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.
Then please don’t make provocative and insulting (by innuendo) "cold, hard" statements.
RE:Which KJV Revision/Edition?
No, it isn’t. Your supposed point of variations does not affect my concept of
Scriptural authority. As I said, your point is of no significance since it does not conflict with my view of authority. Whereas I adhere to plenary verbal inspiration, my understanding does not necessarily mean that every word, such as articles, is significance. On the other hand, there are some passages where articles are significant. To answer your question--Which KJV revision do I consider authoritative?—it is the copy lying on my desk as I type this post. I suggest you ask me what I believe before you try to refute it.
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.
I have absolutely no interest in bickering with you about the other inanities.
This was in response to my statement:
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?
You are the one who made the “logic of faith” challenge. Here is your quote:
Simple. You accept it by faith. It is what Edward F. Hills called the "logic of faith." Do you know and understand this argument?
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
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.
To which I responded
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 if you can tell me which revision of the KJV is "authoritative" every "jot and tittle".
To which you responded:
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.
I have.
This sword cuts both ways and you'll cut yourself
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
