By what authority?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by BrianT, Jan 19, 2004.

  1. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why believe in KJV-onlyism? *By what authority* should any accept or retain the doctrine that only the KJV is the word of God in English, and is 100% perfectly preserved?
     
  2. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not "by what authority", dear BrianT, but "Whose"...got it? ;)
     
  3. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    So are you saying that the authority lies outside the Bible?
     
  4. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, by "what". Unless you are claiming (in opposition to sola scriptura) that God gives us doctrines *outside* of scripture?

    If Baptists, as sola scripturists, should accept this doctrine by God's authority, then it would be *in* the Bible in the first place, and they you could say "by the authority of scripture". However, this doctrine is not in the Bible. So, again, by what authority?
     
  5. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey fellars~The only thing I meant by my comment is that the Holy Spirit obviously gave me the Bible He wanted me to use over 50yrs. ago & He has apparently led me to stay with the KJB, only! (There must be a reason, right)?
     
  6. Emily

    Emily
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    Granny

    I agree. there must be a reason..

    There is probably a reason why the holy spirit gave me the NASB, and has therefore convicted me to read out of that.. I tend to think that it is because it is the translation that I understand the best!


    you go read the KJV, I will read my NASB..

    I would guarentee, that on all major doctrine, we probably agree..
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    OK, then, by WHOSE?
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bump? No KJV-only supporters want to comment on this approach to establishing doctrine that runs contrary to sola scriptura?
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're more than welcome to use only the KJV for yourself, if you feel so moved by the Holy Spirit. That is not KJVO. That's KJVP. KJVP is perfectlly acceptible. The KJVO stance asserts that KJV is to be the only translation to be used by English speaking people. The KJVO position further asserts the KJV has authority over all other translations, even over the source texts from whence it was derived (those source texts are still available today).

    Now, for me, I don't speak English, I speak American. Hence, I prefer the NIV, but I make no claim that the NIV, or any translation, has any greater authority than any other, for I don't worship the Bible. I worship God.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yerp!

    The reason was that He wanted *YOU* to use only the KJV-and that's fine, if you don't go into the land of darkness by insisting that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.

    For the same reason, He led many English of 1560-1644 to stay with the Geneva Bible, and has led me to use the KJV, AV 1611, NKJV, NASB, & NIV.
     
  11. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    ..."land of darkness", robydoby? :eek: The only darkness I see is a great famine coming! :D

    I've noticed I've been assigned KJOp...nope, nope, nope; da granny is ONE Book ONLY and does not even acknowledge the MVs! :rolleyes:
     
  12. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well Granny da MVs are here to stay and lots of young people have been saved under 'em. And God apparently hasn't led them to anything else! You do your thing and...
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sounds like wanting to be KJVO, but not wanting to acknowledge it. Try reading up on the subject. Apparently you know nothing about it.

    [ January 24, 2004, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: robycop3 ]
     
  14. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    By what authority should we accept the canon? By what authority do we accept that writings outside of the canon are uninspired?

    We accept these facts because God has established them through his providence.

    Or at least I do [​IMG]
     
  15. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    We accept the MV's through His providence. In 1611, the MV, known as the AV or KJV came into existence, by His providence, now God in His consistence loves us so very very much that He doesn't want all of us to have stale bread, but fresh. Fact: For most, the KJV= Stale bread; and the MV's=Fresh bread. Yum [​IMG]
     
  16. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    We accept the MV's through His providence. In 1611, the MV, known as the AV or KJV came into existence, by His providence, now God in His consistence loves us so very very much that He doesn't want all of us to have stale bread, but fresh. Fact: For most, the KJV= Stale bread; and the MV's=Fresh bread. Yum [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]If any modern version becomes as established and universally accepted among God's people as the KJV has for hundreds of years I will glady reconsider my position towards it.
     
  17. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I accept them by the authority of the universal, orthodox church.

    I don't think we need to authoritatively accept negative assertions that are not doctrinal.

    But to KJV-only supporters, KJV-onlyism is more than simply "fact", it is "doctrine" - just look at the *doctrinal* statements of KJV-only churhes: "only the KJV" is usually the first in the list.

    I accept many facts that are not doctrines, and I don't need a scriptural authority to accept these facts. However, as soon as you assert something as *doctrine*, while at the same time proclaiming that *only scripture* is the source for *doctrine*, then you better be able to show where scripture teaches that doctrine.

    "Providence" doesn't cut it. There is evidence that providence is responsible for making the KJV a great, valuable, effective translation, but there is *no* evidence that providence has made the KJV perfectly inerrant and to be used to the exclusion of everything else. Nor has the universal, orthodox church ever promoted KJV-onlyism or accept it as valid.

    KJV-onlyism is entirely self-contradictory: it asserts the *doctrine* that the KJV is inerrant and the "final authority" for doctrine, yet this *doctrine* isn't in the KJV! It comes from an authority *apart* from that which its supporters claim should be the only authority for doctrine! If the KJV is in fact the only authoritative source of doctrine, and that only authoritative source of doctrine doesn't teach that doctrine in the first place, why accept that doctrine? Where does it come from? What is its authoritative source?

    It has none. It is therefore a false doctrine. There simply is no other conclusion that is logically consistent, it distresses me to see honest, God-fearing Baptists shut their eyes and ears to this simple fact.
     
  18. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me add some words to BrianT's comments above.....

    KJV-onlyists make claims regarding their 'doctrine' of their 'divinely and providentially preserved, inerrant, infallible' Bible, and usually make end-runs on the timely and historical doctrinal statements regarding inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. In order to cover for their inadequacies regarding an 'inerrant' (or, inspired) KJV, they come up with their own 'doctrine' of preservation: God did a supernatural act of preserving the Bible text in the 'TR/Received Text' and the KJV reflects that 'inerrant/inspired' Greek text(s). Problem: where in the Bible do you find that God supernaturally preserved the Bible text (either in the Hebrew/Aramaic OT or the Greek NT)? According to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, the act of 'perfection' (i.e. "that which is perfect" in the KJV, the rendering for 'to teleion' in Greek) ended with the NT canon, and the act(s) of supernatural prophecy, knowledge, and tongues ended at that time. John penned, under (theopneustos) inspiration, the book of Revelation and when "amen" was finished, the act of supernatural activity regarding the text of the Bible ended there. God did not supernaturally preserve nor did He providentially preserve the text of the Bible after the original copies were penned. Thus, we have copies-- and lots of them! All of the copies are prone to have errors in them. This fact undermines the KJV-onlyist argument of a 'providentially preserved' Bible, thus their doctrine of preservation is not able to be supported from Scripture nor from the extant copies (hence, the facts). Any view of the Bible which says that the KJV = perfect (inerrant or inspired) Bible is completely false. This is why KJV-onlyism is so divisive (and heretical), because it holds to an unbiblical view of the Scriptures.
     
  19. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, and Amen!!!
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The beginning of this thread was, "By what AUTHORITY does one follow KJVO?" The KJVO myth is entirely man-made, without one speck of Scriptural support, much as were some of the ceremonies of the Pharisees, which Jesus soundly denounced.

    Does any sensible Baptist not believe that the devil uses KJVO and other false doctrines to divide God's church? The proof is right before us on this very board! The man-made origin of KJVO has been clearly established, and no one who reads a Bible can deny its lack of Scriptural support.

    The KJVOs declare that there's no Scriptural support for MVs either, but we beg to differ. Apparently, the Scriptures read aloud by Jesus and Philip were in a language easily understood by the audience.(There would be no language barrier for JESUS.) And those readings I just referred to show that both JESUS & the apostles were reading/quoting from other versions. While Scripture doesn't directly endorse their being written in the most modern language, Paul reminds us, while talking about tongues, that if we don't understand each other's languages, we would be as "barbarians" to each other.

    God wants His word to be understood by all who read or hear it, and for this to be accomplished, the readers/audience MUST have His word presented in THEIR language(s). The Holy Spirit performed this for the audience in Acts 2:1-12. He did NOT change their languages-He caused them to hear God's words IN THEIR OWN PRIMARY LANGUAGES! This was a great miracle, little-recognized by the KJVOs. And I ask the KJVOs-WHO created all languages? WHO is in control of them now? Did GOD change the languages to fit His already-written word? Or, did He fit His words into the languages of the audience?
     

Share This Page

Loading...