Question about final authority

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Just can't help but making it a KJVO vs non-KJVO debate, can you? I predicted that in my answer, before I read your answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I posted much more than this:

--------------------------------------------------
2. The mv's have evidenced that this has been done, and therefore I should reject them and warn of them, as my love for the truth and for others (2 Cor. 6). Matthew 6
--------------------------------------------------


and gave scriptural references also for my belief and to which was in response to the origional posters questions regarding this "DEBATE".


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No, I do not err. I have looked at the scriptures (i.e. which are authoritative) and none of them indicate that the KJV is textually inerrant and exclusive so.
--------------------------------------------------


Well if this above statement was actually true, then why did you not answer my questions specifically pertaining to and concerning the SCRIPTURES? Which is authoritative? Those scriptures I provided? Or the ABSENSE OF THEM in the modern versions? Are they authoritative and considered scripture, or not? And how is it that you know? And if so, how do you compensate for their ABSENCE in the modern versions, when God has made is quite clear not to add to, or take away from his words?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by russell55:

1. Is the Bible our absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice?

Yes. God's Word is the primary means for knowing Him and the only means for gaining specific knowledge about Him and His will. It is the only valid source for the plan of salvation and Christian doctrine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit leads us to understand its teachings- He does not lead us to add to them. He will reveal to us what a passage means when we read it in an understandable form of our language. He will lead us in applying scripture to our lives. He will not reveal to us something that isn't there.

2. If you answered yes to question 1, would you explain briefly what your view in this version debate is, and then give a brief explanation of how the absolute authority of the Bible works into your viewpoint on this matter of faith and practice?

God inspired the originals directly. Therefore we can deduce several things.

One, the originals were perfect as no other writings will ever be perfect. They were not perfect because of the penman but rather because of the Author. The autographs were perfect in both wording and message because they were a direct work of God.

Two, it pleased God not to have men create perfect copies of His originals. Instead, He providentially preserved His Word through the efforts of fallible copyists who have left us 1000's of ancient documents that testify to what God said and in most cases how He said it. God chose not to have man perfectly inscribe His words into stone or metal so that they would be preserved word-for-word. Instead, they were first written on materials that God knew would decay.

Three, The Word is not the sum total of a peculiar set of words but rather the sum of the message, revelation, sayings, teachings, doctrines, etc. For this reason, we can confidently say we have God's Word with the full knowledge that we do not have the words that He inspired. We can also have faithful translations that are likewise God's Word.

Four, no variant effects doctrine in such a way that one faithful version teaches something that another does not in some place teach. The overwhelming agreement of the versions testifies of providential preservation. If at any place one version seems to teach something that the others don't, the problem is more likely the proposed doctrine, not the versions.

Five, there are no unexplainable difficulties in the Bible nor faithful translations of it.

 

[Phillip]

I ask you the same, Michelle, how do you know the MV is not more accurate? After all the KJV was an MV (what, about six or seven major revs?).

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Just can't help but making it a KJVO vs non-KJVO debate, can you? I predicted that in my answer, before I read your answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I posted much more than this:

--------------------------------------------------
2. The mv's have evidenced that this has been done, and therefore I should reject them and warn of them, as my love for the truth and for others (2 Cor. 6). Matthew 6
--------------------------------------------------


and gave scriptural references also for my belief and to which was in response to the origional posters questions regarding this "DEBATE".


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Yes, you did, Michelle, but a little leaven can spoil the whole loaf. You said a lot of true things, then you qualified it with---as long as it is KJVO!

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I ask you the same, Michelle, how do you know the MV is not more accurate? After all the KJV was an MV (what, about six or seven major revs?).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You need to go back to my origional post on this thread, and that is where I explained it, and the reasons why with scriptural support, to which is where my belief in this comes from in the first place.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "Well if this above statement was actually true"

It is true.

michelle said "then why did you not answer my questions specifically pertaining to and concerning the SCRIPTURES? Which is authoritative? Those scriptures I provided? Or the ABSENSE OF THEM in the modern versions? Are they authoritative and considered scripture, or not?"

Indirectly, I answered this in my first post on this thread. Before we submit to "the authority of scripture", we all first filter that scripture through our understanding. It is the interpretation of scripture that we use as our authority. So when you bring up passages like 1 Tim 3:16, whether it reads "God" or "He" matters little to me personally, because I interpret both to mean the same thing. The authority of scripture properly interpreted is what is authoritative - improperly interpreted scripture is simply man's unauthoritative mistake.

michelle said "And if so, how do you compensate for their ABSENCE in the modern versions, when God has made is quite clear not to add to, or take away from his words?"

Again, interpretation. I ultimately don't know if 1 John 5:7 was added to the KJV or removed from the NIV, and neither do you. We each have our beliefs on the matter, but without the originals, our preferences are arbitrary. As long as we come to the correct interpretation, that is what is important. And I believe your interpretation of various scriptures is wrong, for your interpretation results in believing and promoting an extra-Biblical and self-contradicting doctrine - which is the point I have repeatedly raised in this thread and which you have repeatedly avoided.

 

[russell55]

Thank you all for the informative answers.

Michelle,

Can you just clarify something for me? (I know this isn't your whole answer, this is just the part I'm not understanding):

2. The mv's have evidenced that this has been done, and therefore I should reject them and warn of them, as my love for the truth and for others (2 Cor. 6).

The M.V's (and by that I assume you mean any version other than the KJV, right?) evidence that what has been done?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:


--------------------------------------------------
2. The mv's have evidenced that this has been done, and therefore I should reject them and warn of them, as my love for the truth and for others (2 Cor. 6). Matthew 6
--------------------------------------------------


and gave scriptural references also for my belief and to which was in response to the origional posters questions regarding this "DEBATE".

These scriptures do not support your belief in any way. None of the scriptures you post support your belief in any way.

You, like Eve, are believing in something that goes beyond what God said. In fact, both you and she accepted something that someone added to what the Bible says because, bottom line, you wanted to. That's why you cannot give us a defensible reason for your belief that the KJV is "God's very words" or the "only Word of God in English."

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Yes, you did, Michelle, but a little leaven can spoil the whole loaf. You said a lot of true things, then you qualified it with---as long as it is KJVO!
--------------------------------------------------

It is rather you who brought the name or label that has been attached to the scriptures (King James Version) into this discussion, not I and are now stating something I never wrote, nor implied.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Indirectly, I answered this in my first post on this thread. Before we submit to "the authority of scripture", we all first filter that scripture through our understanding. It is the interpretation of scripture that we use as our authority. So when you bring up passages like 1 Tim 3:16, whether it reads "God" or "He" matters little to me personally, because I interpret both to mean the same thing. The authority of scripture properly interpreted is what is authoritative - improperly interpreted scripture is simply man's unauthoritative mistake.

--------------------------------------------------

I do not interpret anything on my own, but pray and wait for the Lord to give me understanding. It is the Lord through the Holy Spirit that gives us understanding and the proper interpretation.

1 Cor. 2

9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Again, interpretation. I ultimately don't know if 1 John 5:7 was added to the KJV or removed from the NIV, and neither do you.
--------------------------------------------------

Oh, but you are wrong. I DO KNOW that 1 John 5:7 is authoritative and is the scripture. It is sad that you do not. How do I know? By the Holy Spirit of truth who leads us to all truth and through the history of generations of believers who also believed and taught this very truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[russell55]

Natters,

We each have our beliefs on the matter, but without the originals, our preferences are arbitrary.

I don't think you mean arbitrary, really, which would mean that we have NO criteria with which to judge. We have criteria, just not enough to make an authoritative statement about whether or not they were included.

We can't make believing that those verses were in the original a rule of faith.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The M.V's (and by that I assume you mean any version other than the KJV, right?) evidence that what has been done?
--------------------------------------------------


Go back to the post where I asked Natters which is authoritative scripture, for there is where there is just a tidbit of evidence that this has been done.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
We can't make believing that those verses were in the original a rule of faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh yes, we most certainly can, as God confirms it and convicts our hearts of it. We can also know, because God has provided it for generations of believers and even until this very day in the scriptures. It most definately is the truth and the authoritative scriptures.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Michelle, here are but a few of the verses you used to prove your point:

1 Tim. 6:3
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness. KJV
(Michelle-note that "even" was added by the translators.)

1 Tim 6:3
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, NIV


Titus 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. KJV

Titus 2:7 Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this. NIV


Deut.8:3 And he humbled thee; and suffered thee to hunger and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live. KJV

(Strange, I never noticed that "every word" was italisized in the KJV.)

Deut 8:3 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, whether neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. NIV

Ah, the old KJVO argument verse: Let us notice two things. The KJV does NOT capitalize "he" -- so, how do we know it is referring to God? The NIV correctly capitilizes it.

Secondly, the word of God (in the old testmanet here) was in Hebrew. Can you read Hebrew Michelle? I don't see where it says: every word as translated into ENGLISH by King James' loyal translators.

I could go on with each verse you quoted, but it is obvious that we will continue to read the same thing. What is your point? It makes perfect sense in both translations.

 

[russell55]

By the Holy Spirit of truth who leads us to all truth and through the history of generations of believers who also believed and taught this very truth.

If I am understanding you correctly here, then I think maybe you should have answered "no" to the first question, and that what you see as the absolute arbitrator of truth is not the written words of scripture, but what you view as "the leading of the Holy Spirit" along with tradition.

The reason I say this is because the statement that the Bible is the absolute rule of faith and practice has traditionally meant that whatever we are dogmatic about must be able to be supported by the clear statements of scripture without appeal to anything else outside of the scripture.

 

[Phillip]

[/qb]
How do I know? By the Holy Spirit of truth who leads us to all truth and through the history of generations of believers who also believed and taught this very truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle [/QB]

The Mormons say the Holy Spirit tells them that the book of mormon is true.

Obviously, you are saying that the Holy Spirit says something to me that is wrong and says something to you that is right?

Or are you saying that I do not really hear the Holy Spirit and YOU do?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
The status of the KJV? Again, you are blinded by a label, rather than looking at the scriptures within in this issue.

Here we go again. Michele states that she adheres to KJVO doctrine, but when she is called on it, she throws out the "label" accusation.

Let's get down to the meat of it: Michele believes that only one translation of scripture is acceptible; Further, that translation is authoritative over all translations, and even authoritative over all source texts and early manuscripts. Michele further believes that this is a required belief for all Christians. Michele believes this despite the fact that there is no scriptural support for this belief.

In the fouth post of this thread, Michele listed a paragraph which lists several bible verses, but none of them support a single-translation-onlyism belief. Now, here, Michele will get the itch to hit the reply button and type "well, that's just your opinion", but I encourage everyone to examine each of those bible verses. If requested, I will be happy to list each verse and its content.

Since I have on numerous occaisions asked for scriptural support for single translation onlyism, I invite Michele to list all scriptures (not just the verse references) that support her view.

Now, as to the questions in the OP:

Is the Bible our absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice?

Yes.

...would you explain briefly what your view in this version debate is

Scripture does not discuss versions, translations, etc, so no one has scriptural authority to say with assuredness that a specific translation is superior to another. We have the TR, LXX, DSS, and MSS available today, and anyne can read them. If they cannot read them because they don't knwo those languages, then each person is encouraged to read a translation of those scriptural manuscripts.

 

[natters]

michelle said "I do not interpret anything on my own, but pray and wait for the Lord to give me understanding. It is the Lord through the Holy Spirit that gives us understanding and the proper interpretation."

Yes, but at the same time we are not robots, or every Christian would always come to the same interpretation and no one would ever disagree about anything.

michelle said "I DO KNOW that 1 John 5:7 is authoritative and is the scripture. It is sad that you do not."

Why is it sad? Either way I believe the same thing about the Trinity and submit to the authority of a proper interpretation of what is in these words, despite my uncertainty as to whether John wrote it or it was inserted later. If Jesus came down today and called me personally to him and said "1 John 5:7 was originally written by John, and not added later", it would not change my interpretation and understanding of the Trinity in the slightest.

michelle said "How do I know? By the Holy Spirit of truth who leads us to all truth and through the history of generations of believers who also believed and taught this very truth."

But neither of those things are the KJV. Thus you "know" this through extra-Biblical sources. If you choose to believe 1 John 5:7 is "original", that's fine. But the moment you impose your opinion on others as God-given doctrine, you have asked us to accept an extra-Biblical source (namely you, and your personal understanding of scripture and history) as an authority in matters of faith and practice - which contradicts why you accept it in the first place.

russell55 said "I don't think you mean arbitrary, really"

Yes, "arbitrary" was not exactly the right word. "subjective" might be better, or "inconclusive".