KJVO tenets

My scripturally-based points and tenets have been presented many times. Scriptural truths demonstrate that human KJV-only tenets are not a doctrine of God.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 John 4:1).

Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? According to the Scriptures themselves, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) since the words of the LORD are pure (Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. According to scriptural truths, it can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption, of impurity, or of error.

Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47). Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation.

Would not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?

Do the Scriptures suggest or teach that some original-language words of Scripture would be lost and would need to be recovered and restored in the 1500’s based on the secondary, derived authority of the imperfect copies or imperfect printed editions of a Latin Bible translation— the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?
 
Steven Avery said:
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),

The New Testament specifically talks of Hebrew, Latin and Greek.

Luke 23:38 (AV)
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 19:20 (AV)
This title then read many of the Jews:
for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city:
and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

So, many New Testament writers could read and speak and write in these languages.
They could write and translate in these languages, as Eusebius reports about New Testament books.

Which of your verses above says the word "original languages" and limits the NT language to Greek.
Not verse numbers, verse text!

Rarely have I seen as much irrelevant blah-blah as you put into the post above.

Acts 21:40-22:2(AV)
And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs,
and beckoned with the hand unto the people.
And when there was made a great silence,
he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Paul the Apostle Wrote Hebrews ---- Sandra Sweeny Silver
https://earlychurchhistory.org/communication/paul-the-apostle-wrote-hebrews/

Since the beginning, Hebrews had been ascribed to Paul as one of his Epistles to his own people, the Jews. But the writing style of that wonderful book did not seem to coincide with Paul’s style of writing in his Epistles. The 300’s AD Eusebius in writing about and quoting the very early 100’s AD Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD) who writes:


“He (Clement) says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle (Hebrews) and in the Acts (written by Luke c. 60’s to 80’s AD).” Eusebius, Church History 6.14.2
 
Last edited:
The New Testament specifically talks of Hebrew, Latin and Greek.

Luke 23:38 (AV)
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
It refers to Hebrew, Latin, and Greek only concerning the superscription on the cross. That verse does not at all support your inconsistent, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

The scriptural truths that demonstrate that the same words given by inspiration would be the same words preserved would show that the language of preservation would be the same as the language in which the words are given.
 
Here is one:
We have God's pure and perfect word in our hands, readable.
You fail to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your tenet.

Other English Bibles give a translation of the pure and perfect words of God in the same sense (univocally) that the KJV does. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 as revised several times by later Church of England printers.

The KJV has many words added by men and some errors introduced by men so it is not 100% absolutely pure and perfect words of God. The KJV has no English words for some original-language words of Scripture.
 
Rick Norris and Greek-Onlyism - all authorship and preservation of the New Testament is only in the Greek language

The scriptural truths that demonstrate that the same words given by inspiration would be the same words preserved would show that the language of preservation would be the same as the language in which the words are given.

So you have zero Bible verses that you will post to support your absurd and nonsensical position that all authorship and preservation of the New Testament must be in Greek. Your Greek-onlyism theory.

Not a string-list of verse numbers, you need to give actual Bible verse text.

Try to teach Eusebius from the scriptures that Paul could not write Hebrews in Hebrew, with Luke as an amanuensis.

Which of your verses above says the word "original languages" and limits the NT language to Greek.
 
Last edited:
How could that be "proved" to an absurdist who supports Greek-Onlyism?

You asked for a tenet, I gave you one.
All learned people everywhere on this planet believe and rightfully know that the New Testament was Originally written in Greek. There is a tiny minority that believe some of the Gospels were first written in Aramaic then translated into Greek. But the majority remain unconvinced. Seeing that the explanation Aramaic may have been the authors first language but wrote in Greek best explains the connection. No one on this planet believes that any New Testament book was originally written in Latin.
 
support your absurd and nonsensical position that all authorship and preservation of the New Testament must be in Greek.
You improperly try to distort and misrepresent what I stated. You are not entitled to try to dictate to me what I supposedly need to post. The scriptural evidence was provided, but you choose to dodge or run from it.

My consistent, scripturally-based position is not nearly as absurd and nonsensical as your inconsistent, non-scriptural KJV-only theory.

You do not discuss nor answer my scripturally-based points. My actual point is that the Scriptures teach that the same words given by inspiration of God would be the same words preserved by God. The language in which God chose to preserve the words he gave would be the same language in which he gave them by inspiration of God.
 
It would seem to me that, if you believe in some divine preservation of Scripture, that it would be preserved in its original language and not in a translation but the original language disappeared.
 
You do not discuss nor answer my scripturally-based points.

Make the claims with the WORDS of the scripture verses.

Else this is all smoke and mirrors on your end.

======

You have not proved NT authorship in Greek.
And you have not proved that Greek has been the only preservation language for the NT.

You have given a good example of circular un-reasoning.
 
Last edited:
All learned people everywhere on this planet believe and rightfully know that the New Testament was Originally written in Greek.

You are welcome to deal with what was written by Eusebius from Clement of Alexandria about Hebrews above. That would be a good start to an edifying conversation. Rick Norris will not touch it with a 1,000 foot pole.

You can even try to find scholars who say that Eusebius was wrong :).
 
Else this is all smoke and mirrors on your end.
That is what you offer for your subjective, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

Your bogus allegations and misrepresentations are not edifying discussion. Your improper and vain attempts to dictate to others are also not edifying.

In contrast to your nonsense, I presented scripturally-based points and statements.
 
Steven Avery, perhaps one of your main KJV-only tenets is that a corrupt Latin Vulgate with its many additions and omissions may be considered to be superior in some places to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

KJV-onlyism may involve some of the same incorrect tenets as the Latin Vulgate-only theory that was rejected by the KJV translators. Some Roman Catholics claimed that the Latin could correct the Greek NT and that the Latin was superior to the Greek. The KJV-only attempt to use warmed-over, unsound arguments for the Latin-Vulgate only theory are absurd.
 
Last edited:
While Steven Avery seems to dodge and run from serious discussion with his endless diversionary questions, strawman distortions, and false allegations, he does not answer the questions that he is asked.

Do the Scriptures suggest or teach that some original-language words of Scripture would be lost and not preserved so that they would need to be recovered and restored in the 1500’s based on the secondary, derived authority of the imperfect copies or imperfect printed editions of a Latin Bible translation— the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?
 
In his 1583 book that advocated and defended the Reformation view or Protestant view of Bible translation, Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) stated: "We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New Testament all translations of the New Testament must be tried; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the New Testament" (A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations, p. 44). In the preface of another book, William Fulke noted: "The dissension of interpreters [translators] must be decided by the original Greek" (Confutation, p. 26). William Fulke maintained: “The Greek text of the New Testament needeth no patronage of men, as that which is the very word and truth of God” (p. 32).

Puritan William Whitaker (1547-1595) wrote: "We make no edition authentic, save the Hebrew in the old, and the Greek in the new, Testament" (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 140). William Whitaker asserted that our churches determine “that the Hebrew of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new, is the sincere and authentic scripture of God; and that, consequently, all questions are to be determined by these originals, and versions only so far approved as they agree with these originals” (p. 111). William Whitaker maintained that "the authentic originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in Hebrew, of the new in Greek" (p. 138). Whitaker observed: "The papists contend that their Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the text of the originals. Now in this sense no translation ever was, or could be, authentic. For translations of scripture are always to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account and authentic" (p. 138). Whitaker asserted: “That is called authentic, which is sufficient to itself, which commends, sustains, proves itself, and hath credit and authority from itself” (p. 332). Whitaker wrote: “Our adversaries determine that the authentic scripture consists not in the Hebrew and Greek originals, but in the Vulgate Latin version. We, on the contrary side, say that the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New” (p. 135). Whitaker noted: “The church hath not power of approving any man’s translation, however accurate, in such a manner as to pronounce it alone to be authentic scripture, and preferable to the sacred originals themselves. For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture is divinely inspired” (p. 148). Whitaker asserted: “We ought to understand the words which the Holy Spirit hath used in the Scriptures; and therefore, we ought to know the original languages. We should consult the Hebrew text in the Old Testament, the Greek in the new: we should approach the very fountain-heads of the scriptures, and not stay beside the derived streams of versions” (p. 468). Whitaker observed: “Translators, indeed, we often see go wrong; on which account it is not always safe to acquiesce in them” (p. 479).
 
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."
Their own KJV-only tenets result in a huge problem for their own opinions. They keep having to try to dodge and avoid the truth that the corrupt Latin Vulgate had a great influence and impact on the KJV both directly and indirectly so that the KJV has some readings and many renderings from the Latin Vulgate. They end up contradicting themselves.

Readings from the Latin Vulgate were arbitrarily added to the preserved Greek NT text in some places, and many renderings from the Latin Vulgate were followed through Hebrew-Latin and Greek-Latin lexicons that had Latin Vulgate renderings as the definitions of original-language words of Scripture and by borrowing many renderings from the 1582 Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate. In addition, sometimes one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles had also followed readings and renderings based on the Latin Vulgate, which resulted in them sometimes being kept in the 1611 KJV.
 
Do the Scriptures suggest or teach that some original-language words of Scripture would be lost and not preserved so that they would need to be recovered and restored in the 1500’s based on the secondary, derived authority of the imperfect copies or imperfect printed editions of a Latin Bible translation— the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?

I've explained to you many times that the Latin (and Syriac) manuscripts and church writers were part of New Testament preservation.
Please try to pay attention, your posturing is humorous.

You are clearly a very fierce opponent of the heavenly witnesses verse.

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Since you have the absurd viewpoint that only Greek was involved in Bible text preservation.
Rick Norris, the Greek-Onlyist

And this beautiful verse has weak Greek representation.
 
I've explained to you many times that the Latin (and Syriac) manuscripts and church writers were part of New Testament preservation.
The Scriptures do not teach your inconsistent, absurd opinion. The Bible scholars, such as William Fulke and William Whittaker, who presented the Protestant view in the 1500's did not state nor advocate your modern opinion. The early English Bible translators including the KJV translators did not state nor teach your opinion.

Your desperation is again showing as you improperly and incorrectly resort to strawman distortions of my consistent, scripturally-based position which is also in agreement with the stated view of the Reformers and early English Bible translators.
 
Back
Top