What is your final authority?

What is your final authority?

The Spirit of God.

HankD

 

KJVBibleThumper:

Which King James Version edition is YOUR final authority? The Cambridge or the Oxford?

Also, why are you more than likely using an 11th or later edition of the 1611 KJV? Certainly you are aware that the one in your hand is probably from 1769 or later?

Enlighten us: Which KJV is your authority, and why?

Brian

 

A few posters (Orvie, Ransom) have already touched on this, but I wanted to comment further. There is a problem with the original question: it is based on a false premise. The false premise is that any single translation can be the "final authority".

First, nowhere are we told this in scripture. Thus, the claim that a single exclusive translation can be the "final authority" is made, not by an "authority", but by some men. Why should we accept this idea? By what "authority"? If only the KJV should be our source of doctrine, where did this doctrine come from? You need an authority external to the KJV to declare that only the KJV is authoritative. Contradiction.

Second, the concept of a "final authority" now, is based on the notion of preservation of scripture. Thus, if we have one now, there must have been one ever since scripture was written. A "final authority" must have existed throughout the history of the church. Naming any particular translation as the "final authority" creates problems when comparing that translation to everything before its publication. For example, while the KJV wasn't published until 1611, we must also believe there was a "final authority" in 1610, 1500, 1000, etc. And since there was a "final authority" before 1611, something published in 1611 or 1881 or 1901 or 1973 cannot exclusively be the "final authority", for it replaces and corrects the "final authority" that already existed - which it should not and could not have done by very definition of "final". If something was the "final authority" in 1610, it did not and could not stop being the "final authority" a year later. Final means final. Again, contradiction.

The "final authority" is that which can be consistently applied across the history of the church. See if you can figure it out. (Hint: any exclusive version suffers from the two contradictions described above).

 

Why in the 1611 is some words that need "s" use "f". "befide" "foule"(soul) "righteoufnes" "ftaffe" (staff) "fake" (sake)? Because the "s" was in the language "paftures" they add the "s" at the end but used a "f" in the middle of the word. I guess this is how God wanted His Word "for all time" to be written. And they hade to goe and meff it vp (up) in 1769.

 

All right you are always talking about how the MV's delete things here is a marginal note from tthe 1611 AV "Luke 17:36 This 36th verse is wanting in MOST of the Greek copies." And you criticize the MV's because most drop this verse. Your own version is saying it very well probably wasn't in the originals.MV's actually I know this is hard to understand but they USE the mss and don't just add everything under the sun.This verse is only found in the Latin Vulgate the RC kept text. So they rejected the Greek and went with the Latin Vulgate which is a Roman Catholic document. And your side is the one always saying the Roman Catholic church is behind all MV's . Well KIV used the vulgate how much more RC church can you get but by using there own "version" of the original? More questions that will be unanswered by the KIVO.

1611 KIV AV. by King Iames.

 

Yes, and the people of Israel held up Nehushtan as theirs. Not to mention the Baals, the Asherah poles,Tammuz, Molech, etc. All the work of men's hands. All bowed down to. All worshipped as the be-all and end-all.

Natters hit the nail square on the head.

You (and Michelle, and Askjo, and Anti-Alex, and who-knows-who) claim your 'final authority' is the King James Bible.

I, among others, claim God as my final authority. I do not elevate any one translation of Scripture above any other. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (2Tim 3:16 NKJV)

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Yes, ma'am, we do. We have it in spades, as a matter of fact. We have it in many different translations, and in many different languages.

You just have one, and need an interpreter to understand it. That is what a dictionary is, by the way.

It works just like testimony in court. Several eyewitnesses, each one tells it differently. But you can always tell the ringer, because his story doesn't ring true.

Determining God's word is easy, if you have the Spirit of God residing within. Without Him, it doesn't matter which translation you read, because it will not be understood anyway.

You first, sweetie. And do try to find something else to cut and paste besides the same old tired 'proof-texts' that you learned from Gail. See if you can find one that actually applies to the situation. (Hint: You won't find it, because there is not one.)

Again, that's easy. God is my final authority. I have multiple translations of His word, and He speaks through each and every one of them. Praise the Lord!

The Holy Spirit does lead, but not to where you say He does.

Things have been added to and taken away from the King James that were left out or added in by your precious, infallible Baptist-persecuting Anglicans.

God never said anything about this situation. I know, I know, Revelation 22:18-19. Read them. Really. Read them. They speak of the words prophecy of this (revelation) book. How do I know it is speaking of Revelation? Because John wrote it as a letter, and it was circulated as such, not bound together with the rest of the Bible.

No. No.

No.

Yes. No.

Simple. It is called discernment. It is given to the children of God by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Rev. 22:16
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to announce these things to you in the churches. I am descended from the family of David; I am the bright morning star." (Good News) (Emphasis mine)

Isa. 14:12
"King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground." (Good News) (Emphasis mien)

Bright morning star= Jesus
Bright morning star= Satan

Whose "bible is this

 

citizenofheaven, we've discussed that at length in another recent thread, you might find it interesting to read some of the posts there. You must remember that context is important, and that titles are not necessarily exclusive. Who is the "Son of man"? Who is the "king of kings"? It depends on context.

 

Hey citizen check this out

"And one of the elders saith unto me, weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof" Revelation 5:5 KJV

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your advesary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8 KJV (Thanks Dr. Bob )

Hey citizen how about actually reading your version before you run around pointing all your fingers at other versions. Your bible calls the devil and Christ lions.

 

--------------------------------------------------
citizenofheaven, we've discussed that at length in another recent thread, you might find it interesting to read some of the posts there. You must remember that context is important, and that titles are not necessarily exclusive. Who is the "Son of man"? Who is the "king of kings"? It depends on context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It has everything to do with rightly dividing the word of truth, to which in the Good news bible, one walks away thinking this morning star is Jesus = Satan. There are no verses of scripture, or passages of scripture that indicate there is a difference between the two. The KJB has it correct, as that passage is not properly translated and has translated morning star inappropriately in that text, and context as well. You continue to claim that the error is not an error, and you are clearly wrong. By the way, Satan is also never refered to as the son of man. In fact he is referred to as the son of perdition. Just as Satan is never referred to as the lion from the tribe of Judah. God does not refer Satan to himself. He makes a clear distinction from him.

Please stop excusing away such blashpemous errors in the mv's.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
All right you are always talking about how the MV's delete things here is a marginal note from tthe 1611 AV "Luke 17:36 This 36th verse is wanting in MOST of the Greek copies." And you criticize the MV's because most drop this verse. Your own version is saying it very well probably wasn't in the originals.MV's actually I know this is hard to understand but they USE the mss and don't just add everything under the sun.This verse is only found in the Latin Vulgate the RC kept text. So they rejected the Greek and went with the Latin Vulgate which is a Roman Catholic document. And your side is the one always saying the Roman Catholic church is behind all MV's . Well KIV used the vulgate how much more RC church can you get but by using there own "version" of the original? More questions that will be unanswered by the KIVO.

--------------------------------------------------



You are incorrect. The mv's are based upon corrupt Greek texts and different methods of translation, different from those to which underline and were used for the KJB and Bibles in English prior to it.

Now are you going to tell me that this verse does not belong there, even though it has been in the word of God for generations? and for centuries? Does God now take away from his words?

You might want to read the preface and editors notes from the KJB translators of the 1611.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "Please stop excusing away such blashpemous errors in the mv's."

We've been over this. If you want to continue to talk about it, let's do so in the other thread where it belongs.

KJVBibleThumper said "I will comment on one thing here and save the rest for later,the Bible was around before 1611,it just was not in the ENGLISH. Clear enough?"

No, not clear enough. The KJV differs from all previous to it, including other languages, so my point still stands.

KJVBibleThumper said "Does anyone here know what "apocrypha" means?"

It means of questionable authorship and/or authenticity. It comes from a Greek word that means "hidden" or "spurious".

KJVBibleThumper said "Umm,sombody help me out here, what is he saying? Im confused."

Yes, you are confused. His point was the same as mine: if the KJV is the only authority from which we should get doctrine, by what authority do you hold to the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? The KJV doesn't teach KJV-onlyism. Therefore you have a contradiction and have an external authority, namely yourself, required to teach this doctrine.

 

I have your the one saying the translators don't matter what the heck they just translated it what do they know. According to you nothing.