1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

By what authority?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by BrianT, Jan 19, 2004.

  1. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    873
    Faith:
    Baptist
    GrannyGumbo sez:
    So this brings us back to the original question; "By what authority? " :confused:
    It CANNOT be authoritative if there is no authority [​IMG]
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Back to the original question-The "authority" is clearly that of MAN to accept KJVO. Why? Because every last tenet of KJVO is man-made, and of fairly recent origin. The KJVO hollers that, although KJVO has no SCRIPTURAL support, neither do the MVs. However, there's a BIG difference. The KJVOs have proposed a doctrine that they say all should follow, and therefore have the burden of proof to show every other English BV wrong, and ONLY the KJV to be right, while we non-KJVOs simply reject their doctrine for lack of proof, while proposing no new doctrine of our own. The KJVOs have completely failed to meet their burden of proof.

    The Scriptures are over man; man is NOT over the Scriptures. Therefore when we say any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, we're recognizing that Scripture is our highest written authority, and that no man-made doctrine about Scripture that isn't supported by Scripture, either directly or by clear implication, is false.

    Therefore it doesn't matter if there's no direct mention in Scripture of MVs, since we're NOT making any new doctrine about Scripture, and there are absolutely NO prohibitions in Scripture against having God's word in our own language; in fact, Acts 2 SUPPORTS that idea, as God caused everyone in the crowd to hear the preaching in his own language, whatever it was.

    In conclusion-the authority for KJVO has been proven to be MAN, and therefore we reject it as a false, man-made doctrine.
     
  3. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear robycop3~I just found an edited post where you implied I called you a name by saying "robydoby"...I am sorry if that offended you; it's a term-of-endearment I call my daughter, Robin(Farmer's Wife), all the time, & guess it slipped-out...I meant no offense.

    Trying to "explain" this KJVO-thing reminds me of when I try to "explain" WHO God is to the Oneness/Jesus-only Pentecostals around here. They "claim" Baptists believe in 3 gods(whether they actually believe that, I don't know)...but I do know their concept of WHO God is, is WRONG.

    I've also noticed that trusting the KJBible only, sure does seem to upset a lot of folks. I just don't understand why it bothers everyone so much...some even get mad! "Maybe" they feel threatened or convicted?

    Don't know, all I do know is in everything, I use faith. If I were to actually acknowledge something else as being God's Word, I wouldn't have a clue where to start...do you read one & if you don't agree, switch to another, etc? That's confusing to me. I simply like my "straight stick", and I BELIEVE in it BY FAITH.
     
  4. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    But why? What authority exhorted you to have faith in this doctrine? Are you saying that besides scripture, your own personal conviction is also an authoritative source of doctrine?
     
  5. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Granny,

    Keep trusting the KJV; it IS God's word! No reason to NOT trust the KJV. What offends folks is saying that the bible that they read is NOT God's word. Your straight stick is fine as long as you don't womp antbody with it!
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Respectfully, the argument isn't whether a person can follow their own conviction to use or trust only one version. I don't know of anyone on our side of the argument who says you can't do that. Some might argue that the KJV has some problems or that in their opinion it isn't the best version to use. In the end, it is each person's prerogative and duty (individual soul liberty/priesthood of the believer) to use a Bible(s) that they trust.

    The argument arises when people who only use the KJV decide that everyone else is wrong/sinful/demonic/new age/etc for using a different version. Modern versions are declared something less than the Word of God because they don't match the KJV word for word. They would foist their opinion on others- without a biblical or historical mandate for doing so.

    You've made a false assumption. There are no doctrinal differences between faithful translations. There are a few word differences but they do not result in a different word from God.
    That's fine with me so long as you don't try to say that all other sticks are crooked.
     
  7. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Granny!
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's assume that you presume that the KJV was the only acceptible translation for its people in English of 1611.

    First, England's King's (or currently, Queen's) English of today no longer suitably resembles the Shakespearean English of 1611. Even then, it was hotly argued by people of 1611 that it was not written in common English spoken by commen Englishmen. Rather, many argued that it was written in English of nobility. Since the TR was written in koine Greek, or the common man's Greek, and not the Greek of aristocracy, it was argued that the people needed a biblical translation written in common English. King James silenced the detractors by making it illegal to own any bible except for a KJV.

    Second, I don't speak King James English, or even contemporary Queen's English. I speak American English, which is dramatically different than Queen's English. Hence, I deserve a Bible translated into my English, not the English of an empire that formerly ruled over us.

    Third, if you presume providence to believe that KJV was the only acceptible translation, then you believe that providence has been ongoing since the books of the OT were penned, and there's nothing to biblically support the idea that providence ceases after the publication of the KJV. Hence, it's completely reasonable to continue that line of thought to accept that the KJV was not the final translation by providence, and that providence is capable of bestowing to us another biblical translation after 1611.
     
Loading...