Final Authority

The Word of God. I am satisfied that 5000+ mss, 12000+ early witnesses, and 12000+ ancient versions are a sufficient testimony to preservation. These documents tell us that we have indeed the faith delivered once to the saints.

If you were a scientist working in archeology and had this much evidence for any other ancient writing, its record would be universally accepted as 100% fact. God has given and preserved His Word in an astonishing way.

[ January 20, 2003, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Two great sites for truth;http://lanset.com/kjvpreaching/knox2.htm
biblebeliever.com

 

Just because the KJV-onlyists insist that one can only have a final authority if it is arbitrarily vested in a particular translation, version, edition, or copy, doesn't mean that I have to subscribe to the same reasoning.

 

You are absolutly correct!! you dont have to have a final authority. Use as many (200+ by now) conflicting authorities as you like,or scholarship as a final authority, or person(s)as a final authority, who will "recomend" a translation that HE thinks is "reliable".The acronym "KJVO" was coined by people who spend there whole life tearing apart a book that tears them apart(Heb 4:12)..They wont leave that book alone because IT wont leave them alone(Heb 4:12)...

[ January 20, 2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

JYD said:

you dont have to have a final authority.

Kindly answer what I said, not what you wish I said. Thank you.

 

Nope, you sure dont...

 

I believe he did.

 

Bartholomew,

I'll try to give a sincere answer to a sincere question:

Some measure of faith enters into whatever conclusion you reach about the Word of God. Either you're going to believe that God preserved his Word in a diverse geographical and chronological variety of manuscripts that were eventually translated into English, or you're going to believe that at some moment later in history (1611, 1769, or some other edition) God entered the scene to give English speaking people (only) precise revelation

My question is, what was the final authority for English speakers prior to 1611?

Whichever choice we make, we're relying on faith since we were not present when autographs, copies, and translations were made. To me it's more rational to look at all the manuscript evidence than to focus in on what happened at one moment in history and ignore that God had an authoritative Word for people who lived before, as well as that he allowed later believers to uncover more evidence for the reliability of His Word.

I hope that helps in some way, at least to uncover some issues, even if you disagree.

 

Wasn't there something in the first post about requesting answer from those who were not KJVOnly?? If so, then why are KJOnlies posting here??????

As for final authority, the final authority rests in faithful translations of God's word as preserved in the multitude of manuscripts throughout history.

 

Japeth said:

I believe he did.

Good for you, but what you "believe" doesn't count. Nowhere did I say I don't have to have a final authority. That is a misrepresentation.

 

Hi Bartholomew,

I understand your question, I really do. I understand the appeal in believing a particular Bible is "COMPLETELY without error".

But think for a moment what you're asking. You're asking for a "final authority", and you clung to KJVOnlyism because the KJV is where you saw it. But what did you actually see? You saw a familiar, accepted book. But where is the authority - in the ink on paper? Or rather, is it from what *you* understand as *you read* it and the Holy Spirit guides you? You see, the Bible, as ink on paper, is not much use until you read it. And when you read it, you (and everyone) read it through the glasses of bias, the result of human imperfection and experience. We make mistakes, and we misunderstand things.

Now when you read the KJV through your glasses, and when someone else reads the KJV through their glasses, the two of you may come to different understandings about an issue. Take for example end-times. There are some KJV-only supporters on this board who read the KJV as then say "premill!". There are other KJV-only supporters on this board who read the same KJV and then say "amill!". They both read the same words. They are both Christians. But what of the "final authority"? If the KJV *itself* (or any translation) were the "final authority", there could not be any disagreement. We then see that the "final authority" *cannot* be ink on paper, but rather God's absolute truth, regardless of the ink on paper, regardless of mistakes in understanding when one reads that ink, regardless of whether people and Bibles even exist. The ink on paper is a *witness* to the final authority, but is not the final authority in and of itself.

We have many many translations (new and ancient) and many many manuscripts, all witnesses to the final authority of God's truth. We, as humans, make mistakes. The Holy Spirit can guide a humble, searching soul to the "final authority" when reading *any* translation, for the Holy Spirit is God himself. I think many KJV-only supporters minimize or even forget about the Holy Spirit in this role.

You have probably seen me repeatedly ask "where was the word of God in 1605?" on this board. The point of the question is this: we all (I hope) believe that God's eternal truth, the "final authority", did not pop into existence in 1611. It had to have existed prior to 1611. There were witenesses to the final authority earlier, like the Geneva, Tyndale's, Wycliffe's, the Vulgate, etc, etc. Yet none of these match the KJV word-for-word. If a *book* is the "final authority", then we MUST be able to find that final authority prior to 1611 - but we cannot, it is a logical impossibility. Rather, we must consider that we are looking in the wrong place for a final authority in the first place. The final authority is NOT a book, but is *God's eternal truth*. This final authority is revealed to us through Bibles and through the guiding of the Holy Spirit when reading those Bibles, and a perfect book need not exist in order for that final authority to exist, as was the case in 1605. And if it was the case in 1605, it must still be the case today.

I hope that explains where I am coming from, and why I can never accept KJV-onlyism as truth.

God bless,
Brian

 

I agree.

Also..within the Bible itself...God chose to reveal major doctrines in multiple places..thus by comparing scripture we are able to discern God's truth. What may be obscure in one place is
explained in others.

I'm unaware of any textual variant that destroys an existing doctrine or invents a new doctrine (perhaps there is one someone can tell me about).
I've even read there is something like 98% agreement between the TR and CT..so much of the GNT isn't even in dispute!

So for "Final Authority" I have no problem with using the NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV...etc.



-kman

 

Mine is in the ESV. I also find it in the NKJV, NASB, and KJV.

Neal

 

You will find some here make them selves the final authority!Maybe because they reject the KJV and can't find anything else that suits them.Amen JYD!!

 

You will also find some here who make GA Ripscripture the final authority even when it is proven that she distorts people's words and claims divine inspiration for her work....

Stevie, When are you going to answer my questions about GAR? Where is your SPINE?

 

This certainly sounds like you. You have not made the KJV your final authority because you cannot offer any support from the KJV for your position. You must go outside the KJV to support your position.

Of course your final authority is people who have been shown to be mistruthful. That is sad when someone "defends" the Bible by not telling the truth. Then others reject scriptural teaching in order to believe these people.

[ January 20, 2003, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

You will find some here make them selves the final authority!

I was going to make a snide remark along the lines of "Yes, we call them KJV-onlyists," but then I realized that it would not be the case, as they tend instead to invest final authority in such infallible figures as St. Peter of Pensacola or the Blessed Virgin Gail.

 

Okay, Steve. Again, your point? Is this the best you can come up with?

Start giving proof of this perversion and mutilation. It is not enough to just say it. I could say "Pink elphants fly in outer space." Does that make it true?

Neal