What's the AUTHORITY for an English Bible?

[robycop3]

Heard of him, yes. I do not know him nor do I wish to know him. If he worships the KJV, that is but one more thing that I can add to my list of reasons for staying very far from him.


Again, heard of, yes - I didn't know him personally. He, in my opinion, went way too far down the right road.


Therein lies the root of the problem. These "quite a few" English Bible versions are not translated from the same textual basis. Both lines cannot be preserved because they disagree a staggering number of times.


Honestly, I haven't read a lot in that forum. I used to moderate in there for years and helped develop the posting guidelines for that forum because the debates were getting very heated.


There have been several aspersions heaped on the KJV as well, I have heard it called a "tired old version," etc. The sad part is, the disposition of many KJV defenders (the two you mentioned above and others) have caused many people to turn their backs on the KJV.


Bro. Fugate is a personal friend. I, personally, have never heard him speak on the issue.


Honest question - can you see how the KJVO have arrived at their conclusion, even though you disagree with it? If so, would you mind to state the KJVO position as you understand it?

First, the KJVO position is that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible out there, with some adding the provisos that it's perfect, and it's not just a TRANSLATION of the word of God, but IS the word of God.

(This is wrong of course. There are quite a few perfectly-valid English Bible translations available, the KJV is NOT perfect, and it's only a TRANSLATION of the word of God, which He gave in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine greek.)

And if you look thru the archives of the "translations" sub-forum, you'll see many threads parroting the garbage of Ruckman, Riplinger, & several other KJVO authors trying to milk the KJVO cash cow.

And I can truthfully tell you I HAVE heard Bro. Fugate toss in some KJVO hooey into some of his sermons. Since you know him, just ASK him about it, and ask him if he's KJVO or not.

But back to the matter of AUTHORITY. Since the HOLY SPIRIT translated Peter's preaching at the "first pentecost, HE provided the authority for translating God's word. OTOH, the KJVO myth was invented outta thin air by MEN.

And the KJV IS a "Model T" Bible version. Just as the Model T is still a valid "car" under the definition for a car, the KJV is still a valid Bible version. But the Model T was made for the roads of 1909, which were mostly wagon and horse trails. It proved quite-uncomfortable for paved roads at higher speeds. Thus, it was replaced by the Model A & other cars designed for modern roads. thus, God has caused newer English Bible translations to be made to reflect the changes in English HE has caused/allowed.

As for the textual issues, none of us were present when any of the ancient mss. were made; we don't know who made them when or where, or what their sources were. Therefore, we have no right to declare this ms. right & that ms. wrong. It's guesswork at best. So, let's simply accept what GOD chose to preserve for us, and believe His written word.

(Remember, there's quite a difference in Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 as found in the Masoretic Text & what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21 & called "this Scripture"!)

But YES, there's plainly authority in Scripture for English Bible translations to be made!

 

[percho]

And so wouldn't support Bible translation.

But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Write it down in my language and let's cut out the middle man.

 

[tyndale1946]

I believe the Word of God should indeed be reverenced (Psalms 138:2). It is not that men are reverencing the KJV per se; it is that men are reverencing the Word of God which they believe has been providentially preserved in the KJV.

To quote a friend, "The believer who has full confidence in his King James Bible as the preserved word of God in the English language is my fellow traveler -- considerably more so then [sic] the believer who refuses to see God's marvelous Providential Preservation of our King James Bible."

By whose AUTHORITY Brother Robert?... By GODS AUTHORITY!

Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned". His final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."

To those of us who know our KJV, the history of it and how it got to us, how about the answered prayer of a Martyr's Blood!... We would not have any translation in English unless the KJV paved the way... Like Salty said The Original!... I don't care what translations you other brethren read but if it is in English the KJV laid the groundwork for the English speaking world... You want the original language?... I believe TC and JOJ have classes in Greek and Hebrew but the Lord knew that's not my native language or yours either... Another tidbit you all might be interested in, before the English version came into being the first Bible printed was the Gutenburg Bible printed in German... By whose authority?... Brother Glen

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Honest question - can you see how the KJVO have arrived at their conclusion, even though you disagree with it? If so, would you mind to state the KJVO position as you understand it?

First, the KJVO position is that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible out there, with some adding the provisos that it's perfect, and it's not just a TRANSLATION of the word of God, but IS the word of God.

Can you understand and explain how the KJVO arrived at this conclusion? Your stating of the KJVO position is cursory at best; it goes way deeper than what you've offered.

As for the textual issues, none of us were present when any of the ancient mss. were made; we don't know who made them when or where, or what their sources were. Therefore, we have no right to declare this ms. right & that ms. wrong. It's guesswork at best. So, let's simply accept what GOD chose to preserve for us, and believe His written word.

I believe men on both sides of the issue would find strong disagreement with you on this point.

(Remember, there's quite a difference in Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 as found in the Masoretic Text & what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21 & called "this Scripture"!)

Which of these passages are not inspired - the original Hebrew or Jesus' translation into Greek?

 

[Yeshua1]

So no AUTHORITY?
(Which Great Command?)

Jesus commissioned that authority to His Apostles, to record down to us the very word of God, and unless we all around the world have to know Greek/Hebrew, God meant it to get translated and passed around!

 

[rlvaughn]

But YES, there's plainly authority in Scripture for English Bible translations to be made!

To what authority would you point?

Jesus commissioned that authority to His Apostles, to record down to us the very word of God, and unless we all around the world have to know Greek/Hebrew, God meant it to get translated and passed around!

I wrote an OP that was dangerously easy to misunderstand, but I think has generally served its purpose. Most of us assume, presuppose, and never think about whether it is valid to translate the inspired scriptures out of the original tongues into other languages, and whether the Bible itself supports it. The responses seemed to show that, in my opinion, but also showed that some have thought or at least started thinking about it. I didn't see what I thought were all that good or well thought out cases being made (and not sure I could make one either). I'm not aware of any scholar who has even written much on the subject, The commission you mention, Yeshua, would be one of the scripture principles that point to the need of translation -- without directly saying it -- since we are supposed to teach all nations. Speaking in tongues, on the other hand, is not a good case. Speaking in tongues was superficially a speaking gift because it was something spoken -- but primarily a sign gift. For example, the tongues in Acts 2 were for a sign and fulfillment of prophecy. They were not necessary for simply communicating the gospel. Many people miss the fact that the people present were able to communicate with one another in a common language. See Acts 2:7, where they were "saying one to another."

 

[robycop3]

Can you understand and explain how the KJVO arrived at this conclusion? Your stating of the KJVO position is cursory at best; it goes way deeper than what you've offered.

The KJVO has generally read & believed some junk from some KJVO author who's seeking to make $$$, the TRUTH be dipped.

I believe men on both sides of the issue would find strong disagreement with you on this point.

Let'em. they must ^^PROVE^^ their case.

Which of these passages are not inspired - the original Hebrew or Jesus' translation into Greek?

Jesus saw fit to preserve BOTH versions. That PROVES He's more-interested in MEANING than exact words, when other words carry the same message. And we don't know WHAT language Jesus was reading aloud from, altho He most likely SPOKE in Greek as He read. He was reading from a vorlage copy in a synagogue, so it could well have been in Hebrew.

 

[thatbrian]

"BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe we should have an ENGLISH translation of the BIBLE?" The answer to this question is VERY important to the veracity of using English translations of the Bible, as no doctrine not found in Scripture can be true. We know the English translations are MAN-MADE in their origin.

We're not talking about PREFERENCES. Most everyone has preferences of reading a translation in their own language. We're talking about the belief that it is valid to have and use an English Bible translation.

Without any AUTHORITY for the English Bible translation, we can only conclude it's FALSE, and should not be believed by any Christian. So, let's see the AUTHORITY for English Bible translation or an admission that it's false.

By the authority that God gave to Adam to have dominion over all the Earth.

Man is not passive but a vital actor in God's work of redemption. Biblical translation is simply one way in which men fulfill God's command.

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you understand and explain how the KJVO arrived at this conclusion? Your stating of the KJVO position is cursory at best; it goes way deeper than what you've offered.


I believe men on both sides of the issue would find strong disagreement with you on this point.


Which of these passages are not inspired - the original Hebrew or Jesus' translation into Greek?

KJVO position is that the Lord preserved unto us a single Greek text, the TR itself, and that he inspired the KJV, as the translators were inspired to do their work, and since based upon the right and only source text, their work was perfect and inspired by God also!

 

[rlvaughn]

KJVO position is that the Lord preserved unto us a single Greek text, the TR itself, and that he inspired the KJV, as the translators were inspired to do their work, and since based upon the right and only source text, their work was perfect and inspired by God also!

You describe a position that some KJVO people hold -- such as Peter Ruckman with his double inspiration and advanced revelation -- but this is not the position of all KJVOs. You would do well to recognize that when discussing the subject.

But you would also do well to notice that this is not the KJVO thread, but about authority for having English translations.

 

[rlvaughn]

By the authority that God gave to Adam to have dominion over all the Earth.

Man is not passive but a vital actor in God's work of redemption. Biblical translation is simply one way in which men fulfill God's command.

This sounds a lot like you're saying that man has dominion over God's word, but I wouldn't expect that to be what you mean. Why not tease this out a bit how you get from man's dominion over the earth to his dominion in translating the Bible into English? Also how does the fall figure into affecting man's dominion?

 

[Yeshua1]

You describe a position that some KJVO people hold -- such as Peter Ruckman with his double inspiration and advanced revelation -- but this is not the position of all KJVOs. You would do well to recognize that when discussing the subject.

But you would also do well to notice that this is not the KJVO thread, but about authority for having English translations.

True, but that issue always seems to get bled over into the KJVO crowd using it to proof text their erroneous beliefs regarding English translations and authority!
And Peter Rickman pretty much summed up the KJVO position, didn't he? Along with Gipp?

 

[rlvaughn]

And Peter Rickman pretty much summed up the KJVO position, didn't he? Along with Gipp?

I'd say Ruckman's view sums up the KJVO position of he and his followers, and that there are a wide variety who do not fall under his summary. I know nothing of Gipp.

Whatever either of these two think about the Bible does not affect how others formulate a position on whether the Bible ought to be translated out of the original languages, or what they formulate. My reading of this thread suggests to me that very few of us have ever given it much thought (and I am including myself in that assessment).

 

[Yeshua1]

I'd say Ruckman's view sums up the KJVO position of he and his followers, and that there are a wide variety who do not fall under his summary. I know nothing of Gipp.

Whatever either of these two think about the Bible does not affect how others formulate a position on whether the Bible ought to be translated out of the original languages, or what they formulate. My reading of this thread suggests to me that very few of us have ever given it much thought (and I am including myself in that assessment).

I do not know though ANY KJVO person who would not agree that both the TR and Kjv were inspired by God, that the 1611 were especially gifted by God, and that the KJV is the perfect English translation, no errors/mistakes within it.

 

[rlvaughn]

So you want to keep talking about KJVO because you have nothing more to add to the thread topic?

 

[Yeshua1]

So you want to keep talking about KJVO because you have nothing more to add to the thread topic?

No,I just found it hard to accept that there are differences among KJVO, as all believe the same things regarding the Kjv.
And back to the OP, I would see the authority deriving from Jesus granting that to the original books of the Bible, and the need to have all people able to hear and read in their own native tongues.

 

[rlvaughn]

No,I just found it hard to accept that there are differences among KJVO, as all believe the same things regarding the Kjv.

I find it surprising that as much as you post on the topic that you have never heard of differences among KJVO. If you have The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? by James White, start on page 23 for his five "KJV Only" categories. If you don't have the book, you should be able to see some of this with the "Look Inside" view at Amazon, or try Dr. Bob's definitions on the Baptist Board HERE.

So now back to our originally scheduled programming:

And back to the OP, I would see the authority deriving from Jesus granting that to the original books of the Bible, and the need to have all people able to hear and read in their own native tongues.

Assuming the Bible is our authority for all matters of faith and practice, we should look for our authority in the Bible itself. You speak of "authority deriving from Jesus granting that to the original books of the Bible." Not positive I'm following you. Are you speaking of Jesus recognizing the translation of the OT Hebrew into Greek? Second, why would you choose the need to have all people able to hear and read in their own native tongues over their need to hear and read in the original languages?

 

[Yeshua1]

I find it surprising that as much as you post on the topic that you have never heard of differences among KJVO. If you have The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? by James White, start on page 23 for his five "KJV Only" categories. If you don't have the book, you should be able to see some of this with the "Look Inside" view at Amazon, or try Dr. Bob's definitions on the Baptist Board HERE.

So now back to our originally scheduled programming:
Assuming the Bible is our authority for all matters of faith and practice, we should look for our authority in the Bible itself. You speak of "authority deriving from Jesus granting that to the original books of the Bible." Not positive I'm following you. Are you speaking of Jesus recognizing the translation of the OT Hebrew into Greek? Second, why would you choose the need to have all people able to hear and read in their own native tongues over their need to hear and read in the original languages?

Jesus always spoke as if assuming the OT scriptures were from God and inspired authoritatively, and he was assuring that his Apostles would have that same divine inspiration and authority as the OT already had.

 

[rlvaughn]

Jesus always spoke as if assuming the OT scriptures were from God and inspired authoritatively, and he was assuring that his Apostles would have that same divine inspiration and authority as the OT already had.

Yes, Jesus spoke of the Old Testament Scriptures as inspired and authoritative. Are you saying this regarding the Hebrew, or are you also applying it to translation (in this case, the Greek translation of the Hebrew & Aramaic)?

 

[rlvaughn]

I do take short naps because He did say to "rest", but there is no authority to sleep by the lips of Jesus.

Who said it had to be from "the lips of Jesus"? The Bible is authoritative for faith and practice. I suppose we can accept the gift he gives.
Psalm 127:2 ...he gives to his beloved sleep.

I appreciate you as one who has given some possible biblical principles for Bible translation (most seemed to skip over that). I'm still curious about your dominion position, though?