[sarcasm]Lack of scriptural support [/sarcasm]

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Lacy Evans, Jan 26, 2005.

  1. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    All other reasons aside, I believe the "Autograph-Only" myth to be false because it's not supported by SCRIPTURE whatsoever, in the text of any other version ,in the AV/KJV itself, let alone by the commentary by its translators.

    For a doctrine of Christian worship to be valid, it MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE, either direct or by implication. Roby has often cited the Holy Trinity doctrine as an example of a doctrine of implication. However, there's not even a HINT of any such implication supporting the "Autograph-Only" myth. This fact alone relegates the whole "Autograph-Only" doctrine to myth status, and any attempts by "Autograph-Only" advocates to defend this myth for any other reasons are built upon a foundation of quicksand. [irony] If it's not found in SCRIPTURE , it's not valid. [/irony]

    Several posters, including myself, have repeatedly asked for Scriptural support for the "Autograph-Only" myth, and have never received any direct answer. This question is avoided by the "Autograph-Onlyists" like Mad Cow Disease. let's address that fact directly in this thread, and when it's finished, let's see if any "Autograph-Onlyist" can still justify the "Autograph-Only" myth.

    (I love you Roby, but it's hard for mr to pass up an opportunity to be sarcastic.)
     
  2. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. "Autograph-onlyism" should not be a doctrine. If someone were to be of that opinion, I would disagree but respect that.

    Scriptural support needs to be provided for doctrines.
     
  3. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natters, in your opinion then is the KJVO position a doctrine or an opinion?

    Lacy
     
  4. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    It depends on how it is held by the person claiming it. If it is held like a doctrine (or explicitly or implicitly imposed on others as God's truth), it has to be defended like a doctrine (i.e. scripturally). If it is held as a personal preference, no problem.
     
  5. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the finality of the closed 66 book canon a doctrine or an opinion? In my opinion, it is the same type of issue with no scripture on either side. (ie. no verse says, "Thou shalt close the list of Bible books at 66", yet we all believe it and defend it.

    Lacy
     
  6. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my opinion [​IMG] it is a quite different issue. First, I don't really think canon should be considered doctrine in the pure sense of the word, for two reasons: 1. different branches of the church (and in different time periods) have different canons, and 2. authority is required to establish doctrine. For Protestants, it is more of a general consensus, and recognized corporate "preference" and not and infallible assertion.

    For most Protestants (I include Baptists in this group for the sake of discussion), the only authority in matters of doctrine is scripture. Thus things like canon should not be considered doctrine. For other groups, like the Catholics or Orthodox who view the church itself as also authoritative, they can logically define and defend their canon as a doctrine - for doctrine requires authority to back it up.

    For a Protestant to make canon or KJV-onlyism or saying grace before meals or no pants on women or no swimming on a Sunday into a doctrine, they have to be able to demonstrate clearly the legitimate, recognized authority that teaches that. Since the scriptures are the only authority for most here, then scripture needs to be produced when doctrine is asserted and challenged.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    At least Bro Lacy has the courage to tell us exactly which KJV edition he holds as perfect. I can almost understand that point of view and it is not duplicious.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but I have posted 55 previous times that I would like to see scriptural support for KJVOism. No one has ever posted such support. You'd think that someone would have been able to help me out here.
     
  9. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Forgive my elipses, Natters.) I agree somewhat. However, it is obvious that when debating a Mormon, a Catholic, a Hebrew Roots guy, (even an athiests) etc, that when "other authorities" are brought into the equation, we Baptists must defend the Canon. Based on what? Scripture? That would certainly be circular.

    So it stands to reason that there is another kind of "authority". How do we heed that words of the prophet if we know not whether he be sent from God?

    How do we know that the Christian witness in general is true? Again, if we said, "the Bible tells me so", it would be circular. (I know the Bible is true because the Bible says so.)

    This same "authority", based on the fruit, the power of the internal and external witnesses displayed over time, is what moved us toward the Holy Scriptures and toward the exclusion of other prophets, holy writings, and religious systems.

    Now granted, the Bible is our final authority but God would not leave us without evidence and assurance that it is the correct "final authority". The Bible itself offers critical, global tests that can be applied to all "authorities". Fruit, specifically defined and illustrated. The truth will bear certain marks of God and will produce abundant fruit when accepted and applied.

    I don't have a scripture to support KJV onlyism. I never did, never will. I also have no scripture to support the absence of the "Epistle of Barnabus" (or whatever) from between the covers of my Bible.

    You have no scriptural support for the idea that only the autographs were/are inspired.

    It's a wash. So where do we go?

    Lacy
     
  10. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but I have posted a kazillion previous times that I would like to see scriptural support for Autograph Onlyism. No one has ever posted such support. You'd think that someone would have been able to help me out here.


    Kicking a dead straw man.
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    The general approach is simply consensus. The church is the "pillar and ground of the truth", so if the church in general or a specific branch of the church holds strongly to a position such as canon, one should accept it or have very defendable reason to disagree.

    Scripture tells us how.

    Faith. But personal faith is not corporately authoritative, nor enough to establish/proclaim universal doctrine.

    Then it would be wrong to authoritatively establish/proclaim these as doctrines, for you have no authority to establish/proclaim extra-Biblical doctrine in the first place.

    That is correct. That is why I do not hold that idea as a doctrine (even if held that opinion in the first place, which I also do not).

    First you need to find someone that holds to that as a doctrine. Maybe someone else here holds to that as doctrine (I do not, not even as a preference/opinion).
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    I am AO.

    Why? BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENT!

    [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  13. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natters,

    If this "scripture" is not the autographs, then what is it?

    I simply maintain that the same "defendable reasons" that apply to the Canon, overwhelmingly apply to the KJVO position as well. The KJV leaves an incomparable trail of holiness, revival, and illumination.

    lacy
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, I don't know of anyone who has adopted the "Autograph Only" position if you are referring to the Word of God.

    If you are referring to the "words" inspired by God then there is specific scriptural support.

    First, the penmen of scripture are specifically qualified by scripture. The last qualified individual to receive direct inspiration was John, who died 1900 years ago... unless of course you believe in modern day prophest and apostles in which case we can throw the Bible out altogether. Maybe let Benny Hinn tell us what God says.

    Second, all scripture is God breathed through those specific writers. This gives those particular original words a level of perfection unique to them. They are actually words spoken by God through a writer.

    He did not choose to speak through the copyists. He did not choose to speak through the translators. No individual in either group is qualified to receive inspiration. The works of these people have variation in wording.

    If they were operating under any kind of divine/providential guidance, it is evident that God's intent was not to produce/preserve a single set of "perfect" words.

    If it were, He could have just as easily had the originals chiseled into stone and preserved in a shrine.

    As important as those original words obviously are, it is the message communicated by those words that God has chosen to perfectly preserve- not that single set of words.
     
  15. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is all scripture. It is the originals. It is the scripture that Timothy read as a child (probably something akin to the Septuagint, in my opinion), it is the Vulgate, it is the Textus Receptus, it is Wycliffe's, the Geneva, the KJV, Young's, the ASV, the NIV, etc. It is the French translation, the German translations, the Japanese translations, etc. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. However, note that the verse does NOT say that that all scripture is copied or translated or printed by the inspiration of God.

    I disagree. The canon is universally recognized and accepted by the church in general. KJV-onlyism is not, it is a fringe extreme position, far from the norm and general acceptance. Canon is accepted by virtually everyone in the Protestant church. KJV-onlyism is not held by virtually everyone in the Protestant church. If anything, the rejection of KJV-onlyism is what should be compared to when looking for support from the canon argument.
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    The canon of scripture was also qualified. One of those qualifications was apostolic authority.

    Scripture does not define the canon. But that doesn't mean that the canon was arbitrarily determined or separated from scriptural principles.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    Some translated Scripture is inspired. The NT translates OT Scripture from Hebrew to Greek. But they differ in the KJV English with additions/deletions of words, differences in grammar and number, etc.

    And this raises a very relevant question.

    If the KJV (or object of any Onlyism) is the reinspiration of God into a Bible of unified language (such as 17th century English) why aren't the quotes (OT vs NT) word-for-word the same?

    HankD
     
  18. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't quite understand the distinction you are making. Either the Autographs are inspired or "scriptures" are inspired. We obviously disagree.

    I am always pressed for scriptural support, yet there is none for this "doctrine". Does the Bible say, "Thou shalt recieve no other prophet after John?" I believe it, but it's not directly stated in the Bible.

    The first sentence is scriptural. The rest is conjecture.

    This is absolutely antithetical to the common definition and application of the term "scripture" as it is used throughout the Bible. "Scripture" always refers to copies, translations, etc. and never once to autographs.

    Timothy had a set of "perfect" words. 2 Tim. says so.

    That happened a couple of times in the OT and God held those "originals" in no higher regard than the copies that didn't get smashed against the side of the mountain. "Scripture" takes precedence over autographs.)

    You force yourself to believe that because of the other precedents you have embraced. Yet this is not scriptural

    lacy
     
  19. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have a Biblical precedent for believing the canon is limited to 66 books based on "general acceptance" by "virtually everyone"? I accept the 66 books but for other reasons. You will know the prophet by his fruit. (Matt 7:15-20)

    lacy
     
  20. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I absolutely agree, but my point is that, in my opinion, those "scriptural principals", when clearly studied and defined will also establish that God also defined and sanctified by obvious and overwhelming fruit the actual words of the books in the canon.
     

Share This Page

Loading...