Question – What is your FINAL Authority?

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Trotter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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?

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 </font>[/QUOTE]No offense taken. Carry on!

 

[natters]

No, you’re missing the point. I do not hold all translations equal.

No, you're missing the point. If both the KJV and Luther's are authoritative, why are you arguing for a "single" authority? Where the KJV and Luther's differ, please kindly explain to me how you are under that authority of God's Word if you get to pick and coose among two (2) variants of what may be God's Word. Somehow, my poor mind cannot make the leap. Please help me.

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.

But that "milieu of a Christian community" is built on and includes the history of the church, which includes the range of translations and manuscripts.

I do not necessarily have problems with older translations such as the Geneva Bible.

Really? I don't understand how. Was the Geneva Bible, or any other English translation prior to 1611, the "final authority" and/or "authoritative" and/or "the word of God"?

1. Poor manuscripts or textual base
2. Poorly translated (sense, meaning, style, etc.)
3. Theologically biased
4. Readability
5. Literary quality
6. Word choices

All of those reasons are subject to your personal understanding, preferences, and interpretations.

If you want to prefer the traditional texts and translations, and reject the critical texts and translations, fine. But don't tell me we should only have one single document as our final authority when you yourself accept more than one document.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by natters:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
[snip]

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.

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>

No, I don’t accept the insinuation that because it is subjective that we cannot differentiate between good and bad. Appreciation of art is highly subjective but I think all can agree that my doodling with a crayon on a piece of paper is not of the same class as Rembrandt’s art. It is true that the KJV was somewhat influenced by the translators’ theology but I believe they made as honest attempt to be accurate and objective as possible. On the other hand, the translation committee of the NIV intentionally made theological presuppositions that were written into the NIV. Their “dynamic equivalence” view left them with a much freer hand than the KJV translators who held a more literal translation view. So, all subjectivity is not equal. All opinions are not equal. I value my doctor’s opinion, although opinion still, much more than the local know-it-all gossip that can diagnose your every symptom.

I think that people who disagree with me have abscess of the psyche and constipation of the intellect complicated by the stagnation of the subconscious. They should drink a gallon of vinegar and take an enema of cold coffee mixed with sugar and mustard every morning and evening. This will cure them. That’s my opinion. What’s your opinion?

 

[HankD]

I think that people who disagree with me have abscess of the psyche and constipation of the intellect complicated by the stagnation of the subconscious. They should drink a gallon of vinegar and take an enema of cold coffee mixed with sugar and mustard every morning and evening. This will cure them. That’s my opinion. What’s your opinion?

Since you asked.. try this cathartic medicine on yourself.

You have a lot of good things to say IMO.
After reading your posts in this thread I see that your views are very close to mine and probably several others who post and/or lurk here.

So, here is more of my opinion. You would be more effective communicating your point of view if your hard sell weren't so caustic.

HankD

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I think that people who disagree with me have abscess of the psyche and constipation of the intellect complicated by the stagnation of the subconscious. They should drink a gallon of vinegar and take an enema of cold coffee mixed with sugar and mustard every morning and evening. This will cure them. That’s my opinion. What’s your opinion?

Since you asked.. try this cathartic medicine on yourself.

You have a lot of good things to say IMO.
After reading your posts in this thread I see that your views are very close to mine and probably several others who post and/or lurk here.

So, here is more of my opinion. You would be more effective communicating your point of view if your hard sell weren't so caustic.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Where's your cents of humour.....uh...humus....humor? I ain't sick. See my red tounge....uh......tung......tongue.

 

[robycop3]

Paidagogos: 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 came to Christ by hearing and reading His word, as my parents and various preachers spoke it, and by reading it for myself. Those people, and the Bible, planted the seed, but GOD MADE IT GROW as I earnestly sought Him.

And as I said before, there's a difference in faith and BLIND faith.


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.

OK...but what made you think that's all there is?


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.

Actually, it would be EXPANDED, as a child's diet is expanded as he/she goes from pablum to solid food.


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.

So have I...only I'm NOT limited to only the KJV, and neither is GOD. I follow HIS lead, and not any man's.


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?

Yes.

I know GOD CAN DO ANYTHING, and that He is NOT stopped by any man-made doctrines about how certain people think He SHOULD do things. And, remember, He has different callings for different believers. His work for YOU may include use of the KJV, while His work for ME includes using various versions for various "jobs".

If the KJV WERE "the" final authority, it woulda been made much earlier than 1611, as God has said He'd preserve His word "unto all generations" & there were quite a few generations between Revelation and 1611. Instead, we see God has used MANY versions as part of His final authority in English. This is a fact that no KJVO can truthfully deny. The "provisional Bible" thingy is codwallop, totally lacking in Scriptural proof, as is the rest of the KJVO myth.

And the KJVO myth is a later addition to the IFB statement of faith of many IFB churches. Please feel free to study the history of IFB and see if it began with the KJVO myth as part of its beliefs.

 

[robycop3]

Paidagogos:Exclusivity comes from the flaws of the others.

So you're saying the KJV has none? WHICH EDITION is perfect?


However, in other languages, there are authoritative translations.

and there are those whose authority came from that nation's ruler(s).


I do not necessarily have problems with older translations such as the Geneva Bible.

So you admit to several versions being part of the English final authority?


My major problem is with translations based on a faulty textual base (e.g. the modern critical texts).

There have been discussions among scholars for several generations about the validity or faultiness of the various Scriptural mss, with a resolution being no nearer than it was a hundred years ago.


[1]There are many, many reasons for judging a translation lacking. Here are a few:[/i]

OK, let's look at your reasons as applied to the KJV:

1. Poor manuscripts or textual base

How many times has the Textus Receptus been revised? Even Burgon said it could stand a thorough revision. The KJV, TR, and "Majority text", if all translated into a common language, would produce three different translations.

2. Poorly translated (sense, meaning, style, etc.)

"Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a poor translation, to put it mildly. "Slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30 is even worse. These are but two of several examples.

3. Theologically biased

Who can truthfully say the KJV isn't biased toward the ANGLICAN CHURCH of its day?

4. Readability

That's becoming an issue with the KJV as its language fades into the past.

5. Literary quality

The KJV rates "Excellent in this department.

6. Word choices

See the above examples. By your own criteria, the KJV comes up short.

 

[robycop3]

Paidagogos: No, you’re missing the point. I do not hold all translations equal.

That's obvious.

Furthermore, I hold to a strong received tradition. There must be continuity.

So do the Mormons, JWs, etc.


Also, I hold to validation by the believing church in acceptance and use.

There are MANY believing churches, IFB included, that don't use the KJV at all.


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.

IMHO is apropos here...after all, it's opinion w/o PROOF. The texts you DO accept could be just as mangled as the ones you say are.

I do not accept any translation as authoritative based on modern critical text theory. I reject the theory as irrevocably flawed.

Problem is, you utterly lack EVIDENCE. Just because they differ from one another doesn't prove one is wrong, let alone WHICH ONE is wrong.

Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, all in the Masoretic Texts, each gives differing narrations of the SAME EVENTS; yet they've been accepted as Scripture since long before Jesus came. Is onlt ONE of them right? Whatever principles are used to believe all these differing accounts MUST BE APPLIED to the various mss or one is using a DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

[HankD]

Where's your cents of humour.....uh...humus....humor? I ain't sick. See my red tounge....uh......tung......tongue

My "cents of humor" was in my answer to yours.

Experts in the field of human communications tell us that our words only comprise about 20% of verbal human communications.

My error was not returning the smiley.

Then again, sometimes humor is used as a mask for a not-so-pleasant disposition.

HankD

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
[SNIP]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I do not accept any translation as authoritative based on modern critical text theory. I reject the theory as irrevocably flawed.

Problem is, you utterly lack EVIDENCE. Just because they differ from one another doesn't prove one is wrong, let alone WHICH ONE is wrong.

Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, all in the Masoretic Texts, each gives differing narrations of the SAME EVENTS; yet they've been accepted as Scripture since long before Jesus came. Is onlt ONE of them right? Whatever principles are used to believe all these differing accounts MUST BE APPLIED to the various mss or one is using a DOUBLE STANDARD. </font>[/QUOTE]You’re not even addressing my statement that you quoted. It has nothing to do with the multiplicity of texts or variants. Rather, it is an objection based on methodology. Naïve proponents of modern critical text theory have repeatedly asserted that someone has to compile and revise manuscripts to get what we call the Majority or Received Texts. They call this textual criticism. So what? We have no argument with this. My objections to most modern critical texts is their methodology and assumptions. Now, what don’t you understand about that?

Except for one guy, no one on BaptistBoard has responded and argued against my objections. Folks keep repeating the same old pabulum and clichés that say nothing about my arguments. The one guy who actually engaged the question quoted Silva regarding a little exercise of Spanish to English and back to English. I don’t doubt that his little reconstruction worked. Silva, who is a BJU graduate, not withstanding, there are simply too many variable factors and not enough information to scientifically reconstruct the original texts from the extant manuscripts. That’s it simply put.

The problem is that we have no standard to compare and judge if said methodology is working with Scripture or not. Therefore, you have no evidence. Such attempts bring more uncertainty and variability into an already variable situation. We are making the problem worse. The changing and changing back of variant readings suggests this. Whereas we can progress some by making minor obvious corrections in the Received Tradition, the best course of action is to trust the sovereignty of God in preserving His Word in the Received or Majority Texts rather than putting our faith in a flawed and unworkable methodology. With modern critical texts, Scripture is tentative at best.

You’re wasting your time in plowing the same old furrow.

 

[paidagogos]

Paidagogos wrote:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> do not necessarily have problems with older translations such as the Geneva Bible.

</font>[/QUOTE]

robycop3 said:
So you admit to several versions being part of the English final authority?

Read my earlier post regarding what I mean by final authority. When you do, you’ll obviously realize that your question is irrelevant and immaterial. The idea of the English final authority is nonsensical and absurd. I never proposed such an idea.

 

[HankD]

My objections to most modern critical texts is their methodology and assumptions. Now, what don’t you understand about that?

It goes beyond methodology unless you mean by "assumptions" the fixation of modern textual criticism on two uncials Aleph and B as "the best" mss. This is the bed rock Burgon argument against W&H. Aleph/B alone (often times) against the entire plethora of witnesses.

This is slowly turning in some spheres after 2 centuries of Aleph/B infatuation. Others like Gunther Zunz The Text of the Epistles and Harry Sturz The Byzantine Text-Type and NT Textual Criticism have not agreed. While these authors are not "Byzantine Only" they have produced historical evidence that the Traditional Text types should not be removed from the table as "late" evidence.

There is now (according to Sturz) documented proof that some papyri contain "distinctly" Byzantine readings which are earlier than Aleph/B and would normally be called "conflated" Byzantine readings (The Byzantine Text-Type and NT Textual Criticism. Harry Sturz, Page 65).

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Paidagogos, you went through basically the same material a coupla years ago. It was largely guesswork then, and it still is now.

Paid: My objections to most modern critical texts is their methodology and assumptions. Now, what don’t you understand about that?

Seems YOU are doing some assuming yourself concerning the "Majority Text" and Textus Receptus. You're assuming they're "the" texts because they contain more words.

there are simply too many variable factors and not enough information to scientifically reconstruct the original texts from the extant manuscripts. That’s it simply put.

Then, when you pick-n-choose, you're simply GUESSING.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Paidagogos, you went through basically the same material a coupla years ago. It was largely guesswork then, and it still is now.

Paid: My objections to most modern critical texts is their methodology and assumptions. Now, what don’t you understand about that?

Seems YOU are doing some assuming yourself concerning the "Majority Text" and Textus Receptus. You're assuming they're "the" texts because they contain more words.

there are simply too many variable factors and not enough information to scientifically reconstruct the original texts from the extant manuscripts. That’s it simply put.

Then, when you pick-n-choose, you're simply GUESSING.

Again, you have not addressed the issue. Since you obviously will not or cannot understand what my position is, then it is useless to waste time replying to your posts. You're answering the wrong question like Bill Clinton. I'm sorry to be so blunt but it is time to stop wasting bandwith.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My objections to most modern critical texts is their methodology and assumptions. Now, what don’t you understand about that?

It goes beyond methodology unless you mean by "assumptions" the fixation of modern textual criticism on two uncials Aleph and B as "the best" mss. This is the bed rock Burgon argument against W&H. Aleph/B alone (often times) against the entire plethora of witnesses.

This is slowly turning in some spheres after 2 centuries of Aleph/B infatuation. Others like Gunther Zunz The Text of the Epistles and Harry Sturz The Byzantine Text-Type and NT Textual Criticism have not agreed. While these authors are not "Byzantine Only" they have produced historical evidence that the Traditional Text types should not be removed from the table as "late" evidence.

There is now (according to Sturz) documented proof that some papyri contain "distinctly" Byzantine readings which are earlier than Aleph/B and would normally be called "conflated" Byzantine readings (The Byzantine Text-Type and NT Textual Criticism. Harry Sturz, Page 65).

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, that's part of what I mean. I was just trying to summarize it for the guy in a nice, concise, simple statement.

 

[Spoudazo]

God and therefore His Word is my final authority:

KJV,NASB, GreekNT, etc.

The King James translators,
"Now to the latter we answer, That we do no deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of their's of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: As the King's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where. "

 

[David J]

There it is again! That AV1611 destroying the KJVO myths!

Truly the AV1611 undermines the whole KJVO myth! That which they claim to uplift pulls the rug out from under their feet! LOL!!!!!

Now observe as our local KJVOist scramble to blow off the translators of the KJV.

This will be fun to watch!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by David J:
There it is again! That AV1611 destroying the KJVO myths!

Truly the AV1611 undermines the whole KJVO myth! That which they claim to uplift pulls the rug out from under their feet! LOL!!!!!

Now observe as our local KJVOist scramble to blow off the translators of the KJV.

This will be fun to watch!

The problem is that anti-KJVO factions muddy the water by not allowing differentiation between the lunatic fringe and folks who use only the KJV. Arguments and position of the lunatic fringe are used to blast those who use only the KJV. You cannot stereotype everyone into one group. It rather like saying all drivers of Ford automobiles are drunks because one drunk driving a Ford had an accident and killed four people.

 

[David J]

Do you agree with the AV1611 translators?

Do you support the AV1611 translator’s marginal notes showing alternate readings thus proving that they: the AV1611 translators were not always sure about the rendering?

No the problem for many KJVOist is that they want to group only those who use the KJV as KJVO. This is simply not true. My parents are KJV preferred but they are not KJVO.

Another problem for KJVOist is when the KJV myth is proven false they: the KJVO, resort to the old "why are you attacking the KJV" defense.

KJVOism = false man made myth with no scripture to support it.

KJV preferred or only use the KJV = not KJVO. These types of people do not need to lie in order to justify their use of the KJV unlike the current KJVO leadership.

And before you say it or even think it, I have never told anyone not to use the KJV. It is an excellent translation. I just prefer the NASB 1995.

The AV1611 destroys the KJVO myth. Has anyone ever noticed when the AV1611 comes into the picture KJVOist flip around like a fish out of water doing everything they can to dodge the evidence in order to support the KJVO lie.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Paidagogos: "The problem is that anti-KJVO factions muddy
the water by not allowing differentiation between
the lunatic fringe and folks who use only the KJV."

We can point the way:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/1993.html?
but we can't make you read it

According to that document, I am a
triple KJVO#1 - i use all three of my
KJVs:
KJV1611 edition
KVJ1769 edition
KJV1873 edition