Question – What is your FINAL Authority?

I wholeheartedly agree! Multiple ones in fact (which were not 100% in textual agreement with each other), - exactly what you were arguing against.

Perhaps you can simply and concisely explain yourself. You say there must be a single authority, yet you admit multiple authorities. You say there is a "final" authority, but the ones prior to the KJV were obviously not "final" if they had a new and different translation (the KJV) added to their number. Come on, break it down for us, simply and directly. Up to now, you appear to be contradicting yourself repeatedly (sorry, but that's really how it's appearing).

 

Really? Show me the scripture... </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry. I misread your post and thought that you were claiming no other authoritative translations before the KJV... so let me modify.

Please show the scripture supporting the notion that there were authoritative translations before the KJV but not after.

 

paidagogos,

Are you at it again?

Sheez, and I get tired trying to argue with just one or two...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Besides, AVBunyan is just a KJVO troll who likes to try to start arguements...

 

AVBunyan believes that KJV is the best translation for our mother language because of the KJV superiority. The reason for the KJV superiority is that God is superior to give us the most accurate Bible, namely the King James Version.

 

AVBunyan believes that KJV is the best translation for our mother language because of the KJV superiority. The reason for the KJV superiority is that God is superior to give us the most accurate Bible, namely the King James Version.


Well then Askjo put your scripture where your mouth is and tell me which KJV is perfect and why. Also show me the scripture that says KJV and that the KJV would be the final bible for the English speaking world. Keep in mind that NO BIBLE before the KJV matched 100% word for word.

I figure this is just another one of your unfounded emotional smokescreens to avoid answering the questions.

I WANT PROOF THAT GOD GAVE US THE KJV when the Geneva Bible was just as good and better in many ways than that KJV. Proof! Put up or shut up.

Also back up that 10000 claim with proof.

 

David J, you ask AMISS.

Because the KJV is STILL here for almost 400 years. If the KJV is still here since almost 400 years, the Word of God is QUICK.

 

The latin Vulgate has been here over 1000 years, Askjo. So what is your point?

There is nothing AMISS with DavidJ's question, Askjo. If you can't answer it, quit dodging and say so.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Then please don’t make provocative and insulting (by innuendo) "cold, hard" statements.

RE:Which KJV Revision/Edition?

I didn’t try to refute anything yet, I was trying to get a simple answer to a simple question and even provided multiple choice.

Since things which are different cannot be the same which of the following revisions of the AV1611 is the “authoritative Scriptures" 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

It really is quite simple the answer must be one of the following: None of them, one of them, some of them, or all of them.

But instead you give me an answer, which does not address the year of the edition and a paranoid statement about refuting your position (although had you given what I consider the wrong answer I probably would have tried to refute the answer or at least discuss its implications).

This "differences" issue is one of the focal arguments that the radical KJVO bring forth, that the MVs differ from the KJV as well as amongst themselves and this is the selfsame argument that can be brought against the King James Bible. It differs even amongst the several revisions/editions bearing the KJV title and is therefore of utmost relevance, with some of those differences affecting the meaning of the passage. All the revisions/editions have imperfections and therefore has a direct bearing upon the authority and/or the reliability of the work.

This was in response to my statement:

You are the one who made the “logic of faith” challenge. Here is your quote:

If you are going to chastise people for addressing your challenges, why then bring it or the name of Edward Hills up at all?

Hills’ views had more to do with the original language mss in relation to preservation

According to Hills the Inspiration of Scripture and its Providential preservation were of necessity of the same precision. In his book King James Defended on page 9, Hills says that the original New Testament manuscripts were written under special conditions under the inspiration of God, and that the copies were made under the special care and providence of God (the Byzantine). He goes on to say that this is a “divine consequence”.
How do we know if his “logic of faith” is sound. What if someone else’s logic of faith says the older mss are the recipients of God’s special care or the Western family are the recipients or perhaps there is no focus on any one family or type of mss.

You asked

To which I responded

To which you responded:

I have.

I haven’t yet. Perhaps you are the one who needs to ask what I believe before you try to refute it.

Every translation has of necessity had its variants smoothed, the KJV was no exception.
Those who choose the KJV choose the king's translators authority and Anglo-Catholic bias (of which bias many 17th century Puritans, dissenters and anabaptist complained and subsequently were persecuted, imprisoned, lost body parts and even their lives).

The KJV readers are simply unaware (today) of what those "4" or 2 or 3... variants have been made transparent and they have no more certain guarantee of correctness of choice or being "under the authority of God" than the NASB reader

HankD

 

Do we use the Latin Vulgate for our mother tongue TODAY?

 

The question that David J asked me AMISS is incorrect because he thinks I did.

 

Really? Show me the scripture... </font>[/QUOTE]Why? Why do I need a Scripture to back up my statement? Give me a Scripture that tells me that I do. Scripture doesn't tell us whether Bibles should be covered in red calf leather or black either.

 

A Bible should be read

 

Why? Why do I need a Scripture to back up my statement? Give me a Scripture that tells me that I do.

And this attitude has createdmany bad doctrines and cults are formed by using this type of logic....

KJVOism has NO SCRIPTURE to supports KJVOism therefore KJVOism is false.

No tell me which KJV is perfect.

 

If you can't refute me, then don't try. Don't even bother to read my posts. It won't hurt my feelings. Would you like to deny me the right to expound my views?

 

A Bible should be read </font>[/QUOTE]EXACTLY!

 

Really? Show me the scripture... </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry. I misread your post and thought that you were claiming no other authoritative translations before the KJV... so let me modify.

Please show the scripture supporting the notion that there were authoritative translations before the KJV but not after. </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't say that either!

 

I wholeheartedly agree! Multiple ones in fact (which were not 100% in textual agreement with each other), - exactly what you were arguing against.

Perhaps you can simply and concisely explain yourself. You say there must be a single authority, yet you admit multiple authorities. You say there is a "final" authority, but the ones prior to the KJV were obviously not "final" if they had a new and different translation (the KJV) added to their number. Come on, break it down for us, simply and directly. Up to now, you appear to be contradicting yourself repeatedly (sorry, but that's really how it's appearing). </font>[/QUOTE]You must read only what is written. Don’t bring your own presuppositions to the table assuming that I share them.

The most common problem is not delimiting words to specific usage and context in our posts. To give a reasoned answer to all your questions would be more time than I have to give to this diversion. I have dropped hints, mostly unnoticed, in my previous posts.

My view of plenary verbal inspiration does not require that every word in one authoritative text be identical to every word in another authoritative text—obviously it cannot be if the texts are in different languages. This is one presupposition that I do not share with you or others. Furthermore, I do not necessarily think that inspiration is specifically and irrevocably tied to ink symbols on paper. The thought, idea, or concept is involved as well. This is not to say that I believe in thought inspiration—I don’t. Yet, God allowed the writers of Scripture to use their own vocabulary and style in writing His authoritative Word. This would suggest some flexibility to me. On the other hand, each writer’s vocabulary and style perfectly expressed God’s thoughts. Thus, authority is bound up in words, thoughts, context, etc. in such a way that Scripture says exactly what God intended it to say. Don’t ask me to explain the process; it is inexplicable. Thus, I believe that a faithful, honest translation can say exactly what God intended, thus making it authoritative.

Final, as I have used it on this thread, does not imply that it cannot change. This is not a time-related idea here. It is rather a modifier of authoritative meaning there is no higher appeal. There is no higher authoritative. It is the final authority—the Supreme Court, if you please.

I wholeheartedly agree! Multiple ones in fact (which were not 100% in textual agreement with each other), - exactly what you were arguing against. [/QUOTE

Perhaps you can simply and concisely explain yourself. You say there must be a single authority, yet you admit multiple authorities. You say there is a "final" authority, but the ones prior to the KJV were obviously not "final" if they had a new and different translation (the KJV) added to their number. Come on, break it down for us, simply and directly. Up to now, you appear to be contradicting yourself repeatedly (sorry, but that's really how it's appearing). [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Simply this. I reject the NIV and others as not being authoritative for a variety of reasons. The NIV, for example, was skewed in its translation by theological factors. Also, I accept the Majority or Received Text as the real basis for translation word. I categorically reject all critical texts because I have a major disagreement with the methodology, presuppositions, and actual decision trees.

IMHO, the KJV is superior because of the same reasons that we use Latin for taxonomy. Elizabethan English is a dead, unchanging language, yet we can read it easily and accurately enough. It is highly structured and denotative whereas modern English is loose and connotative. There is tremendous body of scholarship and tools for interpreting it. Also, it has validated by the believing church for hundreds of years. It is trustworthy. It is not susceptible to the current theological fad or interpretation. Regardless of the critics, it is readable and anyone not familiar with it can dig out it gems with a good concordance and dictionary. Also, the rhythm and beauty of the language drives home the message. You cannot improve upon: “For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life.” Do you hear the meter?

There are other philosophical and practical reasons—memorization and so forth.
Unbelievers cannot envision the idea of an authoritative Scripture in the sea of plural translations. This makes witnessing harder. All translations are not equal. Many are bad or poor quality at best. Therefore many are let astray and deceived. We have mass confusion and doctrinal pandemonium in Christianity today. This translation business just adds to it.

I hope this helps but there are still thousands of unanswered questions.

 

May I suggest that it has stood the test of time?

 

WHICH the Word of God? </font>[/QUOTE]The Word of God - there is only one Word of God, many copies, many translations, many languages. Yelling at me (using all caps) is not going to force me to use your definition of "final authority."