KJVO tenets

Unbound68

Well-known member
The big 5 tenets of KJVOism:

1. There are 2 streams of mss....the pure stream out of Antioch (KJV), the corrupt stream out of Alexandria (MVs).

2. All texts and Bibles descended from or having readings from the Latin Vulgate are "corrupt catholic texts."

3. Modern Bibles can't be trusted because of the "thinking, theories, and theologies" of Westcott and Hort, the men responsible for the Greek text behind the Modern versions.

4. Modern Bibles are corrupt because they not only differ from the KJV, but from one another ("things different are not the same").

5. Modern Bibles are corrupt because they "remove" verses and affect/change doctrine.


All of these tenets, planks, bullet points, or whatever name you wish to use for the framework of KJVOism can be found upon a full reading of works by Jasper James Ray, Mickey Carter, David Otis Fuller, Jack Moorman, Timothy Morton, and James Melton.

I read all of those authors and more 20 years ago when I was a die-hard KJVO. Of course I read Cloud, Riplinger and Ruckman too.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Since your preferred text claims 1,000 and more errors in the AV, reinforcing your position that the AV is full of errors, you should give your underlying beliefs.
More false accusations on your part that bear false witness in disobedience to a clear command of God. Your bogus, desperate accusation that I supposedly claim that the KJV "is full of errors" is completely false. My actual statement was that there is a sounder basis for Greek Byzantine or Majority text views than for the inconsistent KJV-only theory. I did not say what you incorrectly alleged. I did not say that it was my preferred text as you falsely claim.

In my opinion, the case that Maurice Robinson and others present for their Byzantine text view is clearly stronger than the non-existent case that you Steven Avery present for your modern KJV-only theory.

Steven, are you trying to claim that the doctrines of word inspiration and word preservation do not establish the actual scripture text in any verses?

You again improperly, desperately, and incorrectly try to put words in my mouth that I did not say because you are unable to answer nor refute my scripturally-based points. I have clearly presented my underlying scripturally-based beliefs concerning the Scriptures including their inspiration and preservation, and you avoid discussing them.

You are the one who has refused to present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for your underlying non-scriptural KJV-only beliefs. Are you stumped on how to present a case for your own opinions? Are you stumped that your strawman misrepresentation and smear tactics have failed?

You again demonstrate to objective readers of this forum that you reject the Bible doctrine of preservation and only imagine or invent some arbitrary, inconsistent, assumed or supposed "restoration" (that involves or includes some subjective, non-scriptural criteria) in 1611 or 1769 or even post-1900 in one post-1900 Cambridge edition of the KJV.
 
Last edited:

Unbound68

Well-known member
I was KJVO for probably 10 years. Upon reading Rick Norris's book The Unbound Scriptures, my exodus out of onlyism began. Once free of that cultic bondage, I immediately changed my username.

Back then it was ll_Twoedged_Sword_ll. My hangout was Marty Shue's "Which Version" yahoo group and I was part of a "dynamic trio" (Avery's observation back then) with Marty Shue and Will Kinney.

My point is that these KJVO tenets were ingrained into my memory because I couldn't read enough as a KJVOist. I was constantly purchasing every KJVO book I could get my hands on.

That's why Avery's ignorance of what is meant by the term KJVO "tenet" offends me so much. I've known him since around 2000 from that yahoo group, but this whole time it seems he didn't bother making any effort of studying or doing his "research" at all on the main beliefs of KJVOists.

He's only along for the ride it seems. Something to pass the time.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
… there is a sounder basis for Greek Byzantine or Majority text views than for the inconsistent KJV-only theory.

If you believe the Greek Byzantine / Majority text is better, then you reject the AV in 1,000+ places. So the AV would be full of errors, but only a small number on the major variants.

If you want to retract your claim, do so clearly.

Rick Norris, what Greek Byzantine/Majority Text tenets do you personally adhere to?
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Edward F. Hills asserted: “The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text” (KJV Defended, p. 111). Again Edward F. Hills declared: “The true New Testament text is found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts” (p. 113).

Was Edward F. Hills supposedly claiming that the KJV would be full of errors according to one KJV-only poster's erroneous, false accusations?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
If you believe the Greek Byzantine / Majority text is better,
You are not entitled to try to put words in my mouth, and you are not entitled to invent your bogus, strawman misrepresentations or distortions.

You improperly try to change what I stated into something that I did not say. There is no need to retract my statement since it did not say what you try improperly to twist it to say. Is your desperation to try to smear showing?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
This explains Hills quite well, you made an attempt to claim this was a later editor.

========

The King James Bible Defended (1983 edition)
Edward Freer Hills
https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/VPP/TheKingJamesVersionDefended.pdf

The special providence of God is particularly evident in the fact that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Hence the Textus Receptus was a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin speaking Church of Western Europe.

... during the 16th century when the New Testament text was being printed for the first time, God worked providentially through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to influence Erasmus and the other editors and printers of that period to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. ...

There are also a few passages in which the Latin Vulgate has preserved the true reading rather than the Greek Traditional New Testament Text. As we shall see in the next chapter, these few true Latin Vulgate readings were later incorporated into the Textus Receptus, the first printed Greek New Testament text, under the guiding providence of God.
 
Last edited:

Unbound68

Well-known member
Yes, we know you have to make Hills your final authority on LATIN PRESERVATION...but only because of your erroneous view of the Comma.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The King James Bible Defended (1983 edition)
Edward Freer Hills


There are also a few passages in which the Latin Vulgate has preserved the true reading rather than the Greek Traditional New Testament Text. As we shall see in the next chapter, these few true Latin Vulgate readings were later incorporated into the Textus Receptus, the first printed Greek New Testament text, under the guiding providence of God.
The Scriptures do not state nor teach Edward F. Hill's inconsistent opinion and speculation that would contradict the Bible doctrine of preservation and would in effect contradict a couple of his own statements. Edward F. Hills asserted: “The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text” (KJV Defended, p. 111). Again Edward F. Hills declared: “The true New Testament text is found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts” (p. 113).

Yet Hills was not as extreme and as wrong as you are since he admitted that there were a few errors in the underlying text of the KJV.

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

Concerning Revelation 17:8, Edward F. Hills wrote: “Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Code 1r, the manuscript Erasmus used in Revelation” (KJV Defended, p. 202).

How can KJV-only advocates be completely consistent with the claim that "the text of the majority is the standard text" and accept some minority readings, the additions of Erasmus which are not known to be found in any collated majority of Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine text or majority text, and a few conjectures?

How does the existing Greek NT manuscript evidence relate to the KJV-only claim of continual, accessible, verbal, perfect preservation for the original-language texts underlying the KJV?

Has any consistent sound scriptural case been made for suggesting that very imperfect manuscript copies of an imperfect Latin translation should be used to correct or change the preserved Greek NT text?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You improperly try to change what I stated into something that I did not say. There is no need to retract my statement since it did not say what you try improperly to twist it to say. Is your desperation to try to smear showing?

You clearly state your embrace of the Greek Majority text of Robinson-Pierpont over the AV-TR text. Thus you embrace the Majority text where they differ. Logic 101. Like Maurice Robinson, your textual hero, your position is the AV is full of errors.

Again, you can retract your support for the Robinson-Pierpont text.
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
This explains Hills quite well, you made an attempt to claim this was a later editor.

========

The King James Bible Defended (1983 edition)
Edward Freer Hills
https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/VPP/TheKingJamesVersionDefended.pdf

The special providence of God is particularly evident in the fact that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Hence the Textus Receptus was a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin speaking Church of Western Europe.

... during the 16th century when the New Testament text was being printed for the first time, God worked providentially through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to influence Erasmus and the other editors and printers of that period to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. ...

There are also a few passages in which the Latin Vulgate has preserved the true reading rather than the Greek Traditional New Testament Text. As we shall see in the next chapter, these few true Latin Vulgate readings were later incorporated into the Textus Receptus, the first printed Greek New Testament text, under the guiding providence of God.
Hills doesn't give an ounce of proof that "Latin church usage" preserved the true reading. Not an ounce. Wishful thinking by KJVOs.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The Scriptures do not state nor teach Edward F. Hill's inconsistent opinion and speculation that would contradict the Bible doctrine of preservation and would in effect contradict a couple of his own statements. Edward F. Hills asserted: “The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text” (KJV Defended, p. 111). Again Edward F. Hills declared: “The true New Testament text is found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts” (p. 113).
Why repeat the quotes that are superseded by the 1983 quote above?

Where is your chimerical proof that the auto graphic text of Revelation has to be Greek, rather than Hebrew or Latin?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
You clearly state your embrace of the Greek Majority text of Robinson-Pierpont over the AV-TR text.
Incorrect and non-true claim on your part. That is not what I actually stated. You can provide no statement where I state what you incorrectly claim. You contradict Logic 101 with your bogus strawman distortion or false allegation.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
I am concerned with scriptural evidence and proof instead of blindly following the opinions and speculations of KJV-only advocates.
The Scriptures support the conclusion that God promised to preserve the same words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

David Cloud declared: “We hold to the King James Bible because of the doctrine of preservation” (Faith, p. 29).

One tenet of KJV-onlyism is supposedly the Bible doctrine of preservation. KJV-only advocates have claimed that their KJV-only claims are based on the Bible doctrine of preservation, and yet they are willing to contradict their own teaching concerning word preservation to try to excuse their incorrect KJV-only opinions.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
If you believe the theory is stronger (noting that you refuse to give the tenets) then quite obviously you believe the text is better.
No need to retract my statement. It does not state what you incorrect allege. My statement was not about the underlying original-language texts of the KJV since it was about the inconsistent KJV-only theory. You seem to have a problem with understanding clear English.

Your efforts to try to score cheap debate points fail.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

You should stop cherry-picking earlier editions, when it is done repeatedly it becomes one of the "criminal citation methods".

Here is the:

King James Bible Defended (1983 edition with Ted Letis Preface)

https://archive.org/details/TheKingJamesVersionDefended/page/n155/mode/2up

Are the readings which Erasmus thus introduced into the Textus Receptus necessarily erroneous'? By no means ought we to infer this. For it is inconceivable that the divine providence which had preserved the New Testament text during the long ages of the manuscript period should blunder when at last this text was committed to the printing press. According to the analogy of faith, then, we conclude that the Textus Receptus was a further step in God's providential preservation of the New Testament text and that these few Latin Vulgate readings which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus were genuine readings which had been preserved in the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. Erasmus, we may well believe, was guided providentially by the common faith to include these readings in his printed Greek New Testament text. In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

https://archive.org/details/TheKingJamesVersionDefended/page/n159/mode/2up?q="16:5"&view=theater

Like Calvin, Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated in the King James Version, namely, Romans 7:6 that being dead wherein instead of being dead to that wherein, and Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.

There is no mention anywhere of "certainly erroneous."
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
No need to retract my statement. It does not state what you incorrect allege. My statement was not about the underlying original-language texts of the KJV since it was about the inconsistent KJV-only theory.

Obviously when you attack the "text view", you attack the text praxis.

And you declared the Greek Byzantine theory of Maurice Robinson as superior, which means a superior text.
As your position.

Rick Norris, what Greek Byzantine/Majority Text tenets do you personally adhere to?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
willing to contradict their own teaching concerning word preservation to try to excuse their incorrect KJV-only opinions.

This is your opinion, largely based on your silly theory that all the NT autographs must be written in Greek, and your totally mistaken and ignorant theory that all preservation has been in Greek.

Since it is built on two Rick Norris blunders, your preservation attack is worthless..
 

logos1560

Well-known member
This is your opinion, largely based on your silly theory that all the NT autographs must be written in Greek, and your totally mistaken and ignorant theory that all preservation has been in Greek.
It is your rejection of the Bible doctrine of preservation that is worthless and wrong. What the Scriptures state and teach is not a "silly theory." You do not prove that my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach is a blunder.

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and would state something about language.

That which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet would be in the original language in which it was given by inspiration (Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:15). The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). The actual words written by the prophet would be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31). The exact words which “the prophets and Moses did say” (Acts 26:22) would be in the same language in which they stated them. Which are the same words spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets (Acts 3:21)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound and true to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally written them.

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate this scripturally-based point that Bible preservation would concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages
 
Top