Would you consider your translation your final authority?

Peter Ruckman has a few as well: Manuscript Evidence is one.

You can see some others on: http://www.kjv1611.org/

You will get a lot of criticism about him and his works though, but it's worth it.

 

Reading a KJVO source to understand TC is like asking Catholics what Baptists believe.

Let the TC authors speak to you themselves before you enter into the realm of polemic.

 

See what I mean? They jump on Ruckman like bees to honey.

Now children, can you not let a man decide for himself, or are you fearful he will learn something you don't believe or like?

Who ridiculed your books? Stand down.

 

Este es correcto.:thumbs:

 

I will not stand down. Ruckman is not a mainstream textual critic. Reading Ruckman will not give someone a proper understanding of mainstream textual criticism.

If he wants to read Ruckman, that's fine. I don't care if he reads The Cat in the Hat. However, if he wants a basic, non-polemical understanding of textual criticism, he won't find it from Peter Ruckman.

 

As i look around my desk i see NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, and HCSB...and yes, that is my final authority (and the other accurate translations that i can pull of my shelf when needed).

 

Your right, Ruckman is a mainstream textual proponent.

 

Anytime. Just trying to be helpful.

 

Nice statement, but textual criticism is about finding the best text, not about destroying it, no matter what Ruckman and his ilk might say.

 

touche touche

 

Lets get back on track. This is not a Ruckman thread.

 

No, I haven't found any single English translation alone sufficient as the "final authority". The Holy Spirit must be the final authority for believers on Earth.

You may want to recognize that it is really your interpretation of that version's text that is your "final authority". Surely you have changed your opinion on a spiritual matter after being shown the 'true' interpretation. The text had not changed. It was your understanding that changed. We should strive to make our understanding the one He intended.

Almost from the very beginning of the Church age, the Christian fathers made use of more than one scripture version (Greek, Latin, etc.). God has allowed in Europe from the time of rising literacy and wider distribution (through printing), common English-speaking believers to have multiple versions in their mother tongue.

It seems to me that believing in a single translation as the final authority has led to some false or faulty doctrine usually based upon mistranslation or unclear translation that ultimately resulted in misinterpretation and misapplication.

I want to base my doctrinal authority for faith and living upon the Holy Spirit's guidance through the totality of available Biblical resources. This means prayer and objectively apealing to original language texts, multiple English translations, commentaries, dictionaries, pastoral teaching and wise counsel, before confirming the position.

I don't have to do it alone; much valid work has been accomplished by trustworthy leaders and scholars and made available through creeds and statements of faith, sermons, books, now often in digital format. If I did not have these resources, I would not be held responsible for gaining from them; but I do have them, and I must not be afraid to use them (Matthew 25).

 

Well said, franklinmonroe.

 

Thank you and amen.

(can't a guy suggest a book without getting thronged?)

 

No, I don't consider any of "my" translations as the final written authority. Since I use several translations, both newer and older ones, I consider all of them together as my final written authority. To me, citing JUST ONE as such a final authority is as citing JUST ONE BOOK from that translation as my final final written authority.

Just as God gave us our final written authority in 66 boox, He gave it to us in several versions, and in several editions within those versions. Collectively, this is my final written authority.

 

Elaboration on this concept may make it more vivid. Hypothetically, a person reads the KJV but believes in a 'salvation by works'; another person reading the NIV concludes that salvation is by grace through faith. Would this prove that the NIV-reader possess the only genuine final authority? God forbid!

Text just lays quitely between the pages, until some one opens it, reads it, comprehends and then take action upon it. History reveals that evil, as well as good, has been done with the assumed 'support' of scripture. Clearly, the text alone is NOT the final authority, but rather a proper Spirit-led interpretation of a text produces correct doctrine.

When a true Spirit-filled understanding can be communicated from the inky symbols impressed upon the surface of a thin sheet of wood pulp, I consider that translation genuine scripture. And since truth has been dispensed from many versions, I have concluded that none of these individual versions inherently has any more or less of God's authority behind it. However, that does NOT mean that I find all these translations of equal quality; I do esteem some higher than others.

 

Amen, amen and amen!

 

Very well said franklinmonroe. Missing from the debate on translations is the concept that one verse may have more than one valid meaning or application. I'm talking about general Biblical principles.

Knowledge of English grammar is also helpful, as well as the culture of New Testament times. This is where study comes in handy. When I campare my KJV (I assume this is the 18th century Oxford edition, not sure) to my American Revised Version of 1903 I find the idioms, vocabulary and sentence structure to be almost identical and yet I know that most folks did not speak English in that mannor in 1900.

We all agree that a literal word for word translation of the TR into English does not give us a readable translation. By default then, the translators must make some decisions regarding syntax and so forth. This is the reason why I use more than one version. The Holy Spirit though is the true translator of the scriptures for this believer.