of the Word of God to the past...

Besides the example above (and many others), what do these Scripture mean to the 21 century soul?

Psalm 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing:

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth...

James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness,

2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

KJVO folks complain about words and/or verses deleted from the Scripture by the MVs (and rightfully so) , but these KJV passages are just as lost as if they had been deleted from the text. Yes, we know what they mean (perhaps) but what about the common man in his/her common (koine) language?

HankD

 

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth...

James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness,

2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

KJVO folks complain about words and/or verses deleted from the Scripture by the MVs (and rightfully so) , but these KJV passages are just as lost as if they had been deleted from the text. Yes, we know what they mean (perhaps) but what about the common man in his/her common (koine) language?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Dear Haruo,

Thanks for a very vivid way of bringing home the point.

HankD

 

The Tyndale and Geneva Bibles predated the KJV, and both rendered Mt. 23:24 as "strain out" rather than "strain at."

 

The Tyndale and Geneva Bibles predated the KJV, and both rendered Mt. 23:24 as "strain out" rather than "strain at." </font>[/QUOTE]Absent contrary evidence, that's sufficient to convince me. (Though it's still possible that in 1611 "strain at" and "strain out" were synonymous, as "different than", "different from" and "different to" all are in 2003. I find "different to" bizarre, but in Britain many people think it's normal.)

Haruo

Haruo

 

To my knowledge, no English version before the 1611 KJV had "strain at" as the translation of Mt. 23:34. (The Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and Douai Bibles all had "strain out a gnat;" Wycliffe has "cleansing a gnat.") It may have been a translation error on the part of the KJV translators, but most likely it was a printing error in the 1611 KJV that remained uncorrected in subsequent printings.

[ April 04, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

DUPLICATE POST