Our Final Authority

Pioneer said:

Be wary of any opponent of the KJV who contrives impressive sounding buzz words to misrepresent what the defenders of the Authorized Version actually believe.

And be wary of anyone posing as a "Bible believer" who attempts to cast doubt on the Bible you have in your library by making an unwarranted leap from "God preserved his Word" to "God preserved his Word in the KJV and not in any other translation." Such people wrap arguments in pious-sounding language but are really creating only skepticism and unbelief in the Word of God.

 

Pioneer:
Once again, I love the KJV, definitely as much and quite possibly more than you do.
I simply do not subscribe to unscriptural beliefs like KJV-Onlyism.
You have never given any Scripture that proves that the Tyndale, ESV, Wiclif, and Geneva Bibles are to be excluded.

 

Dr. Jack Moorman is a scholar like D. A. Waite, Ph.D., Dr. Thomas Strouse, Ph.D.. I think he is better than James White. Jack has excellent essay on the Bible version issues. Jack wrote a new book, "8,000 Differences." He has labored for many months on this documented research to bring to the world--at long last--the proofs, in minute detail, that the critical Greek text in use today differs with our Textus Receptus Greek underlying our King James Bible in over 8,000 places. In this massive document, the New Testament books, chapters, and verses are given together with the exact Greek words in both the Nestle-Aland Greek text and the Textus Receptus Greek text of Dr. Frederick Scrivener, followed by the English translation of both Greek texts.

Go to see the website here:
8,000 Differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland NT Greek Text

 

I thought you liked this man?? This group has never been confused with scholars. I do believe that Moorman is a scholar like these men. That is why I put no stock in what he says.

 

Which is what I have said all along and this is what you deny. There are things other than the KJV which can and should be called the word of God. I believe what Timothy and the Ephesian elders had was very similar to what we have in modern versions and there is no way that you can disprove me. All of the evidence supports me, not you.

I don't think any of us here would dispute with this.

Ah ah ... once again, someone who agrees with us.

What you have here is a nice sounding gentlemen who doesn't believe what he wrote. I agree with much of what he said and I hold the biblical position. Your position is not biblical and I don't see any way that you (and probably this author) can really agree with this.

When I read your title, I thought that you were going to offer support for you position from the "Final Authority." Imagine my surprise when I see that once again, the best you can do is quote a man. Can you not see how inconsistent and unbiblical that is?? Who is the one following the ideas of man here?? It is certainly not us.

 

Of course, this response was undoubtedly expected, but I can easily say with confidence that what Timothy had, when translated into English, is something very closely resembling the KJV and not the MVs. There is no way that you can disprove me.

 

This is one of the worst fallacies I've ever read. It is tatamount to, but worse than, circular reasoning. There is no evidence that Timothy had anything resembling the KJV. You cannot make the statement you made and then place the burden to disprove it. It is seen in the following:

A.

You cannot disprove A.

Therefore, A.

Let's see another example: There are UFOs. you cannot prove there aren't. Therefore, there are UFOs.

 

This is one of the worst fallacies I've ever read. It is tatamount to, but worse than, circular reasoning. There is no evidence that Timothy had anything resembling the modern versions. You cannot make the statement you made and then place the burden to disprove it. It is seen in the following:

A.

You cannot disprove A.

Therefore, A.

Let's see another example: There are UFOs. you cannot prove there aren't. Therefore, there are UFOs.

This argument has to apply equally to both sides.

 

If the argument is equal, sure. But is it? Let's see:

Bob said of his argument:

You said "with confidence" that Timothy had something that was A, not B, and B was impossible, therefore, A.

Now Larry said:

Larry "believes" his statement, A, not B, and B could not be disproven according to his belief.

Bob= apples. Larry= oranges.

Sorry, Bob.

 

Of course it would be SIMILAR to the KJV. It just wouldn't have all of those additions that the KJV has.

 

These words are my sentiments exactly.

 

The statement following was brought from off this board
in direct defiance of the rules of this Forum
as stated at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000821
which states:

"3. Do not bring dirty laundry from another forum
into this forum. This one has enough of its own."

D.W. Costella: "We can have confidence today that
we have a Bible that is the holy Word of God
in the Authorized (King James) Version."

Amen, brother Costella -- preach it!
However, your statement is decietful.

1. No mention is made that there are multiple
versions of the King James Version.
The one that was authorized (KJV1611) is probably
NOT the one you use. Rather the unauthorized
(KJV1769, KJV1873) versions are used.

2. The term "authorized" is misrepresented.
Falsely implied is that the KJV is authorized
by God. Actually the KJV was authorized by
the person whose name the version bears, to wit:
King James.

3. As typical, no distinction is made in
these type comments between the Written Word
of God: the Holy Bible and the Living Word
of God: Messiah Yeshua. The written word of God leads us
to the Truth: the Living Word of God.

Testimony: I was saved 51 years ago when
reading the KJV (probably KJV1873). I will teach
next Sunday morning a Sunday School class of
men 45-60, i will use a KJV1769.

The KJV1769 is the holy word of God, but the
KJV1769 is a MV (modern version).

And Good Morning all!

 

But I can offer some strong arguments against you.

1) The Bibles used by Timothy and the Ephesian elders were in the common vernacular. The KJV isn't.
2) The textual support for many disputed passages in the KJV does not reach back far enough leading us to believe that those were spurious passages added by scribes along the way. You would have to trace your evidence back much further than you can.
3) The readings followed by the MV and texts account for the variant readings. The readings followed by the KJV cannot explain how the others came to be. This is a serious problem that the MajT/TR guys have not adequately dealt with, at least that I have seen.

But more to the point, you miss the obvious point: What Timothy and the Ephesian elders had was not the KJV and it was used with authority. Therefore, it is patently unbiblical to suggest that only the KJV can be used with authority. It is obvious that other things can be. That is, and has been, the evangelical orthodox position. It will continue to be. The people who say that only the KJV is the word of God are simply not telling the truth. (Obviously that is not directed at you Pastor Bob, since you do not believe that). Even the "only word of God in the English language" addendum does not help out since it cannot be shown from Scripture to be the case.

Therefore, once again, teh KJV position is shown to be totally lacking.

 

Amen, Pastor Larry -- Preach it!

 

Double 'Amen' from here in the back pew!

 

Double 'Amen' from here in the back pew!

</font>[/QUOTE]What they said:

 

They differ from James White, Bruce Metzger, and other naturalistic scholars because they disagree each other.