Question – What is your FINAL Authority?

[Phillip]

Originally posted by 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. 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.

I do tend to agree with you. That is the reason I ask a person if their KJV is Word-for-Word letter perfect. The true KJVo will say it is the only perfect Word-of-God in English.

I have NEVER had a problem with either a KJV preferred or TR preferred. If a person prefers to use a KJV for almost any reason, whether he/she grew up with it or actually think it is the best translation, I won't fight that. Same with the TR. I will not tell someone that the TR is or is not the best rendering of the New Testament; but I would disagree with someone who says it is the ONLY rendering to the exclusion of all others.

Unless I misread you, I think we agree on this issue.

 

[robycop3]

PAIDAGOGOS: 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.

With all due respect, your position is quite clear and quite incorrect. You're trying by almost any means possible to defend the undefendable...the KJVO myth. The manuscript issue has been studied for generations by people who fed their families by deciphering these mss and/or studying the archaeology behind them. There are as many opinions as there are scholars. Your game is"MY scholar can whup YOUR scholar".

No matter what twists one uses to attempt to justify the KJVO myth, its total lack of Scriptural support makes it incorrect. there's simply no avoiding that fact. Also, it's been amply demonstrated that there have been quite a few English BVs that have been considered 'final authorities' by many an English-speaking Christian over quite a time span.

You dislike dialoguing with me and several others here because we will NOT be distracted by peripheral statements, questions, and articles which attempt to steer us away from the basic fundamental facts and complete lack of evidence that prove the KJVO myth false. Your method seems to be, when asked what a propeller is, to tell us how to build an airplane-while leaving the question about the propeller untouched.

Before you try to build an elaborate structure, you must begin with a FOUNDATION. There's simply NO foundation for the KJVO myth. While you say it's repetitious, the issues I've brought up have yet to be addressed by the KJVOs, and these issues cut to the very heart of the KJVO myth. Without any truthful answers, the KJVO myth simply CANNOT be true no matter how much rococo its advocates decorate it with.

 

[robycop3]

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. 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.

Actually, many KJVOs hold the position that "The KJV is my final authority, and that of my pastor and friends; therefore there's no other valid English Bible translation." yes, there is a 'lunatic fringe' on both sides, but a quick review of history will show anyone interested WHO actually started the whole controversy.

 

[Phillip]

robycop3, I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but the few posts I saw seemed to indicate that Paidagogos is KJV preferred based on his belief that the source text is superior.

Am I missing some posts somewhere?

I know we could certainly debate textual superiority, but unless he indicates the KJV is letter perfect and not just "the best" translation based on his opinion, then don't we agree that it is KJV Preferred and not KJVonly?

Am I missing some quotes here?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by 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

Problem is that most anti-KJVO posters do not follow this schema. They smear #s 1-4 with the absurdities of #5.

 

[HankD]

Problem is that most anti-KJVO posters do not follow this schema. They smear #s 1-4 with the absurdities of #5.

That is why I personally try always to qualify "KJVO" with the word "radical".

This is the KJVO individual which adheres to one or more of the following:
1) KJV "advanced revelation",
2) The KJV 17th century English corrects the Greek/Hebrew original language source texts,
3) The very English words of the translation of the KJV (1611-1853?) are "inspired" as are the original language words of the prophets/apostles.

Sometimes I use the phrase "KJVO wanabe".
These are those who hold to one or more of these doctrine but are too timid to admit it.

HankD

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
robycop3, I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but the few posts I saw seemed to indicate that Paidagogos is KJV preferred based on his belief that the source text is superior.

Am I missing some posts somewhere?

I know we could certainly debate textual superiority, but unless he indicates the KJV is letter perfect and not just "the best" translation based on his opinion, then don't we agree that it is KJV Preferred and not KJVonly?

Am I missing some quotes here?

You are perceptive and correct. I don’t know why the anti-KJV crowd can’t figure it out. I have labeled myself KJVO because that is where the battle is hottest and I am not afraid of the battle. IMHO, someone has to take a hard line to balance the scale. I am KJVO in that I only use only the KJV. Well, I must admit that I do look at the Greek and Hebrew. And, sometimes I even take a peek at the Amplified, Luther’s German translation, Jay Adam’s translation, or the NASB for a commentary or amplification. My choice for study, reading, preaching, and teaching is the KJV.

I hold to a Received or Majority Text tradition and reject categorically all modern critical texts based on modern textual criticism, except possibly for Hodges, Farstad, Robinson and Pierpont. The KJV is not the only translation that is the Word of God or we wouldn’t have the Word in other languages, obviously.

 

[manchester]

The Geneva Bible of 1560 is my FINAL authority.

 

[manchester]

If the KJV is your final authority, does this mean you accept the Apocrypha as scripture? If not, why do you pick and choose which parts of the KJV are true and which are false? What is your REAL final authority?

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by manchester:
The Geneva Bible of 1560 is my FINAL authority.

Just curious- why the Geneva Bible?

 

[Trotter]

Just curious- why the Geneva Bible?

Because it preceded the KJV...?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by manchester:
The Geneva Bible of 1560 is my FINAL authority.

What do you mean by final authority? Is this a time-related concept as the end of an evolutionary process? Or, do you mean the highest authority that mandates your faith and practice?

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by manchester:
If the KJV is your final authority, does this mean you accept the Apocrypha as scripture?
__________________________________________________

No. Nobody in his right mind would equate the Apocrypha with Scripture. That issue has been settled long ago and you know it. Just because it was included between the Testaments no more makes it Scripture than does the Maps in the back of many Bibles! Can you show me anywhere in any Bible that clearly states that the Maps are not Scripture? If not then your argument falls flat on its face.

__________________________________________________


[QOUTE]
If not, why do you pick and choose which parts of the KJV are true and which are false? What is your REAL final authority?

__________________________________________________

The first sentence here has been answered above. To the second;
My REAL final authority is my KJV as I have it. As such it reveals the mind of God and is the final word for all my faith and practice.
What is yours? I have one final authority. Do you have many? If so then by what criteria do you "pick and choose" among them which one is teaching you the truth of any given passge?

Can you show me anything in the KJV which leads to false faith or practice? If not, why not?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[HankD]

No. Nobody in his right mind would equate the Apocrypha with Scripture. That issue has been settled long ago and you know it. Just because it was included between the Testaments no more makes it Scripture than does the Maps in the back of many Bibles

The KJV translators/King James included the Apocrypha in between the Testaments. They made no difference between its format and framed it in chapter and verse as if it were Scripture, they included no statement in the work itself that it was not canonical.

They also included readings from the Apocrypha in daily prayers and "The Table and Kalendar" under readings from "the holy Scripture".

They include cross references to and from the Apocrypha in the page margins as if it were Scripture.

HankD

[ February 16, 2005, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[HankD]

Can you show me anything in the KJV which leads to false faith or practice? If not, why not?

Yes, the wrong choice of prepositions supporting sprinkling rather than emersion as the mode of baptism (previously discussed) and the use of the word "bishop" to support the Anglo/Roman dogma of a sacerdotal priesthood and apostolic successionism. Both of these were opposed by the anti-establishment folk of the day, for which they suffered.

HankD

 

[AVBunyan]

Originally posted by HankD:
Yes, the wrong choice of prepositions supporting sprinkling rather than emersion as the mode of baptism (previously discussed) and the use of the word "bishop" to support the Anglo/Roman dogma of a sacerdotal priesthood and apostolic successionism. Both of these were opposed by the anti-establishment folk of the day, for which they suffered.

HankD

Really - can you prove from the scriptures that the baptism John did was not a sprinkling in the gospels since in the OT there were washings?

So - you are saying the word "bisphop" is wrong in Timothy because you want to assoicate the word "bishop" with Rome? My - that is some kind of reasoning.

Those poor ole Anglican translators - don't you just feel sorry for them for having to compromise so much.

Again with feeling - if some of the Anglicans believed in works, baby sprinkling, etc. then why did they even bother to put Ephesians and Colossians in the 1611 - why didn't they just compromise there too?

Try this - just throw all the "bibles" out and start all over since it appears that your faith <personal attack snipped by moderator> - just start all over - grab the best scholars you can and then go for it and see what you come up with - especially since you think those poor ole AV Anglican translators just couldn't get it right.

Have a nice day now!

[ February 17, 2005, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by av1611jim:

Originally posted by manchester:
[qb] If the KJV is your final authority, does this mean you accept the Apocrypha as scripture?

__________________________________________________

No. Nobody in his right mind would equate the Apocrypha with Scripture. That issue has been settled long ago and you know it. Just because it was included between the Testaments no more makes it Scripture than does the Maps in the back of many Bibles! Can you show me anywhere in any Bible that clearly states that the Maps are not Scripture? If not then your argument falls flat on its face.

The Catholics and Orthodox, the oldest churches, consider it scripture. The issue was not "settled long ago," unless you mean the Catholics saying the Apocrypha was always considered scripture by the Christian church.

Your comparison of scriptures/Apocrypha to maps is silly. As has already been pointed out, the Apocrypha was layed out in the KJV just like scripture and footnoted and cross-referenced. No other "non-scripture" books were in the KJV, so why should we reject that particular group? Luther was picking and choosing books very, very late in the game. He wanted to throw out Revelation and James, among others. He may have succeeded in throwing out the Apocrypha, but if the KJV was a special gift from God, and if the KJV is your final authority, then you must accept the Apocrypha as scripture.

My REAL final authority is my KJV as I have it. As such it reveals the mind of God and is the final word for all my faith and practice. What is yours? I have one final authority. Do you have many? If so then by what criteria do you "pick and choose" among them which one is teaching you the truth of any given passge?

I said I have one, the Geneva Bible. It predates the KJV and is not the Anglican Version, copied from the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims like the KJV. Does having ONE version as my final authority make me right?

Can you show me anything in the KJV which leads to false faith or practice? If not, why not?

Yes, which is why our predecessors always rejected the KJV and embraced the Geneva. The KJV was created with the intention of changing doctrine, with the intention of changing the Word of God to support the authority of the King of England, with the intention of supporting Anglican theology. Others have already pointed out in this thread some of the doctrinal changes wrought by the KJV.

There were very few translations until the KJV and other MVs came along. Then they all flooded onto the scene. They weren't needed back then, and they aren't needed now. If the KJV was always hated and reviled by the early Baptists, why should modernists embrace it today?

[ February 16, 2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: manchester ]

 

[HankD]

Really - can you prove from the scriptures that the baptism John did was not a sprinkling in the gospels since in the OT there were washings?

Yes there is evidence but it doesn't matter since we are discussing the NT prepositions. But for your own personal info is the testimony of Judaism (although Talmudic) concerning The Mikvah (ritual immersion):

The Mikvah immersion pool is always constructed in close proximity to the Otzar HaMayim. The minimum size of a Mikvah immersion pool is one Amah square and three Amot deep (Chagiga 11a, et al) but it could be and usually is considerably larger since it has to be deep enough to enable the water to cover the entire body of the person immersing. When the water stands in the Otzar HaMayim, silt and other impurities sinks to the bottom leaving clean water; only pure water flows into the Mikvah immersion pool. The minimum diameter of the slanting connecting pipe which permitted water to flow from the Otzar HaMayim to the Mikvah immersion pool of conduit is one Tefach (approx. 5cm), although these pipes are also usually larger

Found online in the public domain at: http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5765/vayera65/mikdash.htm

Where rather than the KJV Matthew 3:11:

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The translation of the ASV (which is somewhat ironic):

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

The Greek preposition is en locational rather than instrumental pros.

Many Baptist preachers both old and new correct the with in their preaching to in (such as Spurgeon).

So - you are saying the word "bisphop" is wrong in Timothy because you want to assoicate the word "bishop" with Rome? My - that is some kind of reasoning.

Well yes I am and so was it for a certain anabaptist gentleman who was burned at the stake by the Church of England for just such a complaint (among others).

It is a near duplicate of the words of the Douay-Rheims:

DRA 1 Timothy 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

KJV 1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Funny isn't it how Baptists attempting to rationalize an ecclesiastic (as the Puritans called it) translation of certain Scriptures revert to defending Anglo/Roman/Catholic doctrine as well.

Those poor ole Anglican translators - don't you just feel sorry for them for having to compromise so much.

Yes.

Try this - just throw all the "bibles" out and start all over since it appears that your faith is in man anyway - just start all over - grab the best scholars you can and then go for it and see what you come up with - especially since you think those poor ole AV Anglican translators just couldn't get it right.

That is happening as we speak by many able translators.
For the most part the KJV translators got it right.
As I have said since day 1 of my membership here:
No translation is perfect.


And since it now seems that you have now turned this into an ad hominem attack with the statement "since it appears that your faith is in man anyway" personally, I respond by saying that I have faced the issue rather than hiding my head in the proverbial sand or play the KJVO game of The Emporer's New Clothes (advanced revelation).

HankD

[ February 16, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Bro Tony]

Wow, I have just finished reading all ten pages, believe it or not. Seems to me, that each persons final authority is their own faith. Now I fully expect the bombs to start falling, but it seems that the criteria for which Bible version one uses is a personal choice and their experience has alot to do with that choice. A mormon, chooses to be a mormon and say that their church and "scriptures" are their final authority, but in reality they make the choice so their faith, however mis-directed is their authority. Same is true for a Catholic in accepting the authority of the church and the magesterium. Same is true for each of us as we choose to believe God and His Word.

Think about it, then throw the bombs

Bro Tony

 

[Phillip]

Interesting, I find the HCSB uses "with water" and I have been told by many about all of the SBC bias in the Holman. It would have been simple for the translators to use "in".

Mat 3:11

(ALT) "_I_ indeed baptize you* in water [or, with water, and throughout book] to [or, because of] repentance. But the One coming after me is mightier [than] I, of whom I am not worthy to carry His sandals, _He_ will baptize you* in [the] Holy Spirit,

(ASV) I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

(CEV) I baptize you with water so that you will give up your sins. But someone more powerful is going to come, and I am not good enough even to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

(Darby) *I* indeed baptise you with water to repentance, but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not fit to bear; *he* shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire;

(DRB) I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.

(EMTV) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit,

(ESV) "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

(GB) In deede I baptize you with water to amendment of life, but he that commeth after me, is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthie to beare: hee will baptize you with the holy Ghost, and with fire.

(GNT) ἐγὼ μὲν βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν· ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μου ἐστίν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν Πνεύματι ῾Αγίῳ καὶ πυρί.

(HCSB) "I baptize you with water for repentance, but the One who is coming after me is more powerful than I. I am not worthy to take off His sandals. He Himself will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

(KJV+) I1473 indeed3303 baptize907 you5209 with1722 water5204 unto1519 repentance:3341 but1161 he that cometh2064 after3694 me3450 is2076 mightier2478 than I,3450 whose3739 shoes5266 I am1510 not3756 worthy2425 to bear:941 he846 shall baptize907 you5209 with1722 the Holy40 Ghost,4151 and2532 with fire:4442

(KJV-1611) I indeed baptize you with water vnto repentance: but he that commeth after mee, is mightier then I, whose shooes I am not worthy to beare, hee shall baptize you with the holy Ghost, and with fire.

(KJVA) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

(LITV) I indeed baptize you in water to repentance; but He who is coming after me is stronger than me, of whom I am not able to lift The sandals. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire,

(MKJV) I indeed baptize you with water to repentance. But He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire;

(UPDV) I indeed baptize you+ in water to repentance: but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you+ in the Holy Spirit and [in] fire: