What is your absolute final authority?

[Logos1560]

3. I do vehemently believe there is one final authority today that judges all others – it is an English King James Bible. I believe foreign translations based upon the English KJV or the manuscripts it came from are reliable and God has blessed them but there is one standard – an English King James Bible.

Why does this bother some of you folks so?

The truth is consistent. The KJV-only view is inconsistent. Should inconsistencies not bother believers who accept a consistent view of truth? A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611 and both for English-speaking believers as well as believers that speak other languages. Your sincere and vehement belief is not stated in the Scriptures. Your belief would seem to undermine the very foundation on which the derived authority of translations such as the KJV depends [the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages]. The KJV is a translation. The very word "translation" by definition indicates the need of a source or sources from which to be translated. A translation such as the KJV cannot be a translation of nothing. A translation such as the KJV is not independent and underived since a translation depends on its underlying texts for its authority. The final authority beyond which there is no other would be independent and underived; therefore, how can it consistently and scripturally be claimed that the KJV is such a final authority? Your belief seems to suggest that a derived authority (a translation) can act as a final authority over a greater authority (the existing and preserved words of the prophets and apostles in the original languages that were given by direct inspiration from God).

 

[AVBunyan]

Your sincere and vehement belief is not stated in the Scriptures.

Are you saying my view is unscriptural?

Fine - then just show me from scripture where my view violates scripture.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

Dear brother AV Bunyan, I like your monicker. If by Bunyan you mean John Bunyan, I was an avid reader of his many books Pilgrim's Progress of course the most famous. Did you know that the Church of England imprisoned him for 12 years for preaching without a CoE license?

Hi Hank - Glad you like it - John Bunyan is a favorite of mine also. Uneducated and look what he did! My I wish had his spiritual life and understanding. Yes, I have read his life and autobiography and admire his conviction regarding not taking a license- thanks for asking.

I took my family through Pilgrim's Progress a while back in our family time. Took us almost a year. Each child read the different parts and then I read what I gleaned from each portion we read - amazing book!!! Still have my notes - around 40 pages or so and I barely scatched the surface. I did not do it justice by no means. Every time I read it I see more. Pilgrim's Progress is a great book on the Christian life - invaluable resource.

I believe every true saint should go through Pilgrim's Progress thoroughly at last once or twice.

BTW Hank, Have you read his "Holy War?

May God richly bless you bro HankD :thumbsup:

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
I took my family through Pilgrim's Progress a while back in our family time. Took us almost a year. Each child read the different parts and then I read what I gleaned from each portion we read - amazing book!!! Still have my notes - around 40 pages or so and I barely scatched the surface. I did not do it justice by no means. Every time I read it I see more. Pilgrim's Progress is a great book on the Christian life - invaluable resource.

I believe every true saint should go through Pilgrim's Progress thoroughly at last once or twice.

...

However, like many misunderstandings of
the King James Versions (KJVs) -- Pilgrim's
Progress is often confused for Holy Writ.
Pilgrim's Progress is NOT a part of 'all scripture' like
the NIV, NASB, nKJV, HCSB, etc.

 

[Deacon]

John Bunyan is a favorite of mine too.
I'm curious, did you read it as written or in an updated English?

Rob

 

[AVBunyan]

However, like many misunderstandings of
the King James Versions (KJVs) -- Pilgrim's
Progress is often confused for Holy Writ.
Pilgrim's Progress is NOT a part of 'all scripture' like
the NIV, NASB, nKJV, HCSB, etc.

Ed - HanKD and I were discussing something I thought was encouraging here - why did you have to post that? - We, who read Pilgrim''s Progress understand it is not inspired scriiipture. Give some of us a little more credit here every now and then. Mercy. :BangHead:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Are you saying my view is unscriptural?

Fine - then just show me from scripture where my view violates scripture.

God bless

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instrution in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

'All Scripture' means the KJVs, the NIV,
the NASB, the nKJV, the HCSB, & etc.
'All Scripture' is given so we can all be doing
all good works. I think I'll study my Sunday
School lesson on Hebrews 11 - the Faith Chapter.

As usual, I'll be using the HCSB = Christian Standard
Bible /Holman, 2003/. Other members of my Sunday
School class of men (nominally 45-59) use the
KJV1769 (and knows it is the KJV1769) and
another KJV1769 user who doesn't know, the
NLT, the old Living Bible (which used to belong
to my Mother who moved to Alabama),
the ASV, the nKJV. So? all seven of us are using
a different part of ALL SCRIPTURE. 5 of the seven
have been Sunday School teachers before.

Yes, we do discuss what the scriptures mean.

Also recall, 'perfect' here does not mean 'without flaw'
as 'perfect' now means but in 1611 'perfect'
meant 'complete' as it doesn't tend to mean in 2006.
So you have to NOT use a modern dictionary when you
study the KJVs but some English Classic dictionary.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Your sincere and vehement belief is not stated in the Scriptures.

Are you saying my view is unscriptural?

Fine - then just show me from scripture where my view violates scripture.

What I stated was that your belief is not stated in the Scriptures. You have provided no scriptural evidence that shows my observation to be incorrect. It is possible that a KJV-only view can be unscriptural if it attempts to add opinions or beliefs to the Scriptures and imply that they are scriptural when they are not actually stated or taught in the Scriptures or if it implies additional revelation in 1611. You seem to assume that a translation in 1611 was translated by inspiration, but it is stated that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." If you assume that the word scripture must include copies and even translations, then the word "all" would imply that all of those copies and translations would have to be given by inspiration. As I see it, your belief is inconsistent.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

3. I do vehemently believe there is one final authority today that judges all others – it is an English King James Bible. I believe foreign translations based upon the English KJV or the manuscripts it came from are reliable and God has blessed them but there is one standard – an English King James Bible.

Why does this bother some of you folks so?

Simple.

If it were only stated as your opinion that would be fine, but you must admit that you have no Bible evidence to back it up.

 

[deacon jd]

I've never looked at the Geneva, Tyndale, etc.. in depth.
I did see a page or two from them at the scriptorium in Florida which was pretty cool.
The question I have is do all the bibles before the King James differ other than spelling?

The English translations before the KJB were translated largely from the Latin Vulgate which was already corrupt from its beginning.

 

[Deacon]

Really, you ought to read the words of the translators of the version you hold so dear.

From the King James Version Preface

From the paragraph rendered: TRANSLATION OUT OF HEBREW AND GREEK INTO LATIN

There were also within a few hundred years after CHRIST, translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countries of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latin, being made Provinces to the Romans. But now the Latin Translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interprets nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S. Augustine.) [S. Augustin. de doctr. Christ. lib 2 cap II]. Again they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream, therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be muddy. This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness. [bolding added]

Rob

 

[Keith M]

The English translations before the KJB were translated largely from the Latin Vulgate which was already corrupt from its beginning.

Deacon jd, your reasoning, along with your belief in the KJVO myth, is flawed from the beginning. This "truth" of your statement leads to the idea that the KJV is corrupt. How? The KJV was a revision of the earlier Bishops' Bible. According to your statement, the Bishops' Bible was translated from the corrupt Latin Vulgate. And since the KJV was a revision of the Bishops' Bible, then the KJV must be corrupt. It sure would be nice if you guys would be a little more consistent. Was the KJV, revised from the Bishops' Bible, corrupt or not? You can't straddle the fence on this one, deacon jd. Either your quoted statement is false or else the KJV is corrupt. Which is it?

 

[AVBunyan]

John Bunyan is a favorite of mine too.
I'm curious, did you read it as written or in an updated English?Rob

I have never seen Bunyan’s “originals” – I have several versions. The one
I read most often is the one which probably resembles his – it uses the thee’s and thou’s and sounds like the way he would have talked and have nnnno problems with it. Some of the spellings may have been updated but to the words. I have other easier to read versions for children which I do not have any issues with since they are not scripture.

BTW – if a lost scholar were to take bro. Bunyan’s originals or copies and go down to Egypt and paraphrase them and put down what he they thinks Bunyan meant and came up with a new version of Pilgrim’s Progress then I’d leave it alone even though some of Bunyan’s words may even be included too make me think it was Bunyan’s work.

God bles

 

[robycop3]

Are you saying my view is unscriptural?

Fine - then just show me from scripture where my view violates scripture.

God bless

Your view is Ascriptural, that is, not found in Scripture by the slightest implication. All correct Christian doctrines are derived from Scripture.

The origin of the current KJVO myth is easily traced to SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, and NOT to the Bible, not even to the KJV itself.

Therefore, your final authority is based upon a man-made thingie.

 

[robycop3]

The English translations before the KJB were translated largely from the Latin Vulgate which was already corrupt from its beginning.

I beg to differ.

The only well-known version translated directly from the LV was Wycliffe's 1384 hand-written English version. Beginning with Tyndale's NT in the 1530s, all other well-known English versions were made from the Greek & Hebrew mss.

And let us not forget Erasmus' use of the LV to supply the last verses of Revelation in his Textus Receptus.

 

[AVBunyan]

Simple. If it were only stated as your opinion that would be fine, but you must admit that you have no Bible evidence to back it up.

You mean to telll me that if Iii showed up onnn this board and said, "It is my strong opinion that he King James Bible is the inspired and perfect word of God without error and is the standard by which all others are judged. I take this by faith."

And that it would be any different? I believe most of the forum's reaction would still be the same.

It is of my opinion that the old man doesn't like a final authority or be pinned down.

I find this difficult to believe.

Godo bless

 

[HankD]

Hi Hank - Glad you like it - John Bunyan is a favorite of mine also. Uneducated and look what he did! My I wish had his spiritual life and understanding. Yes, I have read his life and autobiography and admire his conviction regarding not taking a license- thanks for asking.

I took my family through Pilgrim's Progress a while back in our family time. Took us almost a year. Each child read the different parts and then I read what I gleaned from each portion we read - amazing book!!! Still have my notes - around 40 pages or so and I barely scatched the surface. I did not do it justice by no means. Every time I read it I see more. Pilgrim's Progress is a great book on the Christian life - invaluable resource.

I believe every true saint should go through Pilgrim's Progress thoroughly at last once or twice.

BTW Hank, Have you read his "Holy War?

May God richly bless you bro HankD :thumbsup:

Yes Holy War though I must admit I did a lot of skimming through and Antichrist and His ruin a work of lesser reknown which can be found online at

http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Bunyan/text/Antichrist.Ruin/Entire.Book.html

You may not agree with the general view but in the details he makes it plain as to the influence of antichrist, where he dwells, etc.

I believe there is also a work concerning his wife's pilgrimage "Christiana" and if I remember correctly she was the author. His first wife died in childbirth I believe.

You probably already know this but most of his works can be found online in various places such as

http://www.godrules.net/library/bunyan/bunyan.htm

Although this site didn't seem to have the antichrist and his ruin

God bless you and yours as well...

HankD

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

And let us not forget Erasmus' use of the LV to supply the last verses of Revelation in his Textus Receptus.

AV,let US not forget that the translators of today's Alexandrian [bibles - edited by moderator to comply with BB policy] inadvertently AGREE with Erasmus and the KJ translators by PUTTING the disputed words in their work...

propaganda!

Oh,and let us not forget,they are just as guilty.Let's see if they can back up the Alexandrian position with Scripture.

 

[robycop3]

AV Bunyan:Look, I am trying honest and up front here. I admit in the heat of the battle I may not make myself very clear or even know what I am doing sometimes - this is a difficult subject to deal with.

And why is it so difficult for you? Because you're trying to defend something that's NOT TRUE. You started this whole thread for that purpose, it appears. By pushing the false KJVO myth, you're pushing a square peg(a man-made myth NOT FOUND in Scripture) into a round hole(the set of doctrines derived from SCRIPTURE) & God won't allow it to fit. It's ALWAYS difficult defending a lie, even if you don't know it's a lie, because GOD won't allow a lie to go unchallenged.


Some of you just try to pick and find what is wrong instead of trying to find what is right.

Why? Because there are some among us who are trying to present something wrong as if it were something right. As Christians, we have a D-U-T-Y to fight the false.


I do not have all the answers and take my position by faith.

Faith in WHOM OR WHAT?
HEBREWS 11: 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Your myth lacks both substance & evidence, so your "faith" cannot be BIBLICAL faith.(Not questioning your faith in JESUS.) Your "faith" in the KJVO myth can only be OPINION, CONJECTURE, AND GUESSWORK. If ya really STUDIED the KJVO myth, you'd at least have MORE of the answers.




I’ll be honest and tell you what I believe:

1. I believe the word of God was around prior to 1611 in the Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops, German bible, early Gothic, foreign versions based upon those, others, etc.

They all differ. Which one was the final written authority then?

2. I do not know if there was a “final” or one “standard” back prior too 1611. I just do not understand what was going on back then. The word of God was al over the place though

The if ya don't know which one of these versions was the "official" one then, you certainly can't tell us which one is now. You can only GUESS, especially since ya can't support your view with EVIDENCE.

3. I do vehemently believe there is one final authority today that judges all others – it is an English King James Bible.

Without PROOF, you're only GUESSING.

And here's a question I asked before, which you refused to answer: BY WHOSE AUTHORITY, OTHER THAN KING JAMES', WERE THE OTHER ENGLISH VERSIONS REPLACED?

Your continued refusal to answer only shows us that you're afraid of the truth of God, which destroys your KJVO myth.


I believe foreign translations based upon the English KJV or the manuscripts it came from are reliable and God has blessed them but there is one standard – an English King James Bible.

A statement based upon pure conjecture and guesswork, not backed by the first shred of FACT.

Why does this bother some of you folks so?

Be cause we KNOW(not GUESS) that it's FALSE. It bothers me to see any Christian believing a lie, & it bothers me more to see such a Christian spreading it among those who may be weaker in faith since I KNOW it's a lie.

You said you didn't have all the answers. Well, you're correct. If you REALLY looked in-depth at the KJVO myth, you'd see just how phony it is. That doesn't mean you dump your KJV entirely, nor even deny it as your sole final written authority, but it OUGHTTA mean that you no longer promote the lie about the KJV & NEVER AGAIN state that the KJV is the ONLY valid &nglish Bible version there is.

 

[robycop3]

Here is why it "bothers some of us".

We are Baptists...
One of the main beliefs of Baptists is the final authority of the Bible.
IOWs when something is called into question, The Bible is the ultimate authority, not the opinions of men.

Now you said that you "vehemently" believe the KJV is the final authority.

From where do you base this doctrine?
Show us from anywhere in the Bible, the KJV where we are to only use one translation/version of the scriptures.

If this is a belief that you would "vehemently" defend, you must know why biblically.

I used to be like you... I preached about the corruptions of the NIV and all others. Until someone challenged me. I then went and did the footwork myself. I read all the information I could on this subject. I was thoroughly confused... until one day, I looked up to Heaven and asked Jesus if He was on Earth today what would He read.

And a thought occured to me.... When Jesus walked on the Earth He read a version of the OT. Then I started wondering was this the same version of the OT that the KJV was translated from. I did the research.

Guess what, the proof is in the KJV! Compare Luke 4:16-21 and Isaiah 61:1-2 You will see a difference.

Then I asked, "why the difference?"

Which led me to further research...
Here is the summary of that research... What Jesus read in Luke is from a different family of manuscripts than the KJV was translated from....

So there was proof that Jesus read from a different version than the KJV.

And that was good enough for me...

The proof is in the Bible that Jesus used a different version.
Where is the proof in the Bible that we should only use one?

If it is there, then we need to find the one that Jesus used and throw all others away. But I'm not ready to throw my KJV away... I love it too much.

A lil' addition to whatcha so plainly and eloquently stated, Bro. TT...One can read the KJV and compare Acts 8:32-33 with Isaiah 53:7-8 and see a similar use of different versions. The one in Acts is endorsed by the HOLY SPIRIT, as it was He who transported Philip to the Ethiopian's chariot.

There are quite a few bits & pieces of OT quotes in the NT which are NOT from the same texts that the OT as we read it was made. A few months back, I started a thread to see if anyone had any idea which text JESUS read from in the synagogue, and there was no definite answer. Doc Cassidy believes it was a Hebrew vorlage text, but whatever it was, it was NOT the Ben Chayyim Text of the Masoretes.

Hard for a Christian to argue with an act of the very Maker of our final written authority! I'd hafta say that is "kicking against the pricks".