What's the AUTHORITY for "King-James-Version-Only"?

[robycop3]

I suppose some companion questions we should ask ourselves are by what authority do we support any translation being made, by what authority do we support using multiple translations, by what authority do we assert that it is God causing all the new translations being made, etc.?

Well, we know ONE authority for a type of KJVO was the British govt. which outlawed all other English translations in the 1600s. (However, the Geneva & Bishop's versions survived, although in much-lesser numbers.)

But now, the KJVO says the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. What is his/her authority for that doctrine?

 

[robycop3]

Based on the truth that God promises to preserve his word, on that authority I reject all translations based on texts that are produced by textual theories and critics who treat and handled the word of God accordig to rationalistic principles and omitted acknowledgement of Gods promise of preservation. You will be hard pressed to find any mention of the doctrine of preservation in many of the books written by textual critics who are promoting the critical text and modern versions. The very basis undergirding the modern versions is unbelief. On what authority do you robycop have to use texts based on unbelief in the preservation of scriptures?

My "authority" is my PREFERENCES. I do NOT stand on a soapbox & say "This version is valid; this'n's not" unless it's CLEARLY non-valid, as in the case of the "Clear Word" or "New World" versions.

As for the ancient texts, were YOU there when any of them were made? Do you know WHO made them and when? Do you know their source(s)? If not, you have no right to declare the validity or non-validity of a given text. I certainly don't. either, so I accept what GOD has made available.

 

[utilyan]

Well, we know ONE authority for a type of KJVO was the British govt. which outlawed all other English translations in the 1600s. (However, the Geneva & Bishop's versions survived, although in much-lesser numbers.)

But now, the KJVO says the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. What is his/her authority for that doctrine?

The way you feel about a KJVO is the way I feel about you guys.

Well of course the KJVO bible is the only valid bible look at it , its right here, it has 66 books and the darn gone thing literally fell out the sky.

It says its the right book right here.........2 timothry 3

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[HankD]

It is by faith that we believe the 66 known books of the Bible are the word of God preserved by the church.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (the church).

The word of God of settled in heaven forever given to man and published globally

Psalm 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.
Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

So scribes make mistakes, yes even the KJV of the bible Cambridge, Oxford or Nelson translated from the TR/Byzantine texts.

Thousands of witnesses (manuscripts, ancient and modern translations) attest to the accuracy of the original language texts - these are the preserved word of God given to the church, the pillar and ground of the truth. That along with the Spirit of truth sent by Jesus are the foundation of our faith.

I believe it was Dr Tom who came up with this:

Original text manuscripts - The word of God by inspiration.
Copies of the manuscripts- the word of God by preservation.
Translations of the manuscripts - The word of God by derivation.

 

[Salty]

It says its the right book right here.........2 timothry 3

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

OH, I thought it said= "All King James Version scripture is given by inspiration of God ..."

 

[Salty]

Well, we know ONE authority for a type of KJVO was the British govt. which outlawed all other English translations in the 1600s. ... ?

and contrary to popular belief - there IS a COPYRIGHT on the KJV - but that copyright is recognized only in Great Britain.

 

[rlvaughn]

Well, we know ONE authority for a type of KJVO was the British govt....etc.

My "authority" is my PREFERENCES.

This first point didn't particularly address the point I was trying to make, but the second one does. Most everyone is working on some presuppositions that they can't go to a specific text in the Bible and put their finger on to support.

 

[Salty]

... Most everyone is working on some presuppositions that they can't go to a specific text in the Bible and put their finger on to support.

Its not presupposition - it is a fact that KJO is NOT a Biblical doctrine

 

[rlvaughn]

Salty, you evidently did not read what I initially wrote, since your comment does not respond to that.

In addition, a presupposition is an assumption you make beforehand, or something you take for granted. So it doesn't have to be a "fact" -- just something you take for granted.

 

[Yeshua1]

Its not presupposition - it is a fact that KJO is NOT a Biblical doctrine

Agreed, as even the Translators of the 1611 themselves did not hold to KJVO!

 

[rockytopva]

Have you ever met someone who had the actual Holy Spirit (minding that the unction of the Holy Spirit is not human ego) who did not love the KJV?

 

[Rippon]

Have you ever met someone who had the actual Holy Spirit (minding that the unction of the Holy Spirit is not human ego) who did not love the KJV?

Have you ever met a believer (by necessity being indwelt by the Holy Spirit) who didn't love the Vulgate, Geneva, Bishop's Bible, ASV, NIV and NLT?

 

[robycop3]

and contrary to popular belief - there IS a COPYRIGHT on the KJV - but that copyright is recognized only in Great Britain.

The copyright holders in Great britain are the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, the Ayers & Spottiswoode Co. & Harper Collins. (Owned by Ruppert Murdoch)

The "copyrights" issue is a KJVO invention. In the USA, one may use any copyrighted literature for its intended purposes. For a Bible version, those intended purposes are many - reading aloud while preaching, teaching, etc. This often involves copying parts of a given version.

What's prohibited is MAKING MONEY from any repros of copyrighted Bibles, without the copyright holder's permission.

 

[robycop3]

This first point didn't particularly address the point I was trying to make, but the second one does. Most everyone is working on some presuppositions that they can't go to a specific text in the Bible and put their finger on to support.

Everyone has preferences, but not all doctrines of faith & worship have any AUTHORITY to make them valid. We know the KJVO myth isn't found in the KJV itself, so it's very appropriate to ask where/what the authority for KJVO is.
BY WHAT AUTHORITY does one declare the KJV to be the ONLY valid English Bible translation???????????????????????????????????

 

[Salty]

The copyright holders in Great britain are the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, the Ayers & Spottiswoode Co. & Harper Collins. (Owned by Ruppert Murdoch)

The "copyrights" issue is a KJVO invention. In the USA, one may use any copyrighted literature for its intended purposes. For a Bible version, those intended purposes are many - reading aloud while preaching, teaching, etc. This often involves copying parts of a given version.

What's prohibited is MAKING MONEY from any repros of copyrighted Bibles, without the copyright holder's permission.

Even if you read a portion of Scripture - say from the NASB on the radio - they highly request that you also state - this scripture form the NASB. Not sure if its legally required.
But you are totally correct about the making money. But that would only apply to non- KJ versions as well as study notes. So lets say you have a KJV Scofield Bible - you can legally copy (for profit) verses from that Bible- but there are limitations on using the Scofield study notes

Interesting that it is Murdock is involved.

 

[John of Japan]

Have you ever met someone who had the actual Holy Spirit (minding that the unction of the Holy Spirit is not human ego) who did not love the KJV?

Sure, every fundamental believer in Japan, because there is no "Japanese KJV," and all we had was a Japanese version (the Shinkaiyaku) based on the principles and texts of the NASB.

 

[John of Japan]

The way you feel about a KJVO is the way I feel about you guys.

Well of course the KJVO bible is the only valid bible look at it , its right here, it has 66 books and the darn gone thing literally fell out the sky.

It says its the right book right here.........2 timothry 3

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Does that preservation/inspiration extend to any Japanese version? If so, which one? Or if you don't know which one, please give me principles by which I can discover which Japanese Bible is inspired and/or preserved by God.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no authority for KJVO

 

[utilyan]

Does that preservation/inspiration extend to any Japanese version? If so, which one? Or if you don't know which one, please give me principles by which I can discover which Japanese Bible is inspired and/or preserved by God.

I'm not a KJVO.

But to prove Sola Scriptura is true, send me one of those Japanese bibles and if I can understand it then it is true, else i need an AUTHORITY to prove the what the words mean. Like Emperor Akihito and some greek scholars.


That's the reason you have a church to put in your hands what you need in your hands.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not a KJVO.

But to prove Sola Scriptura is true, send me one of those Japanese bibles and if I can understand it then it is true, else i need an AUTHORITY to prove the what the words mean. Like Emperor Akihito and some greek scholars.

That's the reason you have a church to put in your hands what you need in your hands.

Well, the Emperor is not ever considered an expert on the language. He has to use a different level of Japanese, a very polite level. (Japanese has about 5 levels from childish up to addressing an exalted person.)

But I get what you are saying, I think. You believe that the preservation of Scripture applies to the truths expressed; is that correct?