What is Scripture ?

[francisdesales]

Francis, I hope you are aware of the major differences between the KJV only fundamentalists of recent times and those of reformation theology (or close to it). Have you considered that Geo is not even aware of the sola scriptura debate? The paragraph you wrote has more to do with me then Geo.

The KJV only people are just a more extreme group of the sola scripturist group. They have taken things to its logical conclusion. They are related in that they rely on the Word of God as the only means of knowing matters of Christian faith. Thus, the KJ only are looking for the "pure" Word of God to execute "pure" sola scriptura from...

"if i only had the 'true' Word of God...

The essence of your thinking is in your words that I bolded, "which we cannot absolutely verify." The irony of this thinking is how similar you are to the KJV only fundamentalist, and how different you both are from me.

you are missing my point, which is that we do not HAVE to rely upon the "absolutely verifiable" Word of God!

I don't need to run around and worry whether I got a perfect Bible. I am satisfied with what I have as accurate enough. The CHURCH is the continuation of the ministry of Christ, not the Bible. Thus, I don't worry too much about what the precise wording "really was" (which cannot be known in many cases). I listen to God through what the Church tells me - this is how the faith is passed on, not by the "purity" of Sacred Scriptures.

Both you and the fundamentalist presupposes the need for "absolute certainty."

Quite the opposite! This is why it IS "faith", because I believe something that is not absolutely certain! Recall the biblical definition of faith in Hebrews. We DO NOT have absolute certainty! And don't think for a second that because there is infallible tradition, that ALL that can said about a Transcendent Being has been said...

For example, the current word that best describes what happens at the consecration of the host at the Eucharist is called "Transubstantiation". In the future, a better word may be devised that better explains what we already believe what happens... As we grow in our knowledge of God and plumb the depths of what He has revealed, we learn more about Him and can explain it better. Thus, "all" has not been said about the faith.

You claim certainty in your infallible tradition, and the fundamentalist claims certainty in his KJV only position. I must admit that I do not have "absolute certainty," neither do I see the need for it.

I don't claim "absolute certainty", I agree with you here on the need, but I do require "moral certainty", one where I build upon rock, rather than propositions or proposals...

So then your claim that sola scriturist have an issue with the fact that we do not possess the autographs is not accurate.

The logical conclusion of the sola scripturist LEADS TO the extreme we call "King James only".

With all of that said, I hope you remember my stance, in line with the Church, that this has nothing to do with whether a person is saved, etc...

Regards

 

[Geo]

Let's read something we didn't already know:


Bible Versions

Which is the REAL Word of God?

King James Version, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version,
Weymouth Bible, Moffatt Bible, Knox Bible, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Living Bible,
Amplified Bible, New American Standard Version, Good News For Modern Man, New Scofield
Reference Bible, New International Version, New World Translation, New King James Bible. etc.

download: http://www.easy-share.com/1909063039/BibleVersions.pdf



Another Bible Another Gospel

download: http://www.easy-share.com/1909063072/An ... Gospel.pdf

Just saw that these 2 books download without file ending through that website.

The Fix: After download, right click the file - select "rename" and give it a ".pdf" ending

That will do it.

 

[Geo]

I respectfully disagree with looking at this in terms of labels. To such ideas I have to ask the simple question that I also would have asked David B Loughran if he hadn't had a massive heart attack at the age of 65 years that gave him time to study and consider the facts. And that is: What is wrong with the VERY IDEA to have 20 Bibles (that he used) but there is (just) 1 God ? Think about it. Start from His side, not from people's interest groups.

Did you hear anyone ever use a term like "God only" and regarded it as an "ism?" "Hey you are GodOism !" That would be great compliment, LOL !

We can understand why people come up with a term such as "KJVOism", it's a view of looking at human works and then trying to discern which of these works could be divine. A pluralistic humanistic scholarship cannot accept that there is 1 God and 1 Holy Bible. That would be too simple and straight forward.

"If there was" just one God that cannot deny Himself and cannot change, and as a conclusion did give us His words in only 1 Bible we could not escape a final authority. While we pretend to be confused about the issue we give ourselves room to reject any final authority, and by knowingly or unknowingly doing so we set ourselves in that seat of final authority.

 

[francisdesales]

I respectfully disagree with looking at this in terms of labels. ... Start from His side, not from people's interest groups.

I understand that desire. However, there WAS an "official" Scriptures, for quite a long time in the Church, called the Latin Vulgate. The Douay Rheims is the English interpetation. Today, there are several accepted translations (from my point of view), but only one translation is proclaimed during Divine Worship. The community worships the Lord using ONE set of Scriptures. Others accepted are useful for study and devotion.

The desire to cite someone with obvious bias towards all but "King James only", to me, is serving a particular interest group, with all due respect...

Did you hear anyone ever use a term like "God only" and regarded it as an "ism?" "Hey you are GodOism !" That would be great compliment, LOL !

Point?

We can understand why people come up with a term such as "KJVOism",

Who is "We"???

Seems you are indeed labeling yourself, now.

"If there was" just one God that cannot deny Himself and cannot change, and as a conclusion did give us His words in only 1 Bible we could not escape a final authority.

The truth, however, is that God gave us a "Church" with divinely instituted authority, (according to the historical writings that are often called "the Bible" and if you believe Jesus was indeed God) and this organization wrote the inspired Word of God, accepted it as such, collated it and compiled it into what we now call "the Bible". To accept the later's authority but not the former's is foolish, in my mind. History has shown that one cannot exist without the other.

Regards

 

[Benoni]

This is what you get when you trust man and his religion and reject God's spirit of truth.

I respectfully disagree with looking at this in terms of labels. ... Start from His side, not from people's interest groups.

I understand that desire. However, there WAS an "official" Scriptures, for quite a long time in the Church, called the Latin Vulgate. The Douay Rheims is the English interpetation. Today, there are several accepted translations (from my point of view), but only one translation is proclaimed during Divine Worship. The community worships the Lord using ONE set of Scriptures. Others accepted are useful for study and devotion.

The desire to cite someone with obvious bias towards all but "King James only", to me, is serving a particular interest group, with all due respect...

Did you hear anyone ever use a term like "God only" and regarded it as an "ism?" "Hey you are GodOism !" That would be great compliment, LOL !

Point?

We can understand why people come up with a term such as "KJVOism",

Who is "We"???

Seems you are indeed labeling yourself, now.

"If there was" just one God that cannot deny Himself and cannot change, and as a conclusion did give us His words in only 1 Bible we could not escape a final authority.

The truth, however, is that God gave us a "Church" with divinely instituted authority, (according to the historical writings that are often called "the Bible" and if you believe Jesus was indeed God) and this organization wrote the inspired Word of God, accepted it as such, collated it and compiled it into what we now call "the Bible". To accept the later's authority but not the former's is foolish, in my mind. History has shown that one cannot exist without the other.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

This is what you get when you trust man and his religion and reject God's spirit of truth.

What is "this"? I am not following, since I am quite content with my Bible, nor do I gainsay most other versions of it...

And of course, Christianity is absolutely based upon the witness of man, whether you want to admit that or not...

Regards

 

[mondar]

The KJV only people are just a more extreme group of the sola scripturist group. They have taken things to its logical conclusion. They are related in that they rely on the Word of God as the only means of knowing matters of Christian faith. Thus, the KJ only are looking for the "pure" Word of God to execute "pure" sola scriptura from...

"if i only had the 'true' Word of God...

The KJV only people have much more similarity to the RCC then to anyone in the reformed spectrum. Most of them are very synergistic in their soteriology just as you are, in matters of authority they have a great need for absolute certainty as do you do. As for them relying on the word of God, the RCC also claims the scriptures as a part of their tradition. Most KJV only people are thick with tradition also.

People in the RCC plainly state that they consider their own tradition infallible. KJV only people deny that they have any tradition at all, and yet they are thick with heavy tradition. How do you think they arrive at the KJV only position in the first place? Ask the KJV people of they follow the reformed teaching (tradition) of sola scriptura. You will get many confusing replies.

You might think because of people like Jack (I forget the last name--- they guy that writes anti RCC tracts), that they are somehow similar to we in a more Calvinistic tradition. They will respond quicker against a Calvinist then they will you in the RCC.

I must say I have a very different perception of the KJV only movement then you do, and often see them to be more like you then you seem to recognize.

I have to go for now.

The essence of your thinking is in your words that I bolded, "which we cannot absolutely verify." The irony of this thinking is how similar you are to the KJV only fundamentalist, and how different you both are from me.

you are missing my point, which is that we do not HAVE to rely upon the "absolutely verifiable" Word of God!

I don't need to run around and worry whether I got a perfect Bible. I am satisfied with what I have as accurate enough. The CHURCH is the continuation of the ministry of Christ, not the Bible. Thus, I don't worry too much about what the precise wording "really was" (which cannot be known in many cases). I listen to God through what the Church tells me - this is how the faith is passed on, not by the "purity" of Sacred Scriptures.

Both you and the fundamentalist presupposes the need for "absolute certainty."

Quite the opposite! This is why it IS "faith", because I believe something that is not absolutely certain! Recall the biblical definition of faith in Hebrews. We DO NOT have absolute certainty! And don't think for a second that because there is infallible tradition, that ALL that can said about a Transcendent Being has been said...

For example, the current word that best describes what happens at the consecration of the host at the Eucharist is called "Transubstantiation". In the future, a better word may be devised that better explains what we already believe what happens... As we grow in our knowledge of God and plumb the depths of what He has revealed, we learn more about Him and can explain it better. Thus, "all" has not been said about the faith.

You claim certainty in your infallible tradition, and the fundamentalist claims certainty in his KJV only position. I must admit that I do not have "absolute certainty," neither do I see the need for it.

I don't claim "absolute certainty", I agree with you here on the need, but I do require "moral certainty", one where I build upon rock, rather than propositions or proposals...

So then your claim that sola scriturist have an issue with the fact that we do not possess the autographs is not accurate.

The logical conclusion of the sola scripturist LEADS TO the extreme we call "King James only".

With all of that said, I hope you remember my stance, in line with the Church, that this has nothing to do with whether a person is saved, etc...

Regards

 

[mondar]

The essence of your thinking is in your words that I bolded, "which we cannot absolutely verify." The irony of this thinking is how similar you are to the KJV only fundamentalist, and how different you both are from me.

you are missing my point, which is that we do not HAVE to rely upon the "absolutely verifiable" Word of God!

I already agree that we do not have to rely on an abosolutely verifiable autograph. I believe I said we rely on a relatively verifiable autograph, and that is sufficient. My first post was a denial of the need for "absolute" verification. I was pointing out that it is only the RCC and KJV positions require anything absolute. I was also pointing out the fact that even in relative verification of the autographs there is no doctrinal issues from any autograph debates.

The CHURCH is the continuation of the ministry of Christ, not the Bible. Thus, I don't worry too much about what the precise wording "really was" (which cannot be known in many cases). I listen to God through what the Church tells me - this is how the faith is passed on, not by the "purity" of Sacred Scriptures.

Of course here we disagree quite strongly here. You are here replacing sola scriptura with sola ecclesia.

Your support for sola ecclesia is this........ You seem to think that every line of scripture has a textual issue that cannot be resolved. You are actually ignoring the issue of relative certainty that the reading of the autographs can be established. You seem to think of this as an "all or nothing issue." Your idea seems to be that if we do not have "absolute certainty" what the autographs said, then the only other position is that we are "absolutely clueless." I am saying that in parts of your thinking there is a false dichotomy. I am asking for relative certainty of the reading of the autographs. I see no need for any more then relative certainty. Thus it is you and the KJV onlyist that see the need for "absolute certainty." Not me.



Francis....
As I have been writing, I am also thinking of the issue some more. Something just occurred to me. This may sound impulsive, but do you realize that there are varieties of positions among the KJV only people? At the one end of the KJ only spectrum they could be seen as somewhat closer to me. At the other end, I think they are much closer to you.

The writer of the OP, might be somewhat closer to me. It would be interesting to explore it. See if he even knows what sola scriptura means. If you engage him, few KJ only people can defend sola scriptura. I would be willing to guess with the KJ group you will find those who deny sola fide, sola gratia, and many others like that. Some might accept some more Calvinist/Reformed positions.

However, I do perceive that we have very different views of Armianian KJ only theologies. When we discuss sola scriptura, why do you think the KJ only people are so silent? If we discuss free will, synergism, the nature of the atonement, the nature of grace, dont you see how Arminian KJ only people will side with you against protestants?

 

[francisdesales]

The KJV only people have much more similarity to the RCC then to anyone in the reformed spectrum. Most of them are very synergistic in their soteriology just as you are, in matters of authority they have a great need for absolute certainty as do you do.

Mondar,

I believe you are changing the subject and going beyond the conversation here.

We are not speaking of KJ-only doctrines, per sec, (because they are not confined to one particular denomination) but THE doctrine of KJ-only, that the KJ is the only Word of God. The desire to seek out this "perfect" Bible stems from taking sola scriptura to its logical conclusion.

We are not speaking about comparing KJ-only and their thoughts on double predestination or preseverance of the saints or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - as if they were a monolithic group (The First "KJ-only" church?).

As for them relying on the word of God, the RCC also claims the scriptures as a part of their tradition. Most KJV only people are thick with tradition also.

That might be so, I don't know. I hadn't considered that "KJV-only" people had other common doctrines, as if they themselves were a common denomination. I was under the impression that any Protestant could be KJ-only, no matter what their affiliation...

People in the RCC plainly state that they consider their own tradition infallible.

That is not an accurate statement. Much of our tradition is NOT infallible.

You might think because of people like Jack (I forget the last name--- they guy that writes anti RCC tracts), that they are somehow similar to we in a more Calvinistic tradition. They will respond quicker against a Calvinist then they will you in the RCC.

Again, I do not see "KJ-only" as a denomination with its own creed, except that "KJ is the only legitimate Word of God". Beyond that point, polar opposites could hold this same idea, such as a person of the Reformed tradition and an Anglican...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I already agree that we do not have to rely on an abosolutely verifiable autograph. I believe I said we rely on a relatively verifiable autograph, and that is sufficient. My first post was a denial of the need for "absolute" verification.

Which is why I said you were missing my point, because I was NOT claiming I require absolutely verifiable autographs! A Catholic (which you are by your baptism) doesn't need that when he has access to the Living Tradition.

I was pointing out that it is only the RCC and KJV positions require anything absolute. I was also pointing out the fact that even in relative verification of the autographs there is no doctrinal issues from any autograph debates.

Point taken. Agree with second statement.

The CHURCH is the continuation of the ministry of Christ, not the Bible. Thus, I don't worry too much about what the precise wording "really was" (which cannot be known in many cases). I listen to God through what the Church tells me - this is how the faith is passed on, not by the "purity" of Sacred Scriptures.

Of course here we disagree quite strongly here. You are here replacing sola scriptura with sola ecclesia.

Not at all. I take both the Bible and the Church. "Sola" implies that the Bible is of no authoritative value, which is a poor thing to say, if you actually claim to read my posts and know me... The Church, besides being the place where I experience the Risen Christ, helps me to know the Word of God's meaning in those very Scriptures.

You seem to think that every line of scripture has a textual issue that cannot be resolved.

You think wrong. When have I said that EVERY line needs such resolution? I see nothing in John 6 that needs "resolution". It is perfectly clear, though a hard teaching for some whom God has not called, since only by this calling can we even have the faith in this teaching...

Your idea seems to be that if we do not have "absolute certainty" what the autographs said, then the only other position is that we are "absolutely clueless."

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion... My position does not require absolute certainty because I accept the Church's witness that we have Scriptures that God desires us to have. I have already stated that above.

I am saying that in parts of your thinking there is a false dichotomy. I am asking for relative certainty of the reading of the autographs. I see no need for any more then relative certainty. Thus it is you and the KJV onlyist that see the need for "absolute certainty." Not me.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else, maybe you like beating up strawmen, I don't know. But I have never said that I require absolute certainty in the "correct" Scriptures. Even my faith is not based upon "absolute certainty". I even refered Geo to the definition of faith in Scriptures. How can I be accused of requiring absolute certainty is beyond me...

Francis....

As I have been writing, I am also thinking of the issue some more. Something just occurred to me. This may sound impulsive, but do you realize that there are varieties of positions among the KJV only people? At the one end of the KJ only spectrum they could be seen as somewhat closer to me. At the other end, I think they are much closer to you.

Ha Ha, I have already mentioned this in my last post. "KJ only" is not a denomination that has a specific set of doctrines, has a creed, etc. The only point of contact necessary is that they all believe the KJ is the only Word of God, the only "WHAT IS SCRIPTURE". Beyond that, there is no requirement of connection.

The writer of the OP, might be somewhat closer to me. It would be interesting to explore it. See if he even knows what sola scriptura means. If you engage him, few KJ only people can defend sola scriptura.

No one can defend it effectively... that is not the issue. The point I make is that KJ only stems from taking sola scriptura (the Bible is the only rule of faith) to its ultimate conclusion...

"If I have the TRUE Word of God, I can know everything God wants me to know, and all other bibles are like other false traditions of men..." All I need is my KJ bible (rather than "all i need is my bible").

When we discuss sola scriptura, why do you think the KJ only people are so silent? If we discuss free will, synergism, the nature of the atonement, the nature of grace, dont you see how Arminian KJ only people will side with you against protestants?

Again, Mondar, I think you are turing the KJ only into a denomination. Arminian and Reformed men can equally believe in KJ only...

Regards

 

[mondar]

The KJV only people have much more similarity to the RCC then to anyone in the reformed spectrum. Most of them are very synergistic in their soteriology just as you are, in matters of authority they have a great need for absolute certainty as do you do.

Mondar,

I believe you are changing the subject and going beyond the conversation here.

We are not speaking of KJ-only doctrines, per sec, (because they are not confined to one particular denomination) but THE doctrine of KJ-only, that the KJ is the only Word of God. The desire to seek out this "perfect" Bible stems from taking sola scriptura to its logical conclusion.
We are not speaking about comparing KJ-only and their thoughts on double predestination or preseverance of the saints or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - as if they were a monolithic group (The First "KJ-only" church?).

OK, this is fair. They are not a monolithic group.

As for them relying on the word of God, the RCC also claims the scriptures as a part of their tradition. Most KJV only people are thick with tradition also.

That might be so, I don't know. I hadn't considered that "KJV-only" people had other common doctrines, as if they themselves were a common denomination. I was under the impression that any Protestant could be KJ-only, no matter what their affiliation...

I guess there could be Calvinist KJ only people that I am not aware of, I do not know any. All the ones I know of are Arminian Jack Chick kinds of Fundamentalists.

People in the RCC plainly state that they consider their own tradition infallible.

That is not an accurate statement. Much of our tradition is NOT infallible.

OK, then the RCC considers parts of its tradition infallible (councils and papal ex cathedra).

You might think because of people like Jack (I forget the last name--- they guy that writes anti RCC tracts), that they are somehow similar to we in a more Calvinistic tradition. They will respond quicker against a Calvinist then they will you in the RCC.

Again, I do not see "KJ-only" as a denomination with its own creed, except that "KJ is the only legitimate Word of God". Beyond that point, polar opposites could hold this same idea, such as a person of the Reformed tradition and an Anglican...

Regards

I dont know every KJ group out there. As soon as I claim that, someone will be able to point to a group I was not aware of. I will claim that the huge majority of KJ only people are arminian fundamentalists kinds of groups. They are usually either "Bible Churches" or Baptist in their name. I have never seen any in the Reformed or Anglican churches. Are you aware of any?

 

[francisdesales]

I dont know every KJ group out there. As soon as I claim that, someone will be able to point to a group I was not aware of. I will claim that the huge majority of KJ only people are arminian fundamentalists kinds of groups. They are usually either "Bible Churches" or Baptist in their name. I have never seen any in the Reformed or Anglican churches. Are you aware of any?

Whenever this subject came up, their particular religious affiliation never really came up. I do not know if a KJ-only would be prevalent in any particular Protestant tradition - perhaps more so in "classical" reformers? I would tend to think less of the liberal and more recent strands, but I am pretty sure there are KJ-only everywhere, which is why I wouldn't go too far in calling KJ only believers "Arminian" or whatever. I don't think being an Arminian would make one more likely to also look to the King James ONLY. I don't see this as related issues. Perhaps you could tell me why you would think a KJ-only would more likely be an Arminian? (I presume this is something other than simple polemics)

But does it make more sense that KJ-only can be seen as a take on an extreme version of sola scriptura (we are not arguing its validity, but whether this is a legitimate development in the minds of a KJ-only person who believes in sola scriptura)?

Regards

 

[Geo]

This thread was started to address the bigger picture: God Wrote Only One Bible - it's people that cannot actually believe that

It's not about the "who uses what" mindset, but just to address that:

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Heb 9:14

The Counter-Reformation started in 1582 with the Jesuit-Rheims Bible, the manuscript has omissions of anti-Catholic sections and books (i.e., Hebrews 9:14, Revelation, etc.) Once you read the foundational declaration and purpose of the Jesuits this issue is settled.

The modern translations that came out of the same source of base manuscripts of the Alexandria or Vaticanus tree use this method of "translation":

"Using 'dynamic equivalence' in hundreds yea thousands of places, the modern translators have changed the very 'words of God' and replaced them with what, they think, God meant. In effect, dynamic equivalence is not true translation, but interpretation or paraphrase. " David B Loughran

"Therefore, paraphrase takes great liberty in doing any of these three things or all of them: ADDING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings; SUBTRACTING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings; or CHANGING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings. That is the essence of paraphrase, that is the essence of dynamic equivalence. So it is commentary, it is interpretation, it is not translation." Rev. D.A.Waite

 

[Free]

This thread was started to address the bigger picture: God Wrote Only One Bible - it's people that cannot actually believe that

God didn't write any Bible. Men inspired of God wrote books and letters, a group of which were selected using predetermined criteria and then canonized as Scripture.

"Using 'dynamic equivalence' in hundreds yea thousands of places, the modern translators have changed the very 'words of God' and replaced them with what, they think, God meant. In effect, dynamic equivalence is not true translation, but interpretation or paraphrase. " David B Loughran

"Therefore, paraphrase takes great liberty in doing any of these three things or all of them: ADDING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings; SUBTRACTING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings; or CHANGING words, phrases, ideas, thoughts or meanings. That is the essence of paraphrase, that is the essence of dynamic equivalence. So it is commentary, it is interpretation, it is not translation." Rev. D.A.Waite

Fallacious.

1. It is just as likely that the KJV has words and verses added and subtracted.

2. In translating from one language to another, especially when one is precise like Greek and the other imprecise like English, there are always things lost in translation. In some cases, DE can be more precise than formal equivalence (FE) since it gets the very idea across that the author intended rather than the difficulties imposed by trying to translate word-for-word.

Do you really think that God wants us to believe in unicorns?