Question – What is your FINAL Authority?

Gregory Perry Sr: I definitely believe that the "english" in use today is a PERVERSION of the language.

Then how come you're USING it?

And I'm NOT saying this in reference to Bible translations per/se.Elizabethian English is a superior version of the language in use today...but...I'll add that that is simply MY opinion.

If it's so superior, then why did it fall into disuse?


What is in use today doesn't lend itself well to translations of the Word of God.

I think it does quite well. We have a lot more words available today.


I'd far rather stick with the "old paths" because they have proven themselves reliable and there is nothing in the King James Bible (language-wise) that can't be understood clearly today with the use of a good Strong's Concordance and a decent Websters dictionary.

Why not simply have a Bible in one's own language, a Bible that doesn't need outside sources to be understood?


The spiritual truths of the Word of God are revealed to believers and lost people seeking TRUTH by the Holy Spirit and NOT through the natural understanding or "wisdom" of natural men.

Agreed...but He expects each of us to put forth the effort to learn as much as we can on our own. If you sat down with a Chinese-language Bible and you didn't know a thing about the Chinese language, do you believe the Holy Spirit would "open" it for you, especially when you have Bibles in your own language right beside you?


A "modern translation" of the bible will NOT give a "natural man" any better understanding of the TRUTH....until the Holy Spirit opens his heart and mind to it....regardless of the translation used.JMO

And neither will an Elizabethan-English version, especially to someone who can't fully comprehend it on his/her own.

 

Very well put IMO.

Some, including myself, might want to modify your last sentence, the words "exactly what God intended" this wording may be to strong and seem to support a theory of a translator "second-inspiration". Not that God is not able to do that but has He?

This is one of the essential problems with radical KJVO (not necessarily anyone currently posting) doctrine. That God granted the prophet-apostle power of inspiration to the translators of His Word (The Traditional Texts of the original languages (IMO)).

At minimum this doctrine would seem to require the unbroken apostolic succession from the Apostles as claimed by some - the Anglo and Roman Catholic churches.

But as paidagogos has pointed out, we must put our faith/trust in the fact that God "moved/guided" (or choose your own word) the early fathers to select the correct books of the canon or how do we know?

Warm feeling in one's tummy?

HankD

 

AV1611Jim: I might add;
Based on the cross reference to the brass serpent in the wilderness then the KJV got it right. "Look" is the correct alternative use of the word here.

He's not saying the KJV 'got it wrong'; he's saying EITHER rendering is correct.

I've seen in many KJVO petty arguments that, where the KJV uses one rendering of a given word and a later version uses another rendering that's equally correct, it's generally the KJVO who brings up the issue.

 

Paidagogos: Then, it follows that you don't know which document is the "final authority." So,in effect, you have no "final authority." It is rather like arguing about quarks; no one has ever observed one.

But all the predicted effects and attributes of quarks HAVE been observed...as they have for the KJVO myth. There's no KJVO official org, but the devastating effects of its false doctrines are readily seen.

Did YOU choose YOUR final authority...or did someone else choose it for you? In either instance, what was THE authority for your choice?

 

Askjo: Ok, let us look at one word, "valid." If a valid version is the Word of God, is it valid if 10,000 uninspired words in a bible version are not the Word of God?

How about ONE uninspired word?

Before you say, "KJV", let's look at some uninspired words in it:

"God forbid" numerous times.

"the image of" in Romans 11:5

"Easter" in Acts 12:4

All the italicized words used to make the translation readable in English. (Same method as used in every other English version also)

If you say all the above examples are inspired, you cannot truthfully say that such words added to any other version are not also inspired.

 

Paidagogos: Well now, please tell me the number of words that must be changed before it is no longer the Word of God? One? Do articles count?


Seems as if there's some confusion surrounding 'inspire', cause', & 'allow'. For example, we know Nebuchadnezzar decided to attack Jerusalem rather than Rabbah after emptying a quiver of arrows onto the floor & observing which way the majority of them pointed, and "reading" the lines of a goat's liver, two "divining" practices of the pagans in that place and time. Now, did God inspire, cause, or allow Neb to make his choice?

Similarly, did God inspire, cause, or allow the various translations of His word in various languages to be made?

I'll say He definitely inspired His prophets who originally wrote His various messages & inspired certain Jews to write historical records and add them to Scripture...but I'll only go so far as to say He INFLUENCED people to make the various translations. You may call that influence inspiration, guidance, direction, or whatever...the results are all the same.

 

Paidagogos: Sir, you have tilted windmills thinking you put a KJVO ignoramus in his place and you didn’t know that you were fighting windmills.

Call'em windmills if you like. Main thing is, THEY DIDN'T WIN.

I realize that I am being blunt but that is the way that it is. I see absolutely no point in replying to any of your drivel since it is the same old stuff, nothing new or original, of the anti-KJVO rant against Riplinger, Ruckman & Co.

Which is given in reply to the same ole KJVO drivel about final authority. If YOU have one, who chose it? On what basis?


There is no profit is rehashing well-worn clichés in naïve repartee.

Then why do you bring up this final authority thingy? Yes, I know AV Bunyan started it, but he hasn't been here that long, while YOU HAVE. In dealing with Mr. Bunyan elsewhere, I know he's just a basic party-line KJVO whobrings nothing new to the table, but you've brought up this final authority stuff in the past on this board...and you're not gonna get any new answers. It was circular reasoning then and still is now.


Obviously, you don’t have the foggiest notion of what I believe, what I am saying, or the intellectual issues and problems with the standard pabulum consumed by would-be theologians.

Sinse I failed Mind-Reading 101, the only idea I have of what you believe is what you write...and so far it's been a circle. You keep asking people what their final authority is, but you won't accept their answers. And you haven't told us who chose YOUR final authority, and from what basis.


I don’t have time to engage in childish wordplay with someone who doesn’t understand the arguments or refuses to address serious issues.

I understand the argument quite well...This is just another back-door attempt to place at least a little justification upon the KJVO myth. Just as another member here who hasn't posted for awhile says, "You have no final authority" to we who disagree with his old KJVO stuff, both you and Bunyan are trying the same old failed ploy.


For me, these debate forums are not about jousting, such as sports buffs do, but they are about debating issues of truth, righteousness and doctrine. Nuff said. Goodbye.

And that's exactly what we're doing. And disagreement is part of the discussion. If ya can't take the heat, you know where the kitchen door is.

If you elect to put on your flak jacket, you MIGHT explain to me why you think I and several others here have no final authority, and what the basis is for YOUR final authority.

 

My whole problem with this issue is using a hard and fast line like "Final Authority." If we claim a "final authority" then it musy be perfect in EVERY detail, every "jot and tittle" must be preserved and every "i" must be dotted and "t" crossed in precisely the same way. One mistake, be it typesetting, grammar, spelling, or change of word usage would make my "final authority" fallible and un-trustworthy.

Every editon or update of the KJV has some differences. Some minor, and some not so minor. How do we know which edition to choose for our infallible, perfect, letter for letter, word for word, without error, final authority?

Then we come to the problem of languages. Does God give a "final authority" to every language on earth?

If there is one, perfect, infallible, version of the Word of God then it can only be one. Every translation is then done by human hands and is a human effort. The only other option is a multitude of "final authorities" in a multitude of languages. No two languages translate perfectly. How can we have 100+ "final authorities?"

Is God's final authority an English Bible? Exactly which one would it be? And what do the non-English speakers of the world do about their dilemma?

These questions have never been answered.

 

Paidagogos: Oh yes, it is. It is the same fallacy as comparative religion where you can pick and choose what to believe. If the choice is left in your hands under your scholarship and prejudices, it can no longer be argued that it is authoritative. It is only authoritative whenever it supersedes your scholarship and reason. To parody an old adage, too many herbs spoil the taste of the broth. A pluralistic approach leaves you without a single definable authority.

Then, prithee, tell us how YOU arrived at YOUR final authority. Did God send you a special message? Did someone else choose for you? Or did you simply guess?

 

My salvation came about as I was preached to by my parents(who use the NASV), from reading a Bible for myself(the NASV), & from hearing God's word preached by various pastors(using the KJV and other translations). In short, I learned about Jesus from reading & hearing the Scriptures, and thus realized I was a lost sinner who needed to come to Jesus in belief,repentance, and submission. I have learned that GOD CAN DO ANYTHING, and that He is NOT LIMITED in how he may choose to present His word to anyone in any language...after all, HE made, and controls, all the languages.

Paidagogos made an interesting point, that Eliz. English is a 'dead', unchanging language. Good point, except that GOD'S WORD AND ITS AUTHOR ARE BOTH ALIVE AND IN CHARGE. God and His word were here long before any English whatsoever was. The KJV was written in the best English of its time, and was the best version of its day, with the possible exception of the Geneva Bible.

And the LV was also written in what's now a dead, unchanging language. However, English didn't fall into disuse as did latin; it 'evolved' as time passed, same as has every other language that's been in use a long time. Eliz. English isn't a separate language; it's a stage in the "life" of the English language. I have a book of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" written in HIS English, a book which I've had since my teenage years. While in high school, I learned to read it by various means, including comparing it with a modern-English version. THAT English style was almost entirely out of use by the time Tyndale made his Bible. And the English had changed some between Tyndale and the AV.

Just as an ugly caterpillar that eats milkweed leaves changes into the beautiful Monarch butterfly that has an entirely-different appearance and diet from the larva BUT IS STILL THE SAME CREATURE, older English has changed into its present form.


This drives home the point that, as C4K said, our final authority is GOD'S WORD, regardless of version or language. Paid admits he uses multiple versions, so whether he will admit it or not, he's in the same boat we are, the differences being he uses versions from several languages while I and many others use various versions in one language. Again, whether Paid will admit it or not, if all his versions were to be translated into one common language, he would have as many versions in that language as he had translated from other languages. No two translations would be alike.

NONE of this is lost on GOD. We say he preserves His word, but then some try to tell Him HOW He may or may not preserve it. Can't He take care of it? Does He not enable EVERY Christian to recognize bogus versions such as "Good As New" or the NWT at once? Has he limited Himself to just one English version? In Amos 3:7, He says He will do NOTHING w/o first telling His prophets. Where did He tell them He was gonna implement the KJVO myth? Without HIS sanction through His word, the KJVO myth can have only come from one or both of two places...man, or the devil.

FINAL AUTHORITY = GOD'S WORD, ANY VALID VERSION

 

Roby, Amen!

 

Mr. Bunyan:

First, in reading your website, I see you've made the completely false statement that ALL MVS ARE OF THE DEVIL. Sir, you don't have the first scintilla of EVIDENCE to back up such a claim.

Then, you allude to the 1546 coronation of young Edward VI, who displayed great piety during his brief lifetime.(He died in 1553, age 15, prolly from TB and/or measles, which was much more virulent than it is now.) HIS final authority in English would've been the Great Bible at the latest, the first 'legal' English version, sanctioned by Henry VIII. It is somewhat different from the AV 1611.

Is there any history buff here who will say Edward VI was not a devout person? Surely he used a valid Bible, most likely one written by Myles Coverdale. Seems the English 'final authority' has changed or was spread out in the 1500s-1600s, as no sensible person will say the Geneva Bible and its commonly-used predecessors are not valid versions. What proof is there that God retired in 1611, leaving the KJV as the last final authority in English? The older versions are just as valid...and there's no basis for saying the KJV is "it". Even before it was made, there were several English versions which could rightfully claim to be part of the final authority. GOD is simply NOT LIMITED in how He can present His word in English, Chinese, or Slobbovian, in old or new versions!

 

Actually, you do share this with me. That's what I've been saying all along. That's how I can accept multiple translations and manuscripts as the authoritative word of God - which you initially argued against, arguing for a "single" authoritative text. If you can hold to both the KJV and Luther's as "authoritative", I can hold to the Geneva and the Peshitta as authoritative, and whatever other translations and manuscripts I choose.

On the bottom of page 2 of this thread, you challenged Plain Old Bill and I because we could hold multiple differing translations in parallel as authoritative - yet YOU hold multiple differing translations in parallel as authoritative. And since then you have NOT explained this double standard. That's where I'm stuck in this discussion.

That evaluation is based on your subjective interpretation of those passages. As well, the KJV is also skewed in its translation by theological factors.

Ya, so? These are all good reasons, but NONE of them are reasons for the KJV to be exclusively authoritative. Look at it this way: if these are the reasons to hold to the KJV as the single authoritative word of God, most of those reasons did not exists in 1612, after the KJV was produced yet before it was a "dead language", before it had "a tremendous body of scholarship and tools for interpreting it", before it was "validated by the believing church for hundreds of years", etc. Was the KJV the single authoritative word of God in 1612? How about 1620? 1650? 1700? If those are the features that make something the authoritative word of God, then when did the KJV become the authoritative word of God? Since when does a Bible slowly become the authoritative word of God over time due simply to common use - since when is the word of God determined by those factors you gave???

Not even the originals had those reasons going for them. And whose to say the NIV won't have all those reasons in 400 years time???

The reasons you gave demonstrate to me that the KJV is indeed the authoritative word of God, but they do NOT remotely demonstrate that the KJV exclusively gets to claim this title. They do not prove anything other than your person, subjective understanding. By what authority do you get to chose the reasons that identify God's word for us?

 

You made a comment about the age of a translation, Askjo.

And, besides, Elizabethen English is not anyone's "mother tongue"...at least, not if you are younger than, say, 400+ years old...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

No refuting, my friend. And I enjoy your posts, even if I do not agree.

I am not attempting to deny you any right. I was wondering if these were your views, or if you had taken them up for discussion's sake, that's all.

Sorry if I offended you, as it was nowhere near my intent.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Nothing amiss, Askjo. Just a question that needs an answer...besides personal opinion.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Faith, my friend. Did you forget Hill's "logic of faith"? Now, tell me how you came to Christ. Was it by scholarship and intellectual persuasion? Only C.S. Lewis thought that he arrived at Christianity by rational process and he learned later that he was wrong. If we accept the Bible conceptually as the Word of God by faith, is it anymore difficult to accept a version or translation?

I will tell you, as I have already told you, how I came to accept the KJV. (The problem is that some of you guys are so amazed and enamored of your own thoughts that you can’t read and comprehend anyone else’s.) I came to Christ through the KJV and a strong, fundamentalist Baptist tradition that used it. My theology is grounded in it. I accepted its veracity and authority by faith when I accepted Christ as my Lord and Saviour (I like the Elizabethan spelling). If I leave it and accept all other variants on equal footing, then my theology becomes pluralistic and tentative. If the KJV should be in error, then my theology is in error. I have placed my faith in the KJV as an accurate and authoritative rendering of God’s Word. From it, I take my theology with confidence. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Furthermore, I have brought myself under its authority and teaching. I try to live consistently with this concept and all of its implications. Have you come to grips with the same?

 

Two questions:

1. why is "mother tongue" even relevant?

2. in another thread, you said the Gevena was the preserved word of God prior to the KJV. How do you explain that the Geneva is in the same "mother tongue" as the KJV is? And when did the Geneva stop being the preserved word of God?

 

Actually, you do share this with me. That's what I've been saying all along. That's how I can accept multiple translations and manuscripts as the authoritative word of God - which you initially argued against, arguing for a "single" authoritative text. If you can hold to both the KJV and Luther's as "authoritative", I can hold to the Geneva and the Peshitta as authoritative, and whatever other translations and manuscripts I choose.

On the bottom of page 2 of this thread, you challenged Plain Old Bill and I because we could hold multiple differing translations in parallel as authoritative - yet YOU hold multiple differing translations in parallel as authoritative. And since then you have NOT explained this double standard. That's where I'm stuck in this discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you’re missing the point. I do not hold all translations equal. Furthermore, I hold to a strong received tradition. There must be continuity. Also, I hold to validation by the believing church in acceptance and use. For example, the Noah Webster translation just didn’t make it. The spate of modern translations, IMHO, is for the most part flawed since most are based on a mangled, critical text. I do not accept any translation as authoritative based on modern critical text theory. I reject the theory as irrevocably flawed.

That evaluation is based on your subjective interpretation of those passages. As well, the KJV is also skewed in its translation by theological factors. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, here’s the kicker. Language changes. The KJV does not mean to us exactly what it did in Elizabethan times to the Elizabethans. Then, it was dominated by the Elizabethan culture and mindset. We interpret the KJV differently from some of the worthy translators. However, the KJV is interpreted today within a context of the believing church and the accompanying body of theology. Thus, we are interpreting the Word of God within the milieu of a Christian community and way of thinking. This provides a context that modern translations cannot have for a couple of hundred years. Furthermore, modern translations are children of this age.

Ya, so? These are all good reasons, but NONE of them are reasons for the KJV to be exclusively authoritative. Look at it this way: if these are the reasons to hold to the KJV as the single authoritative word of God, most of those reasons did not exists in 1612, after the KJV was produced yet before it was a "dead language", before it had "a tremendous body of scholarship and tools for interpreting it", before it was "validated by the believing church for hundreds of years", etc. Was the KJV the single authoritative word of God in 1612? How about 1620? 1650? 1700? If those are the features that make something the authoritative word of God, then when did the KJV become the authoritative word of God? Since when does a Bible slowly become the authoritative word of God over time due simply to common use - since when is the word of God determined by those factors you gave???

Not even the originals had those reasons going for them. And whose to say the NIV won't have all those reasons in 400 years time???

The reasons you gave demonstrate to me that the KJV is indeed the authoritative word of God, but they do NOT remotely demonstrate that the KJV exclusively gets to claim this title. They do not prove anything other than your person, subjective understanding. By what authority do you get to chose the reasons that identify God's word for us? </font>[/QUOTE]Exclusivity comes from the flaws of the others. However, in other languages, there are authoritative translations. I do not necessarily have problems with older translations such as the Geneva Bible. My major problem is with translations based on a faulty textual base (e.g. the modern critical texts). There are many, many reasons for judging a translation lacking. Here are a few:
1. Poor manuscripts or textual base
2. Poorly translated (sense, meaning, style, etc.)
3. Theologically biased
4. Readability
5. Literary quality
6. Word choices