Final Authority

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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)...</font>[/QUOTE]Amen JYD! The King James Bible is my final authority.

 

[Bartholomew]

Hello!

Oh dear! It seems this is turning straight into one of those "KJVOs are heretics vs. nonKJVOs are appostates" discussions! Alas, my plea was that this wouldn't happen - perhaps I was just naive (or haowever you spell that word!

). PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE can I ask that you stop talking about other, non-relatedsubjects (such as the TNIV)? You can do that in the other threads! I started this discussion because I wanted non-KJVOs to tell me where their final authority was, so that I could undertand the position better; not so we could have a "I'm right, you're wrong" discussion. I'd like to think my mind is open, and that I can still learn. Well, I thank those of you who have honestly replied. I don't really have time to write much more on here for the next few days, but I will be back.

Thanks once more,

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The Word of God. I am satisfied that 5000+ mss, 12000+ early witnesses, and 12000+ ancient versions are a sufficient testimony to preservation.

Hi Scott,

I don't deny this, but where is your final authority? What precisely do you mean by "The word of God"? There are places where some of the manuscripts you mention contradict each other. Where is your final authority to know which is true?

This is not an attack, but a sincere question. Thank you for your help,

YFAB

Bartholomew

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Ransom:
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.

Hi Ransom,

Although some on this board might insist that you do, I value don't require you to subscribe to the same reasoning. But (and this is a genuine question, asked for love of God) where is your final authority? Where do you go when different versions conflict? Which manuscript or whatever? How do you decide?

[ January 21, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As for final authority, the final authority rests in faithful translations of God's word as preserved in the multitude of manuscripts throughout history.

Sorry, Larry, but that doesn't help.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Siegfried:
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.

Thanks Siegfried,

I get your point, but what I don't understand is what we do when the manuscripts we look at disagree with each other? How do we decide which is right?

Thanks for the reply,

YFAB

Bartholomew

 

[Ransom]

Bartholomew said:

But (and this is a genuine question, asked for love of God) where is your final authority?

It is the Bible, in whatever faithful translation it may be found.

Where do you go when different versions conflict?

Again you presuppose that I must go to one particular place. The "conflict" is practically nonexistent, but when necessary I go and do some homework.

 

[Bartholomew]

Hi Brian,

Thanks so much for your answer! I don't agree with it (at least at the moment), though I hve to admit, I've never looked at it that way before.

Originally posted by BrianT:
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?

Well, it was (and still is) in the words themsleves - the information conveyed by the words. At the moment I may not know what a passage means, but I believe it is totally true. For example, I don't know for sure what "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" means, but I believe it's true. I DON'T believe it can mean something those words can't mean. Do you see what I mean about my final authority?

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"?

Well, I can only speak for myself, and I say "pre-mil". However, I am willing to change my mind if someone can show me why the words I believe really teach a-mill.

If the KJV *itself* (or any translation) were the "final authority", there could not be any disagreement.

I don't see why - people can disagree about what their autority means, surely? 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?

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.

I see what you're saying, but I have one big problem with it: HOW DO I KNOW WHAT IS GOD'S TRUTH? I used to be an Anglican. Now I'm a baptist. How do I know which position is true? How do I know I'm not being decieved? I used to think God's truth was one thing, now I think it's another. And I was always told I should look at the Bible to see what's right and wrong (Acts 17:11). But if God's truth tells us what scripture is, how do we do this? I mean, how can the scriptures tell us what God's truth is, and yet God's truth tell us what scripture is? Or am I misunderstanding you? What I always decided to do was never to cling onto any idea too tightly. I'd read the Bible, and see whether it agreed or not with it. Now I realise we all make mistakes, but I decided if I TRIED to make it my final authority (though I knew pride, etc. would get in the way), I'd probably end up pretty much right. But with your position, I can't see any final authority that I can appeal to. Acts 8:37 was one of the main reasons I got baptised. But now people say it's not part of the Bible. How do I know what they'll be saying tomorrow?

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.

I'm not saying it did, but conceivably, why could this not be possible? Why could God not have worked through the AV translators to give something perfect, when the previously perfect Bible was corrupted some time beofre (e.g. by the Roman Catholics)? I mean, in both systems, the people before 1611 would have had a "very good authority".

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.

I'm not sure that follows. Why do WE have to be able to find it? We weren't alive then. But I think you have a good point. Is it not possible that one of those older Bibles was completely true, and included all the scripture the people of that day needed? I mean, God gave plenty of prophecies in the past, and I bet many of them wrote them down. They would have been inspired messages, and yet God did not keep them all for us. Why? Becuase we didn't need them. 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?

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.

But I don't get how we can find this for sure. What about places the NIV and AV contradict? How do we know which is God's truth?

But thanks very much for your help - it's greatly appreciated.

YFAB

Bartholomew

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Where do you go when different versions conflict?
Again you presuppose that I must go to one particular place. The "conflict" is practically nonexistent, but when necessary I go and do some homework.

No, I don't assume you think it has to be one place. I realise that people use different texts to back up their positions. But what I want to know is how you decide which thing, after you've done your homework, is true? If people can find out for sure, why don't they give it us in a perfect Bible (in whatever language it is). I'm being serious - why not find all the manuscripts that are the final authority on each verse, piece them together, and get a final authority? But if we can't do that, and I think most people don't think we can, then is there a final authority? Your reference to "the Bible" doesn't help. What, exactly, is "the Bible"? If it is those 66 books as originally written, we have no help at all, because we don't have the originals. We can never know for SURE what the originals said, and so we're always left the guessing.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Ransom]

Bartholomew said:

But what I want to know is how you decide which thing, after you've done your homework, is true?

How you make up your mind on any disputable matter? You do the research, examine the evidence, and on the basis of the evidence, you use your God-given wisdom to draw a conclusion about which alternative is the most likely.

Does this mean certainty? No, not always. But it is better to be honestly uncertain than to prop up the illusion of certainty with pseudo-theology, illogic, and invective.

The only honest alternative is complete skepticism. That, unfortunately, is the domain of the KJV-onlyists, manifested when they cast doubt on God's Word by claiming things like "we don't have the originals, so we can never know what they said." (What they refuse to admit is their own conclusion: "Therefore, we will arbitrarily assign infallibility to the King James Version.")

Besides, having studied and discussed this issue for many years, I already know for a fact that these differences, such as they are, do not matter one iota to the content of God's truth. Of that, I can be certain - the cavils of the KJV-onlyists, about the NIV "denying" this, or "watering down" that, aside.

I'm being serious - why not find all the manuscripts that are the final authority on each verse, piece them together, and get a final authority?

It could be argued that the current critical text, though not all the way there yet, is a step in that direction. (Of course, the KJV-onlyists will reject such an assertion out of hand.)

Either way, you base your question on the false premise that complete certainty is presently possible, with the extant evidence, in every instance.

 

[Author]

Mankind looks down at the KJV or ASV or World English Bible on his or her desk and wonders, "is this version the Final Authority?"

Scholars peer though magnifying glasses at dusty scraps of papyri... pushing ever backward toward the fabled goal of the Original Manscripts. "Is this," they ask with each new discovery, "the Final Authority? Can this fragment be IT?"

But the wise Christian holds his or her Bible to their heart and looks upward in prayerful adoration of Christ Jesus... for THEY have found the Final Authority.

--Ralph

[ January 23, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

[BrianT]

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. BTW, in the past I've had some KJV-onlyists say that "God never promised to preserve the 'meaning', only the 'words'." They have completely missed the point of scripture.

Well, I can only speak for myself, and I say "pre-mil". However, I am willing to change my mind if someone can show me why the words I believe really teach a-mill.

The purpose of me mentioning that was not to debate which view is correct - it was only an example of where two different KJV-only supporters, reading the same "final authority", come to conflicting conclusions. 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? Would not God's eternal truth be the final authority, regardless (and even despite) of what conclusion you personally reached?

I don't see why - people can disagree about what their autority means, surely? 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.

I see what you're saying, but I have one big problem with it: HOW DO I KNOW WHAT IS GOD'S TRUTH?

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. 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.

I used to be an Anglican. Now I'm a baptist. How do I know which position is true? How do I know I'm not being decieved? I used to think God's truth was one thing, now I think it's another.

I think on the basics, scripture is fairly clear, and even Baptists and Anglicans agree on the essentials. But I understand your point. I think the answer lies in your attitude - are you humble, open to learning, open to truth even if it means you must admit to yourself that you are wrong on some issue? Or are you belligerent, proud, unteachable and convinced you have no error? If the first, the Holy Spirit can work with you. If the second, you've shut the Holy Spirit out. But maybe even more importantly, I personally think one's attitude is more important to God than one's correctness. I don't know if you have kids, but I have four. I have found that when they argue about some rule in the house or something I've previously said, one or both can get hostile and aggressive about it. I've found that when one is technically correct but has a bad attitude ("No, Dad said no ice-cream before dinner!! You want ice-cream?!? You don't even listen to him, you probably don't even love him and you make him very mad!! (slap!)") while the other is technically wrong but humble and gracious ("I think Dad only meant that one day, not everyday. I only wanted a little, please don't yell."), when I break it up, I say to the first "Yes, you're not to have ice-cream before dinner, but there is no need to yell and slap! Go to your room until you can be nice!" while I say to the other "It's OK sweetie, but no ice-cream right now, just wait until later" and pat her on the head. Love covers a multitude of sins sort-of-thing (1 Pet 4:8)

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). That's not to say doctrine is not important, it is. We just do our best, approach it with the right spirit, and let the Holy Spirit do his job.

But with your position, I can't see any final authority that I can appeal to. Acts 8:37 was one of the main reasons I got baptised. But now people say it's not part of the Bible. How do I know what they'll be saying tomorrow?

Imagine for the moment that there was only *one* translation available. And everyone was in 100% agreement about which manuscripts to use, and how to translate them. In otherwords, everyone was in total agreement that the only available Bible was perfect in all respects. People could point to it and say "Baptism is necessary for salvation", while others could say "Baptism is important, but you are saved before it and it is not a requirement." In other words, even if we all agreed on which Bible to use, we'd *still* have disagreements and issues about "final authority". That is because we, as fallible humans, have to filter that "final authority" through our fallible understandings and biases. You could use the Bible and believe one doctrine, and then a few years later, using the *same* Bible, change your mind about it. Pointing at the Bible doesn't solve the problem, because the "final authority" is higher than our personal interpretation of that final authority.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

I'm not saying it did, but conceivably, why could this not be possible?
</font>[/QUOTE]It is possible. But it has several major problems:

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.

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

3. It implies that the passages that you would depend on for such a view were actually lies until it happened. KJV-onlyism falls into this trap already, saying Psal 12:6-7 is about the KJV. If it is about the perfection of the KJV, it must have been a lie when the perfect wasn't here yet.

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

Is it not possible that one of those older Bibles was completely true, and included all the scripture the people of that day needed? I mean, God gave plenty of prophecies in the past, and I bet many of them wrote them down. They would have been inspired messages, and yet God did not keep them all for us. Why? Becuase we didn't need them.
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. 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. The KJV is no longer a "final" authority, as it could be replaced. Not only that, but you would also have no way of knowing it didn't already happen - 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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

But I don't get how we can find this for sure.
</font>[/QUOTE]There ultimately comes a point where you have to put in some faith. If you could prove God, you no longer need faith.

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.

But thanks very much for your help - it's greatly appreciated.

No problem. I hope this helps, and gives you and other honest seekers about version issues something to think about.

God bless,
Brian

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
What precisely do you mean by "The word of God"?

This is an important distinction. By "Word of God", I mean those sayings/revelations/commandments that God inspired to be expressed in the original writings. Thank the Lord, we are not dependent on an elusive word for word accuracy. If you've ever issued commands, you know that it is far more important for the substance of your intent to be recorded than your exact words. I believe that the way God providentially preserved all of these differing mss while allowing the word for word perfectly inspired originals to be destroyed is evidence that He wanted the substance of His intent (His Word) preserved but not the words (lest we be tempted to worship them as an idol).

We do not find doctrinal differences in the faithful translations. They just aren't there. When compared, scholars tell us that there is less than 1% of the wording that is in question and none of these discrepancies effect doctrine.

The KJV translators understood this when they admonished that a multitude of translations were useful to determine the true sense of scripture (the Word).

There are places where some of the manuscripts you mention contradict each other. Where is your final authority to know which is true?

The first question would be does the discrepancy effect doctrine. The second would be is it a matter requiring further study. If so, I try to find evidence: Is it the majority reading, the older reading, both, what are the possibilities, etc.

I like the KJV and use it as my primary Bible. However, often the discrepancies that are most difficult to ignore are the ones where the TR and thus KJV disagree with both the MT and CT.

This is not an attack, but a sincere question. Thank you for your help,

YFAB

Bartholomew

I didn't take it as an attack at all. Yours were very polite, reasonable questions. It is a pleasure to interact like this.

[ January 21, 2003, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Author:


But the wise Christian rests holds his or her Bible to their heart and looks upward in prayerful adoration of Christ Jesus... for THEY have found the Final Authority.

--Ralph

Ralph, Are you expressing this "Christ criterion" idea?

The Word, not the words but the Word, is certain. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads believers to an understanding of the scripture. However, that does not mean that we ignore the clear teaching of scripture because it doesn't "feel" right.

A couple of liberals here used to claim the "Christ criterion" to basically dismiss any scripture that they didn't like. Such as prohibitions on homosexuality and women pastors.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As for final authority, the final authority rests in faithful translations of God's word as preserved in the multitude of manuscripts throughout history.

Sorry, Larry, but that doesn't help. </font>[/QUOTE]Why not? What kind of answer are you looking for? Others have done a good job of showing some of the problems with the typical "final authority" argument. Allow me to post what should be the most obvious: The "final authority" (i.e, KJV)nowhere tells us that it is the "final authority." For someone to assert dogmatically that the KJV is the final authority, they must assert the authority of something besides the KJV. Thus, they prove their own argument wrong.

 

[Author]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Ralph, Are you expressing this "Christ criterion" idea?

The Word, not the words but the Word, is certain. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads believers to an understanding of the scripture. However, that does not mean that we ignore the clear teaching of scripture because it doesn't "feel" right.

A couple of liberals here used to claim the "Christ criterion" to basically dismiss any scripture that they didn't like. Such as prohibitions on homosexuality and women pastors.

Nope... not claiming ANYTHING liberal, just what us Baptists have believed in for hundreds of years... albeit the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message does say "...The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." This statement was obmitted from the 2000 BF&M, one of several major issues that has caused a number of truly conservative Baptists (myself included) to reject the 2000 BF&M.

God is the ultimate authority. How could anyone disagree with that?

--Ralph

 

[Daniel David]

I am NKJVO, ESVO, and NASBO based on God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7. Therefore, that is my final authority.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Kal-El:
I am NKJVO, ESVO, and NASBO based on God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7. Therefore, that is my final authority.

Are you being sarcastic?

 

[Pure Words]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kal-El:
I am NKJVO, ESVO, and NASBO based on God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7. Therefore, that is my final authority.

Are you being sarcastic?</font>[/QUOTE]ummm. I would say yes.

Brother,

The bottom line is that some Christians believe that the pure words of God perished when the original peices of paper upon which Paul or John's scribes wrote their inspired spoken words (2 Pet 1:19-21) perished.

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.

To some education, experience, or self-will prevail.

To others the words of God prevail:

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

 

[BrianT]

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.