Final Authority

I have already answered your question. Your final authority is the inspired, infallible, inerrant, preserved word of God in the languages in which God inspired it. If you can't read those languages (and there is no excuse for a pastor to not be able to read them) you should find a well translated English version based on the best available manuscript evidence and believe it.

They are in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and texts as I already stated twice.

I already told you three times where the Christian's final authority lies.

For the fourth time, in the Hebrew and Greek inspired by God.

Actually I have found KJVOs to be completely disingenuous when answering that question. When they say "The AV1611" I ask them if they mean the edition of 1611 or one of the subsequent revisions. They never seem to answer that question. When I ask them questions regarding the over 400 changes from the edition of 1611 to the most popular editions of 1762/1769 they usually start by questioning my salvation or spiritual standing before the Lord.

Asked and answered four times already.

What other possibilities are there? You either put your trust in the words inspired by God or in the words translated by men. 1 Corinthians 2:5 "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

 

My pastor got on my case about being so aggressive. He told me to tone it down a bit. That is pretty hard for me, being a classic type A personality, but I am trying. Really!

 

Bartholomew, I will give you my answer although it is probably not according to the consensus of belief here at the BB.

To me the inspired "words of God" are found in the received or traditional texts of the Old and New Testaments, the Masora (ben Chayyim) and the Textus Receptus (Stephanus).

I believe that these texts are the most accurate representations of the originals and accept them as virtual duplicates of such seeing they come out of the historical school of thought of the Law, Prophets and Writings of Israel and the apostolic tradition of the Church.

Are they “perfect” in the sense that the KJVO define “perfect”, most likely not but I treat them as such. IMO, preservation is a cooperative work between God and man as is sanctification (unlike justification). Neither preservation or sanctification will be “perfect” in the KJVO sense until we see Him as He is.

While here on earth and in the final analysis IMO, one must come to this decision of choice of texts by faith (should it become a question of choice). Notice I said “I believe” (the essential ingredient of faith) in the previous paragraph. Some brethren believe otherwise. The Wescott and Hort theory (oldest is best, shorter reading is best) for instance is believed by others. Though I disagree with this theory as a blanket rule, I allow them the same Soul Liberty that I exercise and certainly disagree with the radical KJVO who demonize them.

HankD

 

Thanks, Hank, for your answer. I think your position has a great deal of merit. Do you mind telling me two things?

1. Why do you believe these texts are closer to the originals than other versions of the Masoretic and TR?

2. If new editions of the Masoretic and TR came out, would you reject them in favour of the ones you mentioned above? How would you decide whether to or not?

These are honest questions, and no, I don't want an argument about it!

 

Skan,

I don't understand what you are saying. You keep saying "the texts in the original languages". I am asking which texts. What are the preserved, unatltered, unrevised words that you believe in? This is not a trick question, but I get the impression that you're really arguing that the true words are contained within a variety of manuscripts, and we have to "pick and choose" which ones we consider genuine and which ones we don't. That is the position many MVers seem to espouse. However, I personally don't think this qualifies as a "final authority", and certainly doesn't seem to agree with your statement that we do know where God's unaltered words are.

However, I hope I'm wrong. I'd never seen a non-KJVO (except for HankD) ever tell me where he thought God's words really were - I was just wondering what you thought and why. I'm trying to learn. Thank you.

P.S. I am not a pastor, and I disagree that pastors have to learn Greek. It may be useful, but it's not one of the qualifications the Bible lays down. Pastors may have all kinds of legitimate reasons for not learning it.

 

The traditional texts. The ones in constant usage by the churches all down through the ages of church history.

I get the impression that you're really arguing that we have to "pick and choose" which English bibles we consider genuine and which ones we don't.

That is your position, to pick and choose between English versions. My faith is in the fact that God inspired the words in Hebrew and Greek, and preserved His inspired words in the traditional texts. Your faith is in the mere men who translated those inspired words into English.

Your English bible cannot be your final authority for it has undergone 28 editions and 4 major revisions. On the other hand, the traditional texts in Hebrew and Greek are unchanged over all the ages of church history. The Dead Sea scrolls proved that by comparing the DSS to the oldest Masoretic text (which dates to about 1,000 AD). They agree. My final authority has stayed the same for 2,000 years. Yours has changed 28 times. Mine is much better than yours.

I have told you 5 times!

No pastor has any excuse for being ignorant of the word of God.

 

The traditional texts. The ones in constant usage by the churches all down through the ages of church history.</font>[/QUOTE] Without trying to be antagonistic at all, I am kind of with Bart on this one.

There are variants within the "traditional texts" and some of them would effect doctrine to the same degree that differences between the CT and BT would.

I think Bartholomew is looking for one set of perfect words in the original languages, not simply a reference to original language texts or a text family.

I disagree with the whole premise of his question since it is apparent that God did not perfectly preserve a single set of words in any language. Nonetheless, I am sincerely interested in how you answer him.

 

Just as there are variants within the various editions of the KJV.

Then he will have to keep looking. Every Hebrew and Greek manuscript contains variants, just as every KJV printed contains variants.

I agree with you, but my answer to him stands. My faith is in the Hebrew and Greek words God inspired, and which He preserved in the traditional texts as opposed to the words man translated.

 

Skan, you seem to be being very antagonistic. I don't know why - I am trying to find out what you and others consider should be my final authority. I am genuinely interested. I am NOT telling you or anyone else what you should think.

Scott, I am not necessarily looking for an absolutely perfect standard. However, I am asking because this is what Skan implied he had. He wrote:

1. Which texts have not been changed, revised, etc.? The TR has undergone plenty of revisions, hasn't it?

2. What do you do when different TR manuscripts disagree? How do you decide which has the "unaltered, unrevised, unchanged" words of God?

3. Which edition of the TR should we take as the final authority?

Many thanks.

 

Somehow I posted this response in the wrong place.
(could someone with authority remove it from
"Word Changes and Deadly Translation concerns (Page 2)" ?

OK.

As I said, the final analysis requires a step of faith.

However faith IMO does not have to be devoid of study (2Timothy 2:15), research (Acts 17:11) the logic of reasoning (Isaiah 1:18) and prayer as well as the witness of historical evidence.

To me logic says that 2 witnesses (Aleph and B) are not sufficient against several thousand, (especially those which come out of the primitive/apostolic churches of Asia Minor) to make a decision based upon evidence. Others put more weight upon an early date and I can understand that reasoning.

First, I don’t know if “reject” is the correct word unless of course it were the product of a cult.. I would rather reconstruct the sentence using the word “accept” as the semantic driver.

Second, it would depend on the evidences (such as a discovery of a cache of mss (e.g. the Dead Sea scrolls or the Bodmer papyri)) as well as an exercise of the other decisive elements mentioned above.

Finally, what I can’t ignore is the evidences of the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of believers on both sides of this issue.

My philosophy therefore is “it is better to obey” the NT Commandment: “love one another” than to go to war with my brethren under the pretext of the “defense” of the Word of God” exchanging accusations, insults and innuendi.


HankD

 

Any perceived antagonism in my replies to you is only due to your own perception.

The Masoretic Old Testament text and the Byzantine New Testament text.

Yes.

I go to the Byzantine text.

I look at the underlying Byzantine text.

None. There are 30+ TRs, all different.

 

Hi Hank and Skan,

Thanks very much for your help.

Skan: when you say you "go back to the Byzantine text", which texts do you take as authoritative? How do you make your decision as to which readings you accept?

Oh, and BTW, what do you two think about the verses that aren't in the majority of manuscripts, but are in the TR? Like 1 John 5:7?

Thanks again.

 

I consider 1 John 5:7 as Scripture. It's Latin witnesses go back to the 2nd/3rd century, the Old Itala and the Vulgate along with several Latin fathers.

Actually it can be found in one form or another in a few late Byzantine mss.

HankD

 

I accept the Byzantine text as authoritative. How many more times do I have to say it?

Normally I would follow the Byzantine reading, but verse 7/8 is missing, in part, from the Byzantine text. I would not consider the comma canonical except for the grammar of the verse. If we remove the comma we introduce a grammatical error into the reading. If we leave the comma in, the grammatical error goes away. I am loath to accept a reading with so little manuscript support, but the grammar forces me to acknowledge something belongs there which contains a masculine noun, and the comma is the only reading I have seen offered which fills that need.

Also, leave the comma in, take it out, it does not introduce a theological error either way.

 

Skan, when you talk about "the Byzantine text", is this a published Greek text? Is it different from that of Stephanus (the one Hank believes in)? Or when you say, "the Byzantine text" are you refering to a number of different copies? If it is the latter, is there any particular copy you consider more authoritative? If/when they diverge, how do you decide which reading to take?

Also, what do you two think about that verse in Acts 8, when Philip tells the Eunuch he must believe with all his heart before he is baptised?

Thanks again...

 

Yes.

Yes.

No.

NA

Moot point.

 

When was the Byzantine text compiled? How is it different to the TR that Hank believes in?

Skan, why do you believe the Byzantine text and not, say, that of Stephanus?

 

The Byzantine text was, in my opinion, given by inspiration of God and faithfully and accurately copied by the Greek speaking churches down through the ages of history and exists today by the Providential preservation of Almighty God.

The Stephen's TR is one example of a compilation of some Byzantine manuscripts into a printed text. Like all compiled and printed texts, it contains compilation and printing errors. That is why over 30 editions were necessary.