What is your final authority?

[natters]

Michelle, when are you actually going to offer any proof, instead of just opinion after opinion after opinion? We already know what your opinion is.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Trotter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> KJV Thumper wrote:
I can hold up the KJV and say that this is my Final Authority!!

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.

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).

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? </font>[/QUOTE]So I guess everyone born before 1611 died and went to hell right. That is stupid our first enlish translation began with William Tyndale's version in the 1300's.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by natters:
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.

Yes sir it most certainly does. I am working on a (gasp) non-sarcastic argument to support the KJV, but there is a lot of material to go through and it will be some days before its finished.In it I will answer as many questions from this forum as I can without(

) writing a book. Until then I will stay on this forum and debate the "minor" issues.
Yours for the preaching of the Gospel,
KJVBibleThumper.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

"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"."


This is why it isnt in the King James.

 

[DeclareHim]

It was in the KI.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
It was in the KI.

Ah ah ahh,it was forced on them,and they took it out as soon as possible.

 

[robycop3]

KJVBT:Once again we are back at square one. How do you determine which of the multiple versions is what God is speaking to you from?

By reading them, with prayer.

 

[robycop3]

KJVBT: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!!

BUT...how can you PROVE the KJV's the ONLY final authority in English?

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeclareHim:
It was in the KI.

Ah ah ahh,it was forced on them,and they took it out as soon as possible. </font>[/QUOTE]I think I'll just say that the so called "removed" verses from the KJV were just added in there like the apocrypha. Thank heavens my good ole NASB (Updated) 1995 was perfectly preserved the way it was!

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by robycop3:
KJVBT:Once again we are back at square one. How do you determine which of the multiple versions is what God is speaking to you from?

By reading them, with prayer.

Hmmm,and God just responds right away does He? Or do you have to wait a few days before you know if you picked the "right" one?

 

[robycop3]

KJVBT:And may I remind you that the early church had the original letters from Paul,Mark,John,Etc?

But WE don't.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by robycop3:
KJVBT: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!!

BUT...how can you PROVE the KJV's the ONLY final authority in English?

I will go into this in the paper I am writing. But briefly,God said that He would preserve His Word.I doubt He meant it would be re-interprated every generation.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:They do not all say the same thing. Some omitt some, and others include them. Some add to, and others don't. Some paraphrase, or twist the scriptures, others don't. Some editions render one way in one edition, and change it in another, to only change it back again.

But you cannot prove one is right and another wrong.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by StefanM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeclareHim:
It was in the KI.

Ah ah ahh,it was forced on them,and they took it out as soon as possible. </font>[/QUOTE]I think I'll just say that the so called "removed" verses from the KJV were just added in there like the apocrypha. Thank heavens my good ole NASB (Updated) 1995 was perfectly preserved the way it was! </font>[/QUOTE]Uhh-huh...this is an invalid argument.Are you saying that the old unupdated version wasnt "preserved the way it was"?

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Michelle:They do not all say the same thing. Some omitt some, and others include them. Some add to, and others don't. Some paraphrase, or twist the scriptures, others don't. Some editions render one way in one edition, and change it in another, to only change it back again.

But you cannot prove one is right and another wrong.

In my paper that I am writing I can prove that the KJV is right and the others wrong,but it will probably be discounted because im "biased".

 

[StefanM]

Yes, just like your Bishop's Bible wasn't "preserved" until it was used to make the KJV .

 

[robycop3]

Michelle: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.

I believe we all agree the GNB is a bird cage liner.


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.

"or, O day starre"...marginal note by the AV translators for Isaiah 14:12

"And I will give him the morning star....Words of Jesus Christ, Revelation 2:28


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.

I should hope so.

But He DOES make distinctions between the various morning stars.

 

[robycop3]

KJVBT: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.

Yes, it was...Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, Geneva, Bishop's, to name a few versions before 1611.


Clear enough?

As mud.

 

[robycop3]

KJVBT:Ok then tell me which of the 60 contradicting Greek texts you use.

He'll tell you if YOU tell HIM which of the four contradicting Gospels you use...or what you use between samuel, Kings, or Chronicles. They're all differing narrations of the same events, so by your apparent standards you can hold only ONE Gospel and choose ONE ACCOUNT from the three found in Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles as God's word.

WHICH?

 

[bjonson]

KJVBibleThumper,

You still haven't answered my question.

Which KJV is your final authority? The Cambridge or Oxford edition. They aren't the same.

Also, I assume you use the 1st edition from 1611, right? Surely you don't use the 11th revision from 1769 which is in print today!!?? That has been changed from the 1611.

So, which KJV is YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY? Which one?