KJVO Authority

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by neal4christ, Mar 25, 2003.

  1. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I saw it mentioned in another thread that MVers use their own mind as their final authority rather than the Word of God since they use MVs. I guess this statement is made because a MVer chooses to use a MV. But I must ask, how does one come to the conclusion that the KJV is the only Word of God without using his mind? After all, it is a choice someone makes. It is clear that even the KJV nowhere makes the claim to be the only Word of God, or even the perfect translation of the Word of God.Why is it okay to say a MVer's final authority is his mind when a KJVO makes a decision, just like the MVer? If someone could, please show me how to come to KJVOism without using my mind. Also, if someone could, please explain why KJVOs differ in interpretations of different passages, if they all use the KJV as the final authority and not their mind/thinking.

    Neal
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if one is a KJVO, the KJV is given no greater authority than any other translation.

    But there are many people who are KJV preferred who get lumped into the KJVO category. KJVP folks know the difference.
     
  3. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    perhaps it's more a question of emphasis. in my opinion the mv'er has to uphold the validity of each christian, relying on his own judgment, picking and choosing from all extant manuscripts and all possible definitions of all greek/hebrew words in their attempt to reconstruct the word of god. this provides, in many cases, plenty of wiggle room for many to effectively ignore or at least weaken whatever teachings they don't like. i have personally observed this with homosexual and feminst related issues.

    the kjvo position is based more on a reasonable yet ultimately faith-based acceptance of the king james translation. a greater emphasis is placed on submitting to a trustworthy authority rather than relying on and exalting one's own textual/linguistic abilities.

    but ultimately both groups exercise both mind and faith. imo, the modern versions / critical texts have the burden of proof to justify their extensive changes vis a vis the TR/KJV, and have failed to do so. modern godless theories of textual criticism will never supply a good enough reason to tamper with our received word of god.

    [ March 26, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you mean to tell me that the KJV is of greater authority than the Greek and Hebrew it came from? Heresy.
     
  5. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you mean to tell me that the KJV is of greater authority than the Greek and Hebrew it came from?

    than all possible, yet incorrect, misinterpretations of the correct greek and hebrew, and all incorrect greek and hebrew texts? yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.

    Heresy.

    should i be exceeding glad? [​IMG]
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm.... so the summation is that the texts the KJV translators used were imperfect, but the KJV they composed is perfect. Sounds Joseph Smith-ish to me.


    So if I want to come up with a "perfect" German Bible, should I use the same texts as a sourse, or should I translate the KJV into German? And which of there would be a "perfect" translation? Or maybe only the us English speaking folks were given a perfect tralslation. Of course, since Elisabethan ENglish is no longer the King's (or Queen's) Enslish, then it seems English speakers don't have a perfect translation in their language at all.

    Oh yeah, KJVOism makes total sense to me :confused: :rolleyes: :(
     
  7. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm.... so the summation is that the texts the KJV translators used were imperfect, but the KJV they composed is perfect.

    no, not really.

    So if I want to come up with a "perfect" German Bible, should I use the same texts as a sourse, or should I translate the KJV into German?

    neither you nor i can "decide" to make a perfect translation. i think a good, new translation in german would translate from original languages using the kjv to help select appropriate renderings.

    And which of there would be a "perfect" translation? Or maybe only the us English speaking folks were given a perfect tralslation.

    i have no opinion on other TR based translations, but given the history of the last 400 years does your supposition really seem so incredible?

    Of course, since Elisabethan ENglish is no longer the King's (or Queen's) Enslish, then it seems English speakers don't have a perfect translation in their language at all.

    this is a canard. everyone here can understand the kjv with minimal effort. imo, this age of apostasy would not be the best time to attempt an update of the language.

    Oh yeah, KJVOism makes total sense to me :confused: :rolleyes: :(

    your rolly eyes communicates to me that you can't believe how stupid i am. is that really what you intended to communicate?
     
  8. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    when did this start being true? By what authority do you say that the men in 1611 decided to make a perfect translation but men today cannot?? That doesn't seem to be based on good theological or logical reasoning.
     
  9. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 8:16.

    [ March 28, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...i think a good, new translation in german would translate from original languages using the kjv to help select appropriate renderings.
    And I think that a good german translation would tralslate from the original, regardless of the kjv or any other translation.

    i have no opinion on other TR based translations, but given the history of the last 400 years does your supposition really seem so incredible?
    That only English speaking folks were given a perfect translation? It sound not only ridiculous, but imperialistic.

    everyone here can understand the kjv with minimal effort.
    Then minimal effort will let anyone know that "We do you to wit" (2 Cor. 8:1) means "We make known to you." I suppose minimal effort will also tell anyone that "Let" means "to hinder" (it now means "to allow"), "Prevent" means "to go before" (it now means "to keep from happening"), that "Corn" means grain (not the crop grown today), or that "Brass" means "Bronze" (brass was not available yet). Or what about "Advertise" in Num 24:14, which meant to "advise", instead of the contemporary definition of solicitation via publication.

    imo, this age of apostasy would not be the best time to attempt an update of the language.
    Why not? Wouldn't this "age of apostacy" be the time when an updated version be most needed?

    your rolly eyes communicates to me that you can't believe how stupid i am. is that really what you intended to communicate?
    Not at all. It was meant to communicate my disapproval with the beief that the KJV is perfect and the only acceptible translation for the Christian.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 8:16 ... Polyversionism = Cult

    The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
    And this has what to do with versionism of any kind, be it poly or mono???
     
  12. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, JYD, but my ESV and NKJV have the same verse in them. So I guess it equally applies to the ESV and NKJV, right? Why is your choice more valid than mine? This is what I am trying to get at. No one has really answered the question. Does one not use his mind when choosing the KJV as THE translation? Don't you have to look at the evidence, history, and listen to someone else's views, and then make a choice? Or if you don't do that, don't you use it and make a choice at some point to do that? God did not appear to you or send an angel to reveal this to you, did He? And how do you explain different KJVOs with differing views of the same passages? KJVOs don't agree 100% on the interpretation of every passage, do they? If not, why? They all use the same final authority, don't they? Or could it be that their minds come in to play and they make a decision on an interpretation? Why is that not also trusting in themselves as their final authority?

    Neal

    P.S.-I don't intend to lump KJV preferreds in this group. The point I am making is that the KJVO position that MVers trust in themselves as the final authority is not valid because the KJVOs ultimately do the same thing by choosing to use the KJV exclusively.
     
  13. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has everything to do with the Spirit bearing witness to the truth;it's not rocket science.

    [ March 28, 2003, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]
     
  14. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, this verse says nothing about that, JYD. It talks about the Spirit bearing witness to us that we are children of God, not which version of the Bible to use. Good try, but total mishandling of Scripture.

    But if you want to play that game, the Spirit bears witness to me that many MVs are faithful translations of the Word of God. What do you do in this case? Are you better than me somehow? How?

    Neal
     
  15. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe to some extent. I use the NKJV primarily because I am not won over yet by arguments for the Alexandrian texts. On the other hand it could be that it is the KJV/NKJV/Byzantine texts that have added changes. 1 John 5:7 certaintly is an addition. Regardless neither family of manuscripts are heretical and there is no such thing as a perfect translation. Many KJV Only's are making the Anglican Church's authority greater than the Biblical writers when they claim KJV perfection and thus teach extra Biblical revelation.
     
  16. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now that´s funny. There is a new Translation in Germany based on the TR only. It´s a very good translation (even better that Luther´s version :eek: ) But: Many German Christians are not satisfied with the choice the translators made with some words and think that the words found in the KJV would be a better choice.

    Alex

    P.S.
    God bless America! [​IMG]
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I"ll never get used to calling Jesus "Mein Herr" (My Lord), but "Herr" is a more accurate translation of kurios than the Old English, "Lord". Today, we probably would have used "Master" (in the respective title sense), but referring to Jesus as Lord has stuck, even though many don't know what the word "Lord" effectually means, save the occaisional Madrigal Dinner or Renaissance Faire.

    But hey, whatever sweetens your coffee... or should I say, was macht dein koffee suiss.
     
  18. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    when did this start being true? By what authority do you say that the men in 1611 decided to make a perfect translation but men today cannot?? That doesn't seem to be based on good theological or logical reasoning. </font>[/QUOTE]The men in 1611 did not "decide to make a perfect translation"; they decided to do the best they could with the material they had to work with, and they were well aware of its imperfection (and of the implausibility of attaining complete and enduring perfection). They wrote an extensive essay to their readers that points this out. Of course, that essay is not canonical, not itself part of what we call the Word of God.

    Haruo
     
  19. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    when did this start being true? By what authority do you say that the men in 1611 decided to make a perfect translation but men today cannot?? That doesn't seem to be based on good theological or logical reasoning. </font>[/QUOTE]The men in 1611 did not "decide to make a perfect translation"; they decided to do the best they could with the material they had to work with, and they were well aware of its imperfection (and of the implausibility of attaining complete and enduring perfection). They wrote an extensive essay to their readers that points this out. Of course, that essay is not canonical, not itself part of what we call the Word of God.

    Haruo
    </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. I was pointing out the inconsistency of arguing that we can't decide to make a perfect translation while arguing that there is a perfect translation that someone made in times past.
     
  20. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. I was pointing out the inconsistency of arguing that we can't decide to make a perfect translation while arguing that there is a perfect translation that someone made in times past.

    no inconsistency. the kjv translators did not decide to make a perfect translation. it was the providential work of god. can i prove it? no. i can't prove jesus was resurrected either. it's a matter of faith.
     

Share This Page

Loading...