Final Authority

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Mar 28, 2003.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Larry, you asked some good questions and that particular topic was closed, so I thought I would answer you as best I can.

    Larry posts: "Will,
    We will continue to defend the word of God, including the KJV from all of its attackers. We love the word of God and make it the centerpiece of our life.
    But you, like many others, have set up a false authority. You say your final authority is the KJV but you have yet to give one verse where your authority takes the same position you do. The truth is that your authority is the people who taught you this teaching. It is nowhere found in the pages of Scripture, as is shown by your side's abject failure to offer even one verse that identifies the KJV as this final authority. Your final authority is your own mind; it is not Scripture. If your final authority was Scripture, you would believe the things that Scripture says and you would not add to it to satisfy the things that you prefer. Your position has created a troubling position for those who believe in the authority of Scripture -- It is troubling becuase your authority doesn't say what you say. You are forced to make it up out of your own mind and doctrine. Give this some thought and tell what by what authority have you designated the KJV as the word of God.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Larry, you pose some good questions. I agree that nowhere does the Holy Bible say 'The words of God are found only in the KJB'. Neither does the Bible say they are found in the NASB, NIV, ESV or that they are found in a multitude of partial, conflicting and contradictory manuscripts.

    The fact is, the Bible states and implies in several passage that God will preserve His pure words somewhere on this earth in a recognizable form.

    If you think the KJB believer's position is not found in the Bible, recognize that neither is yours.

    However, there is much to recommend the KJB position. God said He would preserve His words. God doesn't lie. God's Spirit bears witness to the truth. God does not contradict Himself.

    The multiversionist has no single book he believes are the complete, infallible words of God.

    The KJB believer does have such a Book.

    The multiversionist says "No translation can be perfect or without error".

    The Holy Bible itself teaches many times that a translation can be the inspired words of God. The KJB's theological position on this matter is biblical, while the mv's is not.

    The O.T. was inspired in Hebrew (and a little bit in Chaldean or Aramaic).

    Of all the popular, widely read versions around today, only the KJB is based solely on the Hebrew masoretic texts.

    The NASB, NIV, ESV depart scores of times from the Hebrew texts and often not even in the same places. Thus they are not based entirely on the inspired Hebrew texts and therefore cannot to that degree represent the true words of God.

    The KJB has no proveable errors.

    The modern versions all contain proveable errors, and thus show themselves to be false witnesses.

    The sovereignty of God bears witness to the authority and purity of the KJB. God knew what would become of the English language and how He would use it.

    The KJB has been around for almost 400 years and was THE Bible of the English speaking church for centuries. It was the Bible carried to the ends of the earth and translated into hundreds of other languages and dialects.

    No other bible in history has been used in this way or to this degree - not even close.

    Another proof that the KJB is the standard by which all others are measured is the order of books and the verse numbering.

    Tyndale's order of N.T. books was not the same as our present day bibles. The Geneva bible was the first to begin separating into chapters and verse numbering, but it was different than the KJB.

    Since the KJB came out, all other bibles in all other languages now follow both the book order and the numbering of verses found in the KJB. It is the standard.

    Even when the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV etc. omit a verse, they still use the chapter and verse divisions found in the KJB. They just skip a number.

    I have not always been a KJB only. I was "backed into" this position a few years ago. I started to believe the Book and what it says about itself. Then I started examining the evidence.

    I find lies, false doctrine, foolish statements and flat out contradictions in the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc.

    I do not find any proveable errors in the KJB. So truth, history, chapter and verse numbering, the sovereignty of God and the witness of the Spirit all tell me that where God preserved His pure words is in the King James Bible.

    God grants to some eyes to see this truth and to some He does not. Why? I don't know, but He also does this with just about everything else.

    So, No, my Holy Bible does not exist in my own mind. It exists in a tangible book I can hold in my hands and believe every word is the infallible truth of God.

    Others, like James White, strain at gnats trying to find just one proveable error in the KJB and haven't been able to do it yet.

    Those who oppose the KJB view have no final authority or inspired, infallible bible they can clearly point us to, yet they sit in judgment on the tried and true KJB.

    Those who actually believe God has preserved His complete words in a single book are called heretics and cultists by other Christians, while those who are not sure what or where God's words are, have been exalted to places of leadership and authority.

    So, no, I cannot give you a specific verse for the KJB, but there is ample evidence for the KJB being the infallible words of God preserved for His people here on this earth.

    "When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

    Will Kinney
     
  2. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    You state your OPINION well, Will. Too bad that the decision you made was by using your head and looking at the 'evidence.' Why is the KJV the preserved word, and not others. Why can it not be the KJV that differs from the truly preserved text? This is unprovable. So, using your mind, your final authority, you have chosen the KJV based on evidence that in your opinion supports the KJV. Why is your decision more valid than someone who arrives at the view that the NASB is the preserved word of God?

    And KJVOs have arbitrarily set up an Elizabethean translation as the one they point us to. Translated by Anglicans, at that!

    Neal
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    If I accept the NIV as "THE" only true English translation (which I don't, of course) then I would judge all else by that version.

    You would reject that. I agree. Instead, I use the original Greek and Hebrew as the benchmark and standard to evaluate all translations (including my own each Sunday as I preach).

    So I reject those who hold up the KJV1769 (or whatever revision you use) as "THE" only true English translation.

    God HAS preserved His Word. In Greek and Hebrew so it can be translated into every language under the sun. Praise His Name!
     
  4. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr. Griffen states: "I use the original Greek and Hebrew as the benchmark and standard to evaluate all translations
    God HAS preserved His Word. In Greek and Hebrew so it can be translated into every language under the sun."

    So Mr. Griffen, you have "the original Greek and Hebrew", do you?

    You should share these treasures with the world, because no one else except you seems to have them. Why keep them to yourself?

    Secondly I would ask: "Which Greek and Hebrew are you talking about? There are many different Hebrew texts and 25 - 30 different Greek texts, many of which radically differ from the others.
    So which one do you use as your "original"?

    Then once you select your "original Hebrew and Greek" texts, it is up to you to decide how to translate them.

    The people who sit in your congregation are very blessed indeed to have such a man telling them what God REALLY said.

    You don't need to answer any of these questions, good Doctor. They are more rhetorical than intended to illicit any honest answer.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    Dear Will,

    You commented...

    First, I am TRO and do not hold to the Wescott and Hort theory.
    I choose the Masoretic and Traditional Text (Scrivener 1894/5) as the reconstructed Word of God by faith. Books which I can have and hold in my hands. I can no more prove my "reconstruction" theory than others can prove the "reinspiration" theory of the KJV. But logic is on my side. Jesus spoke of "jots" and "tittles". The Word of God is preserved in the orginal languages.

    Second, yes I need those texts to be translated just as has been done down through the ages including our beloved 1611KJV as well as in the year 2003 to "to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people"

    Third, there is no certain text for the 1611 KJV since the original archetype from 1611 has been lost. Several hundred changes have been made in 4 major revisions of the KJV since 1611.
    At least two major editions have been made of the 1769KJV, they are the Cambridge and the Oxford which do not agree (things different are not the same - as we are constantly reminded). Let us honestly face these and other facts concerning this monumental translation of the Word of God.

    The original 1611KJV publication included the Apocrypha with cross references to it.
    The original 1611KJV supported the liturgical calendar and saints days of the Church of England/Rome.
    The original 1611KJV used marginal notes denoting uncertainty of words.
    The original 1611KJV included a preface by the translators (one which supports a Church of Rome "saint") which made remarks like the following...

    "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. Cap 14.] ."

    "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

    The original 1611KJV was translated and "authorized" by the Church of England which simultaneously baptized (sprinkled) babies, ordained "priests" celebrated the "Eucharist"(and many other Church of Rome heresies), all the while persecuting and excommunicating Baptists.

    Which very Church the radical KJVO claim God gave the power of Translation "inspiration" though they themselves are not members of the same.

    It saddens many that this KJVO heresy has forced us to point out the weaknesses of the KJ Bible and its translators and Church from whence it was born.
    IMO The KJVO have done far more damage than good by drawing out the truth concerning the surrounding real facts (perhaps doing some good), with many of the KJVO leaders themselves disobeying the Word while supposedly defending the Word. The works of the flesh and discord among the brethren being manifest where ever they go including the BB:

    James 3:5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
    6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.


    HankD

    [ March 30, 2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  6. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr. Kinney. It seems to me Mr. Griffin in principle stands where the Particular Baptists who authored the 1689 London confession of faith stood. If you check it out you will see that they regarded the original language texts they had, the Bomberg Masoretic text and some edition of the TR, as the absolutely final authority to resort to in matters of faith and practice etc. if and when the vulgar translation, the KJV or perhaps the Geneva Bible, was not sufficient to solve a doctrinal dispute. I stand with these Baptist forefathers who I regard as having been godly men. They were many times wiser than the KJV onlyite Baptists who claim to be their successors in the faith.

    Then it is another issue which original language text editions one uses, because some are apparently inferior and some superior.

    Once one has chosen the superior Hebrew and Greek texts with which to compare versions as to their translational quality one need not resort to own subjective opinions. No man need to be in ignorance as to the grammatical details of the available Greek texts of today with all fine tools such as morphologically tagged Greek texts. Where versions deviate from the verbally and plenary inspired wording one may take note of it, and it is possible to count deviations, and to classify the seriousness of them as well. Thus it is possible to assess the translational quality of a version with sufficient objectivity. For example each time the KJV omits to translate a divinely inspired definite article it deviates from its underlying Greek text, I speak of the NT as you notice. Every such omission lowers its quality. The same goes for any other version.

    I smelled a straw man in your reply to Griffin.


    Harald
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where? The Bible does not teach the type of "pure preservation" that your side needs for it to. It does teach preservation, and that is clearly testified to by the multitude of manuscripts.

    Actually my position is found in Scripture. Scripture very often calls things that are not the KJV the word of God and expects people to respond in obedient submission to it. That is my position. The KJV is not the only word of God. The Bible clearly affirms that.

    Notice how you changed the argument. We affirm that translations are the inspired by God. But the truth is that that is derivative inspiration, not direct inspiration. The KJV is not a perfect translation. This is evidenced by its many changes over the years.

    Simply not true.

    Sure it does. It mistranslates the word dialudzo. It inserts the name of God for the greek word Kurios in Acts 17 (I believe). It has a man that is 2 years older than his father. It records him as being 22 and 42 at the same time. As you like to say, things that are different are not the same. The man was either 22 or he was 42. He cannot be both at the same time.

    Where?

    And when the English langauge advanced you would have us believe that God stayed behind? I believe God wants to communicate to today's man in his own language. This is an argument with absolutely no weight. It is pure fluff.

    I don't see anyway you can possibly say this. Again, it is an unprovable argument.

    [qutoe]I find lies, false doctrine, foolish statements and flat out contradictions in the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc.</font>[/QUOTE]Then you are better than most. I certainly have not found these and no one has ever been able to show them yet. Perhaps you are able to.

    Or maybe God didn't grant it and someone just started making it up. I think this is a far greater possibilities. Your arguments shows the depth to which you must go to prove your point ... and it just doesn't hold water. Verse number and chapter numbers?? Surely you jest ... You argue for perfection while overlooking the fact that your "perfect Bible" had to be changed numerous times. Your argument simply doesn't work.

    As does mine.

    Using this figure of speech, you just showed an error in teh KJV. The word is dialudzo and it means to strain out (as in get rid of), not to strain at (as in try to reach). It is a clear translational error.

    Absolutely untrue.

    No one disputes this. But it is clearly not the only word of God on this earth. Any faithful translation shares a place of authority with the KJV.

    Of course. And most of those faithful will not be preaching from a KJV.

    In the end, you have shown us that your final authority is not the KJV, but rather history, chapter and verse divisions, lack of knowledge of history and translation, and repeated false statements. I stand where I have firmly stood, in the orthodox position that Scripture teaches. I shall not be moved by the attempts to persuade against that position. What Scripture teaches, I will affirm fully.
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I am interested at how you arrived at this conclusion. Are you implying that those of us who preach from a KJV have less faith than others? Will the Lord pass us by when He sees the KJV on our nightstand?
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the majority of believers (both now and in church history) do not speak English. However, even among English speaking people, the majority do not use the KJV, according to the evidence available today. Many of them might not be the fundamentalist believers that I think they ought to be but we cannot doubt their salvation simply because of that. However, the largest fundamental churches that I know of all use modern versions.

    Not at all. Simply commenting on the numbers involved.

    Nope, not if you have been saved by Christ.
     
  10. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you deny a baptist this privilege? If a bunch of baby-baptizing, non separation of church and state practicing, 17th century watered-down Roman Catholic theologians have the right to look at the original languages and translate it, I as a fundamental baptist who is a believer-priest with soul-liberty have a right to look at the original greek and translate it too. I refuse to let you tell me that I can't.
    Why thank you! I thought you'd see it my way!!! :D
     
  11. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems that Pastor Larry is posing valid questions that no one is willing to deal with. Remember folks, don't make accusations or assertions that you cannot support.

    Carry on....
     
  12. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Using this figure of speech, you just showed an error in teh KJV. The word is dialudzo and it means to strain out (as in get rid of), not to strain at (as in try to reach). It is a clear translational error.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Not so fast, Pastor Larry! I agree with you that in present-day English "strain out" is a better translation of "διυλιζοντες" (diulizontes) than is "strain at", and I hold no brief for the KJVO position, but I would need something more than your say-so to convince me that this criticism was valid in 1611. In the absence of evidence to back up your assertion, I would assume this case was like the use of "suffer" to mean "permit", i.e. a case of a shift in English usage over the centuries, rather than a translation error by King James' boys. And BTW I don't see where in Acts 17 KJV has "God" for "Κυριος" (Kurios).

    Haruo
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strain at and strain out are two different things. I don't live in 1611 so I can't really testify to what it meant then. And the people who read the KJV today don't live in 1611 so I can't see how it really matters. I have never seen anyone argue that strain at meant strain out. However, Scrivener (I believe) identified this as an error. The question is "What does the word mean?" ANy other translation is an error.

    Acts 19:20 -- my fault.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    As the years roll by and the Lord tarries our cherished KJV loses more and more of the Word of God to the past...

    Besides the example above (and many others), what do these Scripture mean to the 21 century soul?

    Psalm 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing:

    John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth...

    James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness,

    2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

    KJVO folks complain about words and/or verses deleted from the Scripture by the MVs (and rightfully so) , but these KJV passages are just as lost as if they had been deleted from the text. Yes, we know what they mean (perhaps) but what about the common man in his/her common (koine) language?

    HankD
     
  15. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth...

    James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness,

    2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

    KJVO folks complain about words and/or verses deleted from the Scripture by the MVs (and rightfully so) , but these KJV passages are just as lost as if they had been deleted from the text. Yes, we know what they mean (perhaps) but what about the common man in his/her common (koine) language?

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    Dear Haruo,

    Thanks for a very vivid way of bringing home the point. [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  17. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Tyndale and Geneva Bibles predated the KJV, and both rendered Mt. 23:24 as "strain out" rather than "strain at."
     
  18. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Tyndale and Geneva Bibles predated the KJV, and both rendered Mt. 23:24 as "strain out" rather than "strain at." </font>[/QUOTE]Absent contrary evidence, that's sufficient to convince me. (Though it's still possible that in 1611 "strain at" and "strain out" were synonymous, as "different than", "different from" and "different to" all are in 2003. I find "different to" bizarre, but in Britain many people think it's normal.)

    Haruo

    Haruo
     
  19. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    To my knowledge, no English version before the 1611 KJV had "strain at" as the translation of Mt. 23:34. (The Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and Douai Bibles all had "strain out a gnat;" Wycliffe has "cleansing a gnat.") It may have been a translation error on the part of the KJV translators, but most likely it was a printing error in the 1611 KJV that remained uncorrected in subsequent printings.

    [ April 04, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]
     
  20. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    DUPLICATE POST
     

Share This Page

Loading...