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.)
[sarcasm]Lack of scriptural support [/sarcasm]
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Lacy Evans, Jan 26, 2005.
Page 1 of 4
-
-
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. -
Natters, in your opinion then is the KJVO position a doctrine or an opinion?
Lacy -
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.
-
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 -
In my opinion 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. -
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.
-
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.
-
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 -
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. -
-
Why? BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENT!
HankD -
If this "scripture" is not the autographs, then what is it?
lacy -
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. -
-
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. -
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 -
lacy -
lacy -
Page 1 of 4