Question about final authority

1. YES

2. Bible Study formula:
Step 1. Pray and ask for the Holy Spirit's instruction.
Step 2. Read a passage in several respected versions, taking it all in context.
Step 3. Allow the Holy Spirit to show you what it means in your life.

 

1. Yes, absolutely.


2. The scriptures are the means to which we not only know our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but how to live in his will and live a spiritually healthy and happy life (1 Tim. 6:3, Titus 2:7). We are to prove all things according to the scriptures (Acts 17:11-13). The Lord has said that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Deut.8:3, Matt.4:4, Luke 4:4.) THe scriptures also reveal that they will not be broken (John 10:35). They also reveal that God is not a liar but truth (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2). We also know and believe the scriptures are the words of truth and that Jesus Christ is the Word of God, the word that was manifest in the flesh (John 1). There is no room for error or alterations in the scriptures, otherwise we have an error or alteration of our understanding of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. God has provided us his word of truth, the scriptures without error as he has the power and providence to do so (1 Cor.1), and promised that he would preserve them for every generation to help keep us from the words of the wicked (deception)- (Psalm 12,119, Proverbs 30). We also have the Holy Spirit of truth, who leads us to all truth through faith in, study of and obeying of his words (John 15,16,17). God has also told us not to add to, or take away from HIS words of truth (Deut.4:2, Prov. 30:5-6, Rev. 22:18). The mv's have evidenced that this has been done, and therefore I should reject them and warn of them, as my love for the truth and for others (2 Cor. 6). God has also said the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim.3:15). The churches have always had, and will continue to have the truth and the words of the Lord, abiding in thier hearts (John 5:38), minds, and daily life to live on this earth according to God's will, as our Lord's prayer strongly indicates:

Matthew 6

9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11. Give us this day our daily bread.
12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I support, and even require, the practice of using multiple versions on the basis of common sense.

Since the originals (yes, I know we don't have the original autographs, don't start that up) were in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and I don't speak any of those languages, I have to rely on TRANSLATIONS if I want to read the Bible at all.

I rely on "respected translations," those which have been done with good scholarship, and are commonly accepted in most of the evangelical community as being sound. Since the work of translation is as much an art as it is a science, using several of these "respected translations" helps shed more light on any given passage than just using one.

As far as I can tell, the Bible itself says nothing about translations. Those lost originals were written to be read by people who understood those languages. It was only after the Gospel began to spread that folks cared enough to begin to translate the Word into languages that ordinary people who didn't happen to speak Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek could understand. I praise God for them!

 

I believe scripture is authoritative. However, people still have to filter that scripture through our own understanding. So when people sincerely say they believe scripture, what they really mean is that they believe their understanding or interpretation of scripture.

That being said, I am a multiple version user for several reasons, but scripturally because 1. I see no scriptural support for any sort of "onlyism", and 2. I see the NT authors quoting the OT in ways that suggest they had multiple versions themselves, or a least a Bible that was unlike any we have today, and calling it "scripture".

Also, I would like to add that my view on using multiple versions is a preference. I do not claim this view to be a doctrine nor authoritative. Thus, I really need no more scriptural authority for my view than I do to support my preference for vanilla ice cream instead of strawberry - I am free to follow my preferences as long as I do not go against God's word in doing so. "Onlyism", however, is indeed a doctrine. Those who only prefer to use only the KJV are perfectly justified in following that preference, but once they take the next step and elevate their preference to a doctrine (a truth for the church in a matter of faith and practice), they have gone to far - for they have stepped outside of "authority" in doing so. A second, extra-Biblical authority is required to claim that only one version is the only authority - and a self-contradicting paradox is created. There is no authority for the doctrine of onlyism, and thus I cannot and will not accept it. Those that do, have accepted a doctrine from outside of their "final authority", plain and simple.

 

--------------------------------------------------
"Onlyism", however, is indeed a doctrine. Those who only prefer to use only the KJV are perfectly justified in following that preference, but once they take the next step and elevate their preference to a doctrine (a truth for the church in a matter of faith and practice), they have gone to far - for they have stepped outside of "authority" in doing so. A second, extra-Biblical authority is required to claim that only one version is the only authority - and a self-contradicting paradox is created. There is no authority for the doctrine of onlyism, and thus I cannot and will not accept it. Those that do, have accepted a doctrine from outside of their "final authority", plain and simple.
--------------------------------------------------


So are you basically saying that my belief that the scriptures declaring God was manifest in the flesh is false doctrine and not authoritative scripture? What about 1 John 5:7? What about Acts 8:36-37? And many more? Are these not scripture, nor authoritative, and to believe it is believing and teaching false doctrine? This is what I believe, and what the scriptures declare, to which is MISSING in the modern versions. You are truly confused as to what our position and belief truly is, as you have placed the Onlyism label upon the truth of the scriptures and clouded by the Label of the name (King James Bible) that has been attached to the scriptures. This is where you and many err.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle asked "So are you basically saying that my belief that the scriptures declaring God was manifest in the flesh is false doctrine and not authoritative scripture?"

No. I am saying your belief about status of the KJV is false doctrine, not based on authoritative scripture.

 

Russell asks:

1. Is the Bible our absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice?

AVL1984: Yes, it is, though the Bible is not limited to any one version or translation.


Russell asks:
2. If you answered yes to question 1, would you explain briefly what your view in this version debate is, and then give a brief explanation of how the absolute authority of the Bible works into your viewpoint on this matter of faith and practice?

AVL1984: I use the KJV as my Bible of choice, though I can and sometimes do use other versions and translations of the Word of God.
2 Tim 3:16 (NIV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
Scripture was inspired in its original form in the autographs. God has nowhere promised to preserve word for word in ANY one particular translation be it English, French, Spanish, German, etc. He instead has allowed us to have many versions that teach the same principles, doctrines, fundamentals and truths to help us to live our daily lives in a pleasing and acceptable manner to him.

Russell asks:

3. If you answered no to question 1, would you explain what absolute authority you do accept (if any) and how that authority works into your viewpoint on this matter of faith and practice?

AVL1984: This is not applicable since # 1 was a yes.

 

--------------------------------------------------
No. I am saying your belief about status of the KJV is false doctrine, not based on authoritative scripture.
--------------------------------------------------

The status of the KJV? Again, you are blinded by a label, rather than looking at the scriptures within in this issue. You do err because of this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

What he said!

 

Michelle, you state what you believe is missing in the MV's. Please, show proof of such a statement, because it is false. You keep referring to labels, yet you refuse to see that you label people who use MV's as "bible correctors", "unable to understand", "in error", etc. You do exactly what you accuse others of doing. This is the epitomy of hypocrisy. Nobody is trying to take away your faith in the King James VERSION. We are however calling you on your misrepresentation of those who use the MV's and the MV's themselves.

 

How so, Michelle? One can look in the NKJV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV and others and find the Word of God....the very Scriptures. How does one err by not accepting your position? Explain. Where are you outside historical sources to back up your position. Long rants of scripture can be posted by the MV side, too. It proves nothing, and that is why it is not done. Even in the court of law there has to be outside sources to prove validity, something which you refuse to acknowledge or see. YOU DO ERR!

 

YES

In reality? This debate has historically and primarily focused on whether or not modern translations are considered God's Word. Many KJVO groups (and also many MVers) will change any debate subject on translations into a KJVO vs non-KJVO theme. Did I say this is what it should be? No--there is room for arguments of this sort, but it should also contain threads that compare newer versions for accuracy, readability, etc. But, it seems like every thread is hijacked.

My version? Hmmmmm, if it is something that is contrary to the scriptures, there is a problem with it. In other words, if I were to say that "the Holy Spirit told me that Jesus was not raised from the dead". This would be an obvious falicy. This would be considered a later day revelation. God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. He does not change and the Bible introduced Him to us. Therefore it is the end-all of our relationship with Him.

Now, back to the first of the question, someone here is going to say: "But, my KJV is the only Word of God."

NA

 

--------------------------------------------------
Long rants of scripture can be posted by the MV side, too. It proves nothing, and that is why it is not done. Even in the court of law there has to be outside sources to prove validity, something which you refuse to acknowledge or see. YOU DO ERR!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


YOu err, as our logic and wisdom and truth is God's and comes from the scriptures and FAITH IN THEM! The FACT of the matter is that there are verses of scripture MISSING or ALTERED in the modern versions. You have said the scriptures I have used "prove nothing". Care to expound upon this false accusation? Or are you requesting that I use my own human reasoning and logic outside of my FAITH IN the scriptural truth? We are to prove all things by the SCRIPTURES, not our own intelligence or our own words or outside sources. We are exhorted to have the mind of Christ, not our own natural minds, or the wisdom of the world, to which is contrary to and in rejection of Christ.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Just can't help but making it a KJVO vs non-KJVO debate, can you? I predicted that in my answer, before I read your answer.

 

Only as long as it has the "KJV" label.

 

Michelle said "The status of the KJV? Again, you are blinded by a label, rather than looking at the scriptures within in this issue. You do err because of this."

No, I do not err. I have looked at the scriptures (i.e. which are authoritative) and none of them indicate that the KJV is textually inerrant and exclusive so. Thus the doctrine that it is, comes from somewhere apart from scriptures. It is a doctrine based on extra-Biblical, non-authoritative sources. That's the first problem. Combined with the fact that the doctrine itself is saying that only the KJV is authoritative in matters of doctrine, the doctrine inherently contradicts itself - it needs a second authority to say there is only one authority. That is the second problem.

How can you hold to a doctrine that is both extra-Biblical and self-contradicting?

 

No wonder the moderators get frustrated and shut these threads off. We have to keep defending our Bibles. . . rather than discussing them.

 

Natters, you ARE right, by the way. I just get tired of having to defend my scriptures because of extra-Biblical doctrine creeps in. That is the way cults are started. (And don't think the members of a cult don't believe in every single thing they are taught, even if it means drinking kool-aid.)