-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is your final authority?
- Thread starter KJVBibleThumper
- Start date
KJVBibleThumper:
Which King James Version edition is YOUR final authority? The Cambridge or the Oxford?
Also, why are you more than likely using an 11th or later edition of the 1611 KJV? Certainly you are aware that the one in your hand is probably from 1769 or later?
Enlighten us: Which KJV is your authority, and why?
Brian
Which King James Version edition is YOUR final authority? The Cambridge or the Oxford?
Also, why are you more than likely using an 11th or later edition of the 1611 KJV? Certainly you are aware that the one in your hand is probably from 1769 or later?
Enlighten us: Which KJV is your authority, and why?
Brian
A few posters (Orvie, Ransom) have already touched on this, but I wanted to comment further. There is a problem with the original question: it is based on a false premise. The false premise is that any single translation can be the "final authority".
First, nowhere are we told this in scripture. Thus, the claim that a single exclusive translation can be the "final authority" is made, not by an "authority", but by some men. Why should we accept this idea? By what "authority"? If only the KJV should be our source of doctrine, where did this doctrine come from? You need an authority external to the KJV to declare that only the KJV is authoritative. Contradiction.
Second, the concept of a "final authority" now, is based on the notion of preservation of scripture. Thus, if we have one now, there must have been one ever since scripture was written. A "final authority" must have existed throughout the history of the church. Naming any particular translation as the "final authority" creates problems when comparing that translation to everything before its publication. For example, while the KJV wasn't published until 1611, we must also believe there was a "final authority" in 1610, 1500, 1000, etc. And since there was a "final authority" before 1611, something published in 1611 or 1881 or 1901 or 1973 cannot exclusively be the "final authority", for it replaces and corrects the "final authority" that already existed - which it should not and could not have done by very definition of "final". If something was the "final authority" in 1610, it did not and could not stop being the "final authority" a year later. Final means final. Again, contradiction.
The "final authority" is that which can be consistently applied across the history of the church. See if you can figure it out. (Hint: any exclusive version suffers from the two contradictions described above).
First, nowhere are we told this in scripture. Thus, the claim that a single exclusive translation can be the "final authority" is made, not by an "authority", but by some men. Why should we accept this idea? By what "authority"? If only the KJV should be our source of doctrine, where did this doctrine come from? You need an authority external to the KJV to declare that only the KJV is authoritative. Contradiction.
Second, the concept of a "final authority" now, is based on the notion of preservation of scripture. Thus, if we have one now, there must have been one ever since scripture was written. A "final authority" must have existed throughout the history of the church. Naming any particular translation as the "final authority" creates problems when comparing that translation to everything before its publication. For example, while the KJV wasn't published until 1611, we must also believe there was a "final authority" in 1610, 1500, 1000, etc. And since there was a "final authority" before 1611, something published in 1611 or 1881 or 1901 or 1973 cannot exclusively be the "final authority", for it replaces and corrects the "final authority" that already existed - which it should not and could not have done by very definition of "final". If something was the "final authority" in 1610, it did not and could not stop being the "final authority" a year later. Final means final. Again, contradiction.
The "final authority" is that which can be consistently applied across the history of the church. See if you can figure it out. (Hint: any exclusive version suffers from the two contradictions described above).
DeclareHim
New Member
Why in the 1611 is some words that need "s" use "f". "befide" "foule"(soul) "righteoufnes" "ftaffe" (staff) "fake" (sake)? Because the "s" was in the language "paftures" they add the "s" at the end but used a "f" in the middle of the word. I guess this is how God wanted His Word "for all time" to be written. And they hade to goe and meff it vp (up) in 1769.
DeclareHim
New Member
All right you are always talking about how the MV's delete things here is a marginal note from tthe 1611 AV "Luke 17:36 This 36th verse is wanting in MOST of the Greek copies." And you criticize the MV's because most drop this verse. Your own version is saying it very well probably wasn't in the originals.MV's actually I know this is hard to understand but they USE the mss and don't just add everything under the sun.This verse is only found in the Latin Vulgate the RC kept text. So they rejected the Greek and went with the Latin Vulgate which is a Roman Catholic document. And your side is the one always saying the Roman Catholic church is behind all MV's
. Well KIV used the vulgate how much more RC church can you get but by using there own "version" of the original? More questions that will be unanswered by the KIVO. 1611 KIV AV. by King Iames.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Yes, and the people of Israel held up Nehushtan as theirs. Not to mention the Baals, the Asherah poles,Tammuz, Molech, etc. All the work of men's hands. All bowed down to. All worshipped as the be-all and end-all.
Natters hit the nail square on the head.
You (and Michelle, and Askjo, and Anti-Alex, and who-knows-who) claim your 'final authority' is the King James Bible.
I, among others, claim God as my final authority. I do not elevate any one translation of Scripture above any other. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (2Tim 3:16 NKJV)
In Christ,
Trotter
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Yes, ma'am, we do. We have it in spades, as a matter of fact. We have it in many different translations, and in many different languages.
You just have one, and need an interpreter to understand it. That is what a dictionary is, by the way.
It works just like testimony in court. Several eyewitnesses, each one tells it differently. But you can always tell the ringer, because his story doesn't ring true.
Determining God's word is easy, if you have the Spirit of God residing within. Without Him, it doesn't matter which translation you read, because it will not be understood anyway.
You first, sweetie. And do try to find something else to cut and paste besides the same old tired 'proof-texts' that you learned from Gail. See if you can find one that actually applies to the situation. (Hint: You won't find it, because there is not one.)
Again, that's easy. God is my final authority. I have multiple translations of His word, and He speaks through each and every one of them. Praise the Lord!
The Holy Spirit does lead, but not to where you say He does.
Things have been added to and taken away from the King James that were left out or added in by your precious, infallible Baptist-persecuting Anglicans.
God never said anything about this situation. I know, I know, Revelation 22:18-19. Read them. Really. Read them. They speak of the words prophecy of this (revelation) book. How do I know it is speaking of Revelation? Because John wrote it as a letter, and it was circulated as such, not bound together with the rest of the Bible.
No. No.
No.
Yes. No.
Simple. It is called discernment. It is given to the children of God by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.
In Christ,
Trotter
citizenofheaven
New Member
Rev. 22:16
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to announce these things to you in the churches. I am descended from the family of David; I am the bright morning star." (Good News) (Emphasis mine)
Isa. 14:12
"King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground." (Good News) (Emphasis mien)
Bright morning star= Jesus
Bright morning star= Satan
Whose "bible is this
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to announce these things to you in the churches. I am descended from the family of David; I am the bright morning star." (Good News) (Emphasis mine)
Isa. 14:12
"King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground." (Good News) (Emphasis mien)
Bright morning star= Jesus
Bright morning star= Satan
Whose "bible is this
citizenofheaven, we've discussed that at length in another recent thread, you might find it interesting to read some of the posts there. You must remember that context is important, and that titles are not necessarily exclusive. Who is the "Son of man"? Who is the "king of kings"? It depends on context.
DeclareHim
New Member
Hey citizen check this out
"And one of the elders saith unto me, weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof" Revelation 5:5 KJV
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your advesary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8 KJV (Thanks Dr. Bob
)
Hey citizen how about actually reading your version before you run around pointing all your fingers at other versions. Your bible calls the devil and Christ lions.
"And one of the elders saith unto me, weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof" Revelation 5:5 KJV
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your advesary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8 KJV (Thanks Dr. Bob
Hey citizen how about actually reading your version before you run around pointing all your fingers at other versions. Your bible calls the devil and Christ lions.
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Ok I did 2 translations above show me whats differant as far as message both versions of Romans 3:23 says I am a sinner and fall short of God's glory. She nor KJVBT will answer this because they both see the truth of what the MV's say. </font>[/QUOTE]Good job DeclarHim
! Since you are such the "Bible Scholar" I believe I will take special time to answer your post. With all the information I will have to put in, it could take a day or two. But dont worry I will give you a short summary of the differences in doctrine within a FEW of the new version that you neglected to post!--------------------------------------------------
citizenofheaven, we've discussed that at length in another recent thread, you might find it interesting to read some of the posts there. You must remember that context is important, and that titles are not necessarily exclusive. Who is the "Son of man"? Who is the "king of kings"? It depends on context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with rightly dividing the word of truth, to which in the Good news bible, one walks away thinking this morning star is Jesus = Satan. There are no verses of scripture, or passages of scripture that indicate there is a difference between the two. The KJB has it correct, as that passage is not properly translated and has translated morning star inappropriately in that text, and context as well. You continue to claim that the error is not an error, and you are clearly wrong. By the way, Satan is also never refered to as the son of man. In fact he is referred to as the son of perdition. Just as Satan is never referred to as the lion from the tribe of Judah. God does not refer Satan to himself. He makes a clear distinction from him.
Please stop excusing away such blashpemous errors in the mv's.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
citizenofheaven, we've discussed that at length in another recent thread, you might find it interesting to read some of the posts there. You must remember that context is important, and that titles are not necessarily exclusive. Who is the "Son of man"? Who is the "king of kings"? It depends on context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has everything to do with rightly dividing the word of truth, to which in the Good news bible, one walks away thinking this morning star is Jesus = Satan. There are no verses of scripture, or passages of scripture that indicate there is a difference between the two. The KJB has it correct, as that passage is not properly translated and has translated morning star inappropriately in that text, and context as well. You continue to claim that the error is not an error, and you are clearly wrong. By the way, Satan is also never refered to as the son of man. In fact he is referred to as the son of perdition. Just as Satan is never referred to as the lion from the tribe of Judah. God does not refer Satan to himself. He makes a clear distinction from him.
Please stop excusing away such blashpemous errors in the mv's.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
And...who decides what version "im going to use today"? You? Hahahahahahahahahaha.Originally posted by StefanM:
KJVBibleThumper said:
And may I remind you that the early church had the original letters from Paul,Mark,John,Etc?
The early church also had apocryphal writings. They didn't have the KJV to straighten out the canon either.
KJVBibleThumper said:
"So what you are saying is that YOU are the final authority!! Unless of course you have an open telephone to God? I can hold up the KJV and say that this is my Final Authority!!"
That's an excellent twisting of my statement. I clearly said God is my final authority. I do not worship a book. Even if I believed the KJV was perfect (which I do not), God would still be my final authority. News flash--the KJV did not die for your sins. The KJV is not sovereign. The KJV is not the creator of the universe. I know you realize all this, so please understand why a book is not my final authority.
People without a final authority according to KJVO logic: every person on the planet in 1610. Did a "final authority" appear out of nowhere? NO! The KJV is a translation--a book, not an authority.
You have a "final authority" that has been around since 1611. My final authority has been around since before the foundation of the world.
If you're asking what I use as a guideline for my life, I will tell you that it is the Bible. Do I believe one particular version is correct 100% of the time? NO. That's why I use many versions to try to get the true meaning of the scriptures. Are there many texts out there? Yes. Does consulting different texts negatively affect my Christian walk? No.
Now,can you tell me which of the more then 60 Greek texts you use?
My Final Authority has been around since the begining of time.Until 1611 however,there was NO Bible in the English language. God speaks to me through HIS word(Word, singular-one) and if I cant understand something,then I dont assume that "(gasp)the Bible's wrong!"
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Yes, and the people of Israel held up Nehushtan as theirs. Not to mention the Baals, the Asherah poles,Tammuz, Molech, etc. All the work of men's hands. All bowed down to. All worshipped as the be-all and end-all.
Natters hit the nail square on the head.
You (and Michelle, and Askjo, and Anti-Alex, and who-knows-who) claim your 'final authority' is the King James Bible.
I, among others, claim God as my final authority. I do not elevate any one translation of Scripture above any other. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (2Tim 3:16 NKJV)
In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]I will comment on one thing here and save the rest for later,the Bible was around before 1611,it just was not in the ENGLISH. Clear enough?
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Does anyone here know what "apocrypha" means? It would spoil it if I said it so I want a non-KJVO person to tell me.
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
You can also hold up an ice cream cone that it is an airplane, but you will be wrong then as well.
How do I know the KJV isn't your final authority? Becuase your doctrine of the KJV cannot be found anywhere in teh KJV. It is a doctrine that you impose on the KJV, thus showing your underlying authority is not the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]Umm,sombody help me out here, what is he saying? Im confused.
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Excellent.
Of course, they had a couple Greek texts (sadly, not the best), a Hebrew text, a Latin text (or we wouldn't have some verses in the Anglican Version, and other English translations.
So do I.
THESE (not me and certainly not the Anglican Version) are the final authority. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok then tell me which of the 60 contradicting Greek texts you use.
--------------------------------------------------
All right you are always talking about how the MV's delete things here is a marginal note from tthe 1611 AV "Luke 17:36 This 36th verse is wanting in MOST of the Greek copies." And you criticize the MV's because most drop this verse. Your own version is saying it very well probably wasn't in the originals.MV's actually I know this is hard to understand but they USE the mss and don't just add everything under the sun.This verse is only found in the Latin Vulgate the RC kept text. So they rejected the Greek and went with the Latin Vulgate which is a Roman Catholic document. And your side is the one always saying the Roman Catholic church is behind all MV's . Well KIV used the vulgate how much more RC church can you get but by using there own "version" of the original? More questions that will be unanswered by the KIVO.
--------------------------------------------------
You are incorrect. The mv's are based upon corrupt Greek texts and different methods of translation, different from those to which underline and were used for the KJB and Bibles in English prior to it.
Now are you going to tell me that this verse does not belong there, even though it has been in the word of God for generations? and for centuries? Does God now take away from his words?
You might want to read the preface and editors notes from the KJB translators of the 1611.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
All right you are always talking about how the MV's delete things here is a marginal note from tthe 1611 AV "Luke 17:36 This 36th verse is wanting in MOST of the Greek copies." And you criticize the MV's because most drop this verse. Your own version is saying it very well probably wasn't in the originals.MV's actually I know this is hard to understand but they USE the mss and don't just add everything under the sun.This verse is only found in the Latin Vulgate the RC kept text. So they rejected the Greek and went with the Latin Vulgate which is a Roman Catholic document. And your side is the one always saying the Roman Catholic church is behind all MV's . Well KIV used the vulgate how much more RC church can you get but by using there own "version" of the original? More questions that will be unanswered by the KIVO.
--------------------------------------------------
You are incorrect. The mv's are based upon corrupt Greek texts and different methods of translation, different from those to which underline and were used for the KJB and Bibles in English prior to it.
Now are you going to tell me that this verse does not belong there, even though it has been in the word of God for generations? and for centuries? Does God now take away from his words?
You might want to read the preface and editors notes from the KJB translators of the 1611.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
michelle said "Please stop excusing away such blashpemous errors in the mv's."
We've been over this. If you want to continue to talk about it, let's do so in the other thread where it belongs.
KJVBibleThumper said "I will comment on one thing here and save the rest for later,the Bible was around before 1611,it just was not in the ENGLISH. Clear enough?"
No, not clear enough. The KJV differs from all previous to it, including other languages, so my point still stands.
KJVBibleThumper said "Does anyone here know what "apocrypha" means?"
It means of questionable authorship and/or authenticity. It comes from a Greek word that means "hidden" or "spurious".
KJVBibleThumper said "Umm,sombody help me out here, what is he saying? Im confused."
Yes, you are confused. His point was the same as mine: if the KJV is the only authority from which we should get doctrine, by what authority do you hold to the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? The KJV doesn't teach KJV-onlyism. Therefore you have a contradiction and have an external authority, namely yourself, required to teach this doctrine.
We've been over this. If you want to continue to talk about it, let's do so in the other thread where it belongs.
KJVBibleThumper said "I will comment on one thing here and save the rest for later,the Bible was around before 1611,it just was not in the ENGLISH. Clear enough?"
No, not clear enough. The KJV differs from all previous to it, including other languages, so my point still stands.
KJVBibleThumper said "Does anyone here know what "apocrypha" means?"
It means of questionable authorship and/or authenticity. It comes from a Greek word that means "hidden" or "spurious".
KJVBibleThumper said "Umm,sombody help me out here, what is he saying? Im confused."
Yes, you are confused. His point was the same as mine: if the KJV is the only authority from which we should get doctrine, by what authority do you hold to the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? The KJV doesn't teach KJV-onlyism. Therefore you have a contradiction and have an external authority, namely yourself, required to teach this doctrine.
DeclareHim
New Member
I have your the one saying the translators don't matter what the heck they just translated it what do they know. According to you nothing.