Question – What is your FINAL Authority?

[HankD]

According to your logic, you cannot differentiate between what God actually said and what He has not said since you cannot appeal to one single source or translation as authoritative and definitive.

Neither can you. There is no AV1611 apograph, there were two “First Editions” of the AV1611 (Cambridge, Oxford) both with differences continuing on to this day. There have been several revisions/editions of the KJV with hundreds of differences collectively between them and a several hundred year history of corrections. Differences are differences whether one or 400 or 4000 in number, whether "big" or "small" in quality. God is no more capable of one or many “little” errors than He is one or many big ones.

It all depends on which source scholars think is correct thereby making Scriptural authority to need the endorsement of scholarship. Whereas you profess belief in authority of the Scriptures, you have destroyed all possibility of any practical authority. All cannot be authoritative since they differ. Furthermore, the cumulative authority of all is meaningless since you cannot practically know which one is authoritative if authority is generalized to all and not specified as one source. Like all others who hold this position, you are talking gibberish. Thereby, you have negated the whole concept of authoritative Scriptures.

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?

HankD

 

[HankD]

Hank;
Then again, the word "turn" ruins the cross reference to the brass serpent which Moses held up in the wilderness picturing Christ. Whereas the word "look" doesn't. Look and live. I don't recall singing "turn and live".

That's because the Hebrew word for "look" in Numbers 21:8 is not PANAH but RA'AH and there is less complexity to the word. It focuses in on "looking" and "seeing" without a "turning" flavor to it.

Strong's 7200 RA'AH
Meaning: 1) to see, look at, inspect, perceive, consider 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to see 1a2) to see, perceive 1a3) to see, have vision 1a4) to look at, see, regard, look after, see after, learn about, observe, watch, look upon, look out, find out 1a5) to see, observe, consider, look at, give attention to, discern, distinguish 1a6) to look at, gaze at 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to appear, present oneself 1b2) to be seen 1b3) to be visible 1c) (Pual) to be seen 1d) (Hiphil) 1d1) to cause to see, show 1d2) to cause to look intently at, behold, cause to gaze at 1e) (Hophal) 1e1) to be caused to see, be shown 1e2) to be exhibited to 1f) (Hithpael) to look at each other, face

KJV Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

ASV Numbers 21:8 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live.

NIV Numbers 21:8 The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live."

NASB Numbers 21:8 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he shall live."

RSV Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."

NKJ Numbers 21:8 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live."

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.

For the most part the KJV does get things right (qualified by "if one speaks Elizabethan-Jacobean English as their native tongue, I do not and neither do you).

Again, this is a different Hebrew word.

HankD

 

[av1611jim]

Of a truth, verily, verily I say to thee, nay!
I knoweth that I speaketh aright for since it was noised abroad I speaketh the King's English!

LOL

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by av1611jim:

Scott;
Help me out here ok? I presume you are a Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic scholar since you catagorically declared that none of the words in our bibles are "chosen directly by Him."

Nope. I depend primarily on people who are trained to accurately translate the Bible... just like almost every other English speaking Christian with a stake in this argument.

But being a language scholar has nothing to do with whether the words of a translation were directly chosen by God.

That has to do with the biblical meaning and scope of inspiration. The Bible declares that scripture is inspired (God breathed) and it qualifies the very special men who were the instruments used by God to deliver scripture to man. Inspiration of words only applies to those men that the Bible qualifies- prophets, apostles, and holy men of old. The last qualified penman's name was John... he died about 1900 years ago.

So please help me out. Can you tell me the exact words God meant when He said, "Turn to Me, and be saved, all ends of the earth, For I am God, and there is none else."?

He didn't mean any "exact words". He meant the substance of what He said irrespective of the words used to communicate it.

I guess I am confused since I am not a Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic scholar like you are.

Not necessary to recognize the plain fact that the Bible was not given through a single prophet, apostle, or holy man of old in English. The KJV translators were great classical scholars. Their work has been tested by time, critique, and use. But they were not Bible believing independent fundamental Baptists.

Some were quite romish in their doctrinal leanings and all were either active or passive participants in the persecution of biblical fundamentalists.

 

[natters]

I really like C4K's answer. Short, simple, and exactly right.

The moment someone tries to name/hold any single exclusive document as "the final authority",they create more problems than they think they're solving.

 

[David J]

C4K stole my answer!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />According to your logic, you cannot differentiate between what God actually said and what He has not said since you cannot appeal to one single source or translation as authoritative and definitive.

Neither can you. There is no AV1611 apograph, there were two “First Editions” of the AV1611 (Cambridge, Oxford) both with differences continuing on to this day. There have been several revisions/editions of the KJV with hundreds of differences collectively between them and a several hundred year history of corrections. Differences are differences whether one or 400 or 4000 in number, whether "big" or "small" in quality. God is no more capable of one or many “little” errors than He is one or many big ones. </font>[/QUOTE]So what? This is of no significance and has no bearing on the validity of my argument. Do you understand my argument? Do you know what we mean by the “logic of faith.” If so, restate my position.

Canonization was incomplete at various times. If your post is a valid refutation of my position, then the same argument is also a valid refutation of canonization and we really don’t know which books need to be in the Bible. Perhaps we lost some. Thank about it. do you really want to take that position?

May I suggest that you have listened to too many wannabe theologians who taught you this pabulum? I can’t swallow it because I must think for myself. What about you?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It all depends on which source scholars think is correct thereby making Scriptural authority to need the endorsement of scholarship. Whereas you profess belief in authority of the Scriptures, you have destroyed all possibility of any practical authority. All cannot be authoritative since they differ. Furthermore, the cumulative authority of all is meaningless since you cannot practically know which one is authoritative if authority is generalized to all and not specified as one source. Like all others who hold this position, you are talking gibberish. Thereby, you have negated the whole concept of authoritative Scriptures.

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?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Ibid. See above.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

God's Word is my final authority. certain translations I rely on are ESV,NASB, KJV,and NIV in that order.We do not have the original autographs in any language so we have to rely on the best scholarship available.Any of the above versions are suitable. I would like a parallel Bible of these 4 translations.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by natters:
I really like C4K's answer. Short, simple, and exactly right.

The moment someone tries to name/hold any single exclusive document as "the final authority",they create more problems than they think they're solving.

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.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
God's Word is my final authority. certain translations I rely on are ESV,NASB, KJV,and NIV in that order.We do not have the original autographs in any language so we have to rely on the best scholarship available.Any of the above versions are suitable. I would like a parallel Bible of these 4 translations.

Wonderful! It seems that you get to decide what is God's Word for any partiuclar passage. Now, please kindly explain to me how you are under that authority of God's Word if you get to pick and coose among four (4) variants of what may be God's Word. Somehow, my poor mind cannot make the leap. Please help me.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by 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.

Not at all. I do have a final authority. I simply do not believe a single document is that final authority - for that implies there was no authority before that document was produced. Geddit???

 

[natters]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Wonderful! It seems that you get to decide what is God's Word for any partiuclar passage. Now, please kindly explain to me how you are under that authority of God's Word if you get to pick and coose among four (4) variants of what may be God's Word. Somehow, my poor mind cannot make the leap. Please help me.

Um, isn't this EXACTLY what you are doing yourself? You personally and subjectively pick one translation above all others! Why do YOU get to decide what is God's word for any particular passage? How are you under that authority of God's Word if you get to pick and coose among all the variants of what may be God's Word?

 

[HankD]

So what? This is of no significance and has no bearing on the validity of my argument. Do you understand my argument? Do you know what we mean by the “logic of faith.” If so, restate my position.

Why should I? I gave you an answerable question. But you can't/won't answer my objections but bring forth the usual "if you only understood you would understand" along with the usual claims to irrelevance.

Repeat: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, some of them, or all of them.

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.

Your rebutal is an obvious smokescreen to sidestep the fact that you cannot answer.

And if I would give you a definition (assuming I could give you one that is correct in your estimation) of the "logic of faith", why would the logic of your faith be any better than mine and if it was how could you prove it?


HankD

 

[HankD]

Now, please kindly explain to me how you are under that authority of God's Word if you get to pick and coose among four (4) variants of what may be God's Word. Somehow, my poor mind cannot make the leap. Please help me.

You asked if I thought for myself. Yes I do, I don't let Anglo-Catholic priests and Bishops do it all for me but apparently you do. That is of course you can tell me which revision of the KJV is "authoritative" every "jot and tittle".

HankD

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by C4K:
The Word of God is my final authority.

Which the Word of God is your final authority?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by C4K:
By the Word of God I simply mean the Word of God.

WHICH the Word of God?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Every valid English Bible version.

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?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Logos1560:

Originally posted by AVBunyan:

There is nothing wrong in having a lot of confidence and trust in a good translation of the Scriptures. However, making that translation the final authority is a very different matter.

Whoa! You are stretching the meaning of “final authority.” We’re comparing a banana and kiwi. By final authority, we do not necessarily mean in comparison to the Greek or Hebrew text but it is the final authority for faith and practice in out lives. It is authoritative in that it rules our beliefs, thoughts, and behavior.
[QB]

For one thing, making a translation the final authority destroys the very foundation that the actual derived authority of that translation comes from. In effect, making the KJV the final authority harms the KJV since it makes the KJV to be like the Book of Mormon in the sense that neither is supposed to be verified, checked, or evaluated by a comparison to its underlying texts.
Of course, with the KJV, there are existing underlying texts, but according to the KJV-only view that makes a translation the final authoriy in effect these texts have no authority that can be used to evaluate and establish the authority of the KJV. If the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are made into a lesser authority, then they cannot be used to verify or support a claimed "final authority."

This is a very good point and I am entirely in agreement with what you have here stated. However, I may not agree with inferences that some may draw.

If someone bought a KJV with a printing error such as the infamous one "Thou shalt commit adultery," were they supposed to obey it blindly?

No, of course not. This is absolutely silly and far-fetched. And some words may need to be changed as has been done in the past. This affects the authority of Scripture no more than a typo in a legal document, such as misspelling “the” as “teh”, would affect its legality.

For another thing, those KJV's that you can buy today are not all like. There are over 5 different editions available with some differences in text. If a person owns more than one KJV edition, on what authority or basis can it be determined which one is the supposed final authority?

This has no significance. See above.

Do the Scriptures teach that the final authority for those who speak English should be different than the final authority for those who speak other languages? Do the Scriptures teach that the final authority today is different than the final authority before 1611?

We are talking about two different meanings of “final authority.” BTW, where do the Scriptures teach the doctrine of final authority?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Every valid English Bible version.

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? </font>[/QUOTE]If you are using an English Bible it doesn't have one inspired word in it... unless you count the transliterations and ignore the different means of spelling.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Hank;
Then again, the word "turn" ruins the cross reference to the brass serpent which Moses held up in the wilderness picturing Christ. Whereas the word "look" doesn't. Look and live. I don't recall singing "turn and live".

In HIS service;
Jim

I second that.