-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question – What is your FINAL Authority?
- Thread starter AVBunyan
- Start date
paidagogos
Active Member
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??? </font>[/QUOTE]Not at all! You dropped a few logical stitches. Final authority does not mean that it supersedes all other authority, such as the KJV overrides the Greek-Hebrew manuscripts, but we are referring to final authority as authoritative for the believer who reads and finds trustworthy instruction for his beliefs and practices. I have no problem in saying that the KJV is authoritative and the Luther German translation is authoritative. (This craziness of translating from the KJV into native languages on the mission field is asinine.) My argument is that manuscripts, including translations, are authoritative. However, it is illogical to assume that all variants are equally authoritative and it is impractical and worthless to say that all the manuscripts and translations as a whole are authoritative. Such is to say that the unabridged dictionary contains all the works of Shakespeare.
Since you have a final authority, would you please share it with me? Perhaps it is a parallel translation where I can pick and choose what fits my feelings.
Nope, as hopefully my response will help you see.
Me neither. In fact, I readily affirm that, despite the differences between the KJV and Luthers, and between the various editions of each.
Sure, I agree.
I have never assumed or stated or believed this.
No, it is neither impractical nor worthless.
Not at all. For one can read any/all manuscripts and come to an understanding of what the message is. One cannot read the unabridged dictionary and know what Shakespeare said.
I have told you. The word of God is the final authority. The manuscripts are just the medium.
Parallel like the KJV and Luther parallel? Both are authoritative, no? Either our positions have much more in common than you recognize, or you have a severe logical problem with your argument.
paidagogos
Active Member
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]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?
May I suggest that your view of inspiration and authority may be lacking. Work on your understanding of inspiration and authority before you start counting words.
Have you thought through this with its ramifications?
Let’s take a hypothetical situation. Suppose you were a scribe in the church at Ephesus. In making a copy of a letter from the Apostle Paul, you wrote: Paul, a apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus . . . . “ The remainder of the epistle you copied letter for letter perfectly. How would writing a for an affect your copy? Would your copy still be the Word of God? Would it be inspired?
I know we say that only the original autographs were inspired. However, suppose we had a photocopy of an original. Would it be inspired? If not, why? What makes the original inspired and a photocopy not inspired? The ink? Paper? Touch of the Apostle’s pen? (Paul had an amanuensis.) if, on the other hand, a photocopy would be inspired, would a letter perfect copy be inspired?
So you pick the word of God based on the hymmbook now???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
RaptureReady
New Member
Hello everyone.
Granny, how you doing?
As always, my final authority is the King James Bible.
Granny, how you doing?
As always, my final authority is the King James Bible.
Paidagogos: Simple. You accept it by faith. It is what Edward F. Hills called the "logic of faith." Do you know and understand this argument?
Yes...and I know the difference between faith in the unseen by what is seen, and BLIND FAITH, based upon wishful thinking or guesswork, with no supporting evidence. "Faith" is the main excuse used by KJVOs who have no FACT with which to justify their myth.
Also, it has been the translation of choice, validated by the body of believers in the English speaking church for centuries. This is much in the same vein as canonization.
It has been the translation of choice because the British govt. banned the printing of all other versions in the 1600s, so before forever, the KJV was the only English version available. The KJV was OK until the language left the translation behind.
Contrary to your statement, all English translations are not equal. There are good and poor translations.
First, I have never said EVERY English translation was a good one. Next, the AV translators stated that even the meanest(poorest) of the earlier translations were the word of God.
No other translation has achieved such acceptance in English speaking church.
The Geneva Bible had, but the British govt. took care of that. When you're the only game in town for over 300 years, it's easy to be universally accepted. The Model-T was almost universally accepted as "the" American car for almost two decades, and, while it was a good car, suited for the driving conditions of its time, it was eventually replaced by better cars. While it's still considered a modern car, I don't know of anyone who'd drive a cheap replica of a Model-T for long when modern cars are readily available. The acceptance and near-universal use of the KJV is in the same mold.
Even the more literal translations, not just the dynamic equivalence ones, are inferior in exact expression of the original languages.
That's a matter of opinion. After all, the KJV renders tartarus, hades and gehenna all as 'hell' when all those places are different.
This is not even to mention the body of theology and exegesis grown up around the KJV for hundreds of years. Its reliability and validity is established.
We don't argue that, but the KJV has had 400 years of reading, and it's no longer the only available English version.
Furthermore, it may be argued that the Elizabethan English is better suited to the expression of God's Word than any modern translation could be.
Argued, but not proven whatsoever.
The argument is similar to the one used for Latin as a scientific language for taxonomy. Elizabethan English is highly denotative and better suited for accurate expression of the Kione Greek, also denotative and specific, than Modern English, which is highly connotative and loose.
Actually, modern English is more exact, having many more words available to pinpoint a specific bit of info. Now, you're just fishing for excuses to tell us to use a bible that's not in our current language. If E.English is so great, how come it's no longer in use?
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.
Actually, according to my logic, I know better than to try to limit the ALMIGHTY God. Sticking with the subject here, I know what He has NOT said...that His word is limited to just one version in any given language. God is limited ONLY by HIS OWN CHOICES.
It all depends on which source scholars think is correct thereby making Scriptural authority to need the endorsement of scholarship.
This has been argued for generations, and is no nearer to resolution now than it was in the gitgo.
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.
So God didn't actually PRESERVE His word? He didn't present it in English until 1611? No English user had His word in his/her own language till then?
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.
So you just pick-n-choose as you will? You just reach into a hat, happen to pull out the KJV & declare, "This is IT!"?
So far, the only reason you've given is FAITH. So this is "MY faith can whup YOUR faith"? I see...
Like all others who hold this position, you are talking gibberish. Thereby, you have negated the whole concept of authoritative Scriptures.
No, actually the gibberish comes from the KJVO who establishes his/her own 'final authority' with no Scriptural support, even from the KJV itself, basing the decision upon guesswork, fishing stories, and the imaginations of a cult official(Wilkinson) and a couple of dishonest authors(Ray, Fuller) and all the old garbage in new bags(the works of Riplinger, Ruckman, Vance, Moorman, Reagan, Gipp, etc.)
Face it, Sir...You simply have NO JUSTIFICATION for the KJVO myth.
Yes...and I know the difference between faith in the unseen by what is seen, and BLIND FAITH, based upon wishful thinking or guesswork, with no supporting evidence. "Faith" is the main excuse used by KJVOs who have no FACT with which to justify their myth.
Also, it has been the translation of choice, validated by the body of believers in the English speaking church for centuries. This is much in the same vein as canonization.
It has been the translation of choice because the British govt. banned the printing of all other versions in the 1600s, so before forever, the KJV was the only English version available. The KJV was OK until the language left the translation behind.
Contrary to your statement, all English translations are not equal. There are good and poor translations.
First, I have never said EVERY English translation was a good one. Next, the AV translators stated that even the meanest(poorest) of the earlier translations were the word of God.
No other translation has achieved such acceptance in English speaking church.
The Geneva Bible had, but the British govt. took care of that. When you're the only game in town for over 300 years, it's easy to be universally accepted. The Model-T was almost universally accepted as "the" American car for almost two decades, and, while it was a good car, suited for the driving conditions of its time, it was eventually replaced by better cars. While it's still considered a modern car, I don't know of anyone who'd drive a cheap replica of a Model-T for long when modern cars are readily available. The acceptance and near-universal use of the KJV is in the same mold.
Even the more literal translations, not just the dynamic equivalence ones, are inferior in exact expression of the original languages.
That's a matter of opinion. After all, the KJV renders tartarus, hades and gehenna all as 'hell' when all those places are different.
This is not even to mention the body of theology and exegesis grown up around the KJV for hundreds of years. Its reliability and validity is established.
We don't argue that, but the KJV has had 400 years of reading, and it's no longer the only available English version.
Furthermore, it may be argued that the Elizabethan English is better suited to the expression of God's Word than any modern translation could be.
Argued, but not proven whatsoever.
The argument is similar to the one used for Latin as a scientific language for taxonomy. Elizabethan English is highly denotative and better suited for accurate expression of the Kione Greek, also denotative and specific, than Modern English, which is highly connotative and loose.
Actually, modern English is more exact, having many more words available to pinpoint a specific bit of info. Now, you're just fishing for excuses to tell us to use a bible that's not in our current language. If E.English is so great, how come it's no longer in use?
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.
Actually, according to my logic, I know better than to try to limit the ALMIGHTY God. Sticking with the subject here, I know what He has NOT said...that His word is limited to just one version in any given language. God is limited ONLY by HIS OWN CHOICES.
It all depends on which source scholars think is correct thereby making Scriptural authority to need the endorsement of scholarship.
This has been argued for generations, and is no nearer to resolution now than it was in the gitgo.
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.
So God didn't actually PRESERVE His word? He didn't present it in English until 1611? No English user had His word in his/her own language till then?
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.
So you just pick-n-choose as you will? You just reach into a hat, happen to pull out the KJV & declare, "This is IT!"?
So far, the only reason you've given is FAITH. So this is "MY faith can whup YOUR faith"? I see...
Like all others who hold this position, you are talking gibberish. Thereby, you have negated the whole concept of authoritative Scriptures.
No, actually the gibberish comes from the KJVO who establishes his/her own 'final authority' with no Scriptural support, even from the KJV itself, basing the decision upon guesswork, fishing stories, and the imaginations of a cult official(Wilkinson) and a couple of dishonest authors(Ray, Fuller) and all the old garbage in new bags(the works of Riplinger, Ruckman, Vance, Moorman, Reagan, Gipp, etc.)
Face it, Sir...You simply have NO JUSTIFICATION for the KJVO myth.
paidagogos
Active Member
Nope, as hopefully my response will help you see.
[snip]
No, it is neither impractical nor worthless. </font>[/QUOTE]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.
Not at all. For one can read any/all manuscripts and come to an understanding of what the message is. One cannot read the unabridged dictionary and know what Shakespeare said. </font>[/QUOTE]You are right—the analogy is not a perfect parallel fit but it gets the idea across.
I have told you. The word of God is the final authority. The manuscripts are just the medium. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the Word of God? How do you discern among the manuscripts what is and is not the Word of God. Again, you have brought God’s Word under your control to decide what is and is not.
Parallel like the KJV and Luther parallel? Both are authoritative, no? Either our positions have much more in common than you recognize, or you have a severe logical problem with your argument. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I am using parallel translations in the common usage of several English translations.
The single definable authority is the word of God! The moment you shift the single definable authority from the word of God to a particular document (the word of God tranmitted via a particular medium), you imply either: 1. there was no single definable authority before that document existed, or 2. the word of God changes. Neither are acceptable.
paidagogos, do you not understand??? LOOK IN THE MIRROR. How do YOU?
So? How does that remotely address my point about both the KJV and Luthers being authoritative, even if they were used in parallel?
paidagogos
Active Member
Sir, you have tilted windmills thinking you put a KJVO ignoramus in his place and you didn’t know that you were fighting windmills. 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. There is no profit is rehashing well-worn clichés in naïve repartee. 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. I don’t have time to engage in childish wordplay with someone who doesn’t understand the arguments or refuses to address serious issues. 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.
paidagogos
Active Member
The single definable authority is the word of God! The moment you shift the single definable authority from the word of God to a particular document (the word of God tranmitted via a particular medium), you imply either: 1. there was no single definable authority before that document existed, or 2. the word of God changes. Neither are acceptable. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, please tell me simply how you know what the Word of God is and what it isn’t among plural texts.
paidagogos, do you not understand??? LOOK IN THE MIRROR. How do YOU? </font>[/QUOTE]I read and study the KJV. I accept it, a priori (i.e. by faith), as authoritative. It has been the English translation of choice by the believing English-speaking church thus validating it much in the same way as canonization. I use language tools but I accept the KJV as an authoritative English translation. I am not as broad as to accept all other English translations (e.g. NIV, etc.) as authoritative even though they contain thoughts, concepts and expressions that are part of God’s Word, I do not view the whole as authoritative because of obvious weaknesses in doctrine and so forth. IMHO, the NIV is not a good translation because theological preference influenced wording but the NASB is a decent translation with its major weakness being the problematic Greek text from which it was translated. Please read what I just said careful and don’t make inferences beyond the cold, hard statements.
So? How does that remotely address my point about both the KJV and Luthers being authoritative, even if they were used in parallel? </font>[/QUOTE]I don’t understand the point that you’re making. I sometimes carry both my KJV and Luther translation to church with me for comparison if that is what you’re asking. Also, I have the KJV, Greek, Hebrew, and German (Luther) on my Palm Pilot that I sometimes refer to during church or lectures.
paidagogos
Active Member
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. </font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying that inspiration is limited to Greek or Hebrew. Why? Give a Biblical argument. Also, do you think Paul considered a translation as inspired? Think before you anwer. Did he ever quote from a translation? If so, did he treat it as inspired Scripture?
paidagogos
Active Member
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? </font>[/QUOTE]Nope! This is the one that brought me to faith in Christ. It has been the translation of choice for the conservative, believing church in the English speaking world for centuries. Furthermore, I also know the origin of arguments for plural texts. It comes from a theological tradition that I wholly reject.
I don't have time to develop my reasoning here but you are wrong in thinking you are reverse the argument on me. I did not eclectically choose one from among many.
The words? Yes. The message transcends the words.
Why? Because those are the languages God chose, spoken by the men God chose.
The Bible declares its own inspiration. The Bible qualifies the recipients of inspiration. These are the languages used by God through these recipients.
Yes in the sense that God's inspired Word transcends the limitations of human language. But no, I don't think he was confused about whether the words employed by translators were equivalent in absolute authority to the words spoken/written by the prophets. His writings show deference to them as the source.
Most probably He did... and was also writing under inspiration when he did so.
Yes. The substance of what was said was inspired scripture. The words were not inspired words for the simple reason that they were not the actual words used by the prophet who was himself directly under inspiration from God.
You are trying to make this much more difficult than it is. When the scriptures were given, God superintended the words used to express His Word. The words therefore were inspired but more importantly they communicated an inspired message. That message while communicated in the best way by those original words is not limited to those particular words but rather can be expressed by different wording in the same language or in another language.
paidagogos
Active Member
paidagogos
Active Member
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??? </font>[/QUOTE]No, it doesn't. There were other authoritative translations before the KJV.
paidagogos
Active Member
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 </font>[/QUOTE]Inanity of inanities! The same childish argument could be said of any manuscript or translation. Lots of Popish monks had their hands all over any ancient manuscript that you can name. Also, the Aland Greek text was not compiled by exactly a Fundamentalist. BTW, you need to read the history of canonization before you use this argument. This sword cuts both ways and you'll cut yourself.
paidagogos
Active Member
So, your faith is in scholarship over the received text preserved and attested by the believing church?
Same way you or anyone else does.
Great. But it was still a personal choice to do that.
Sure. But the KJV was never viewed by the church as the only, exclusive, perfectly inerrant translation or even the "single" "final authority". The English-speaking church never held it to the level you describe.
So do I. an being the key word.
Ah, but now you are confusing the texts themselves with your personal interpreation of those texts. Two people can read the same text and come to different interpretations. Two other people can read different texts and come to the same interpretation. The "weakness" is not necessarily in the text, but most certainly in the interpretation.
God and his word are not limited by your personal understandings, biases and limitations.
Also, by taking a range of accepted translations, and not limiting ourselves to just one, we protect ourselves from translators bias and sometimes even our own misunderstandings which would arise from some particular wording. Variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.
Sure, but I don't think it did as much as the KJV did... (baptize "with" water instead of "in", end of the "world" instead of end of the "age", "bishop" instead of "pastor" or "minister" or similar, etc., etc., etc.).
But that is based on a presupposition that the Greek text is more problematic than the Greek underlying the KJV. Why should I believe that? You're a teacher with an interest in science and history - since when is it better to throw out evidence in favor of public familiarity?
My point is VERY simple. First, on one hand you argue for a single authoritative text and against multiple texts being authoritative, and on the other you say both (i.e. NOT single) the KJV and Luther's are authoritative. The KJV and Luther's are different. You have multiple authorities right in your lap.
Second, you accuse use of "picking and choosing" what you believe is the word of God, when this is exacly what you yourself have done, based on your own understandings and your own reasons. Perhaps you should debate with yourself for a while, and then get back to us when you've decided which side of the argument you prefer?