Written authority?

And who, pray tell, is the Final Authority
on how pure a language might be?

Just off hand, seems to me the purest
langauge is that which is not spoken
nor written, people will just mess it up


[b}Praise Iesus! [/b]

 

citizenofheaven, that does not make sense. If they had a final authority in 1610, they didn't need to make the KJV - because the already had a final authority.

 

Citizen,

If you wanted an honest opinion, you could have had it. But apparantly this is but yet another KJVO "snare" laid to try to prove your sect's OPINION is right.

Yes, I have a final WRITTEN authority. It is the word of God, in any translation I choose to pick up.

I do not need to bow and worship the Baal of the KJV to have a final written authority.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Depending on your "inspired" decision on which bible to use I presume?

 

Prove it.

HankD

 

Thumper,

The only way you can try to prove that the KJV was inspired is through proof texts that can be applied to any translation of the bible, and by twisting those same scriptures to say what they were never meant to say.

You say the KJV is your written authority? So, it was your "inspired" decision? Or are you just parroting the same garbage that Ruckman and Riplinger spew forth?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Marcia,

I believe you got your answer as to the purpose of the question. And the beat goes on.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Yep [Big sigh]. (no Sigh icon, this will have to do)

 

This is also true for "faithful" German speaking Christians, Portuguese speaking Christians, Italian speaking Christians, etc., that's why we have translations -- into English, German, French, Chinese, Swahili, Norwegian, etc. God gave us brains and expects us to use them, like we do when we are able translate words from one language into another. It's not a mystical operation.

Who says? Why is 17th English pure? Who is the arbiter of "pure" language? Please explain.

 

Depending on your "inspired" decision on which bible to use I presume? </font>[/QUOTE]Scriptural proof that says 1611 is inspired please.

1cross+3nails=4given

 

Why do we need spelling revisions then. If it was so pure that would also include spellling. Wouldn't it.

1cross+3nails=4given

 

citizenofheaven said "Maybe I misunderstood, what are you saying the final authority was in 1610?"

Yes, you must have misunderstood, for it doesn't matter what it was, what matters is that it existed and the KJV is different from it.

Do you believe someone living in 1610 could hold a Bible in their hand and truthfully say "this is the final authority"? If so, why was that "final" authority replaced one year later by a different one?

 

A written authority in four versions A is singular, four is plural </font>[/QUOTE]I believe in the pure Words of God.

 

Words is plural

 

(1) The KJV does *not* always have the "same equivalence" to the original language texts. The KJV sometimes adds things that are not present in the original language text (e.g., the italicized words "the image of" in Rom. 11:4). The KJV sometimes fails to add things that actually *are* present in the original language text (e.g., the acrostic feature of Psa. 37 is missing in the KJV, even though it is present in Psa. 119 in the KJV). And the KJV sometimes poorly translates and even mistranslates words in the original language text (e.g., the poor translation "opening" rather than "torn open" in Mk. 1:10, or mistranslating the singular noun "word" as a plural "words" in Lk. 20:26).

(2) You are *already* "taking the chance of being decieved by modern day scholarship telling us that what their interpretations of it are now" by accepting the interpretations of the KJV translators over "what God had already wonderfully provided for English people" in the earlier translations by Tyndale and the Geneva Bible translators.

 

The Bible is our written final authority, of which there are many faithful translations.

Saying that we don't have a "written final authority" because we don't believe that one particular translation is "it" is something like claiming I don't have a wife if I have four different pictures of her.

 

That's an interesting question. Do you? You say it is the KJV of the Bible. However, you have never cited any scripture from the KJV that even remotely supports your KJVO beliefs. You aren't relying on God's written final authority... you are relying on something of purely human origin for your dogma.

BTW, I do have a final authority. It is any faithful version of the Bible. How do I know they are faithful? When they teach the same things.

How can differently worded Bibles be a single authority? Because they accurately express God's revelation in the original documents. If one of the bosses at my place of work asks me to do something and another one asks me to do the same thing using different wording... it would be foolish to question the authority of either.

It must be frustrating for hardcore KJVO's but the next request has to be.... prove that the KJV teaches doctrines that MV's do not. I am not requested examples of variants but rather doctrines that have been left out.

 

It seems odd to me that Christians who expect the Lord to keep His promises in regard to preserving their bodies perfectly, would think He might not keep the same promises when made about His word. The Bible says that not a hair on our head shall perish. We know this means that He is going to resurrect us, not that our hair is indestructible. When God promised to preserve His word, why should we not then expect Him to do such, even if that means resurrecting it from a period of darkness?

There are doctrines in the KJV Bible that are seriously watered down in other translations, such as the trinity. You say "The trinity is in my Bible, brother James, I don't know what your talking about!" I said it is watered down. The clearest scripture that proves the trinity is changed in modern translations so as to render it useless in proving the trinity.

1 John 5:7 {KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:7 (NIV) For there are three that testify:

If I, as a Christian, am supposed to look to God's word as my final authority, I must know what word to look to. God wouldn't have given the Israelites 20 prophets who agreed on most points but had differing opinions of some (so called) minor points, and then ask the Jews to pick which one they thought was the most reliable...

The Bible is God's word, and He esteems His word higher than His name. I can't believe that he would do otherwise than preserve His word, especially in these last of the last days.

 

James Newman said "It seems odd to me that Christians who expect the Lord to keep His promises in regard to preserving their bodies perfectly, would think He might not keep the same promises when made about His word."

I agree. The issue is not about whether God preserved his word or not, but whether the KJV is the exclusive and inerrant fulfillment of that promise. If it is, how was the promise fulfilled in 1610 if the KJV differs from everything before it?

James Newman said "There are doctrines in the KJV Bible that are seriously watered down in other translations, such as the trinity."

We cannot base translation on what "sounds better" to us personally. It must be based on examination of manuscript evidence. You mention 1 John 5:7, but you don't mention Jude 1:25. Why not? Has the KJV "watered down" the Lordship of Jesus, or his preexistence?

James Newman said "If I, as a Christian, am supposed to look to God's word as my final authority, I must know what word to look to. God wouldn't have given the Israelites 20 prophets who agreed on most points but had differing opinions of some (so called) minor points, and then ask the Jews to pick which one they thought was the most reliable... "

Apply that thinking to 1610 and earlier and see what happens.

 

I am not aware of anyone here that does not believe that God preserved His Word. It is the manner by which He preserved it that is in question. One side limits God to one English version... that has been revised 7+ times... that was created by comparing several versions as well as using one or more revisions of Erasmus' Greek text... which was collated from 6-10 different Greek mss... that were drawn from over 5000 differing Greek mss.

We can reverse this very argument and forward the sophism that the KJV waters down the doctrine of the deity of Christ (ref: Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1)

The question isn't whether a passage agrees with a doctrine we accept but rather if the passage is supported by the evidence God providentially preserved for the originals. We then draw our doctrines from there. The early church fathers established the doctrine of the trinity without ever citing 1 John 5:7 as it reads in the KJV. That is the strongest testimony I know of regarding whether it is original or not....that and the fact that it is lacking from every Greek mss prior to the 1500's.