Steven Avery
Well-known member
Try to write coherently.
Your position is so weak that you are just jumbling phrases together.
KJVO tenets
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Try to write coherently.
Your position is so weak that you are just jumbling phrases together.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Ironically, you are giving a quote that allows for corruption in the Greek.
If you were not involved in your usual "criminal citation methods", you would discuss places where Fulke discusses Greek manuscript corruption, like Luke 3:36. (Fulke's conclusion is wrong, however.)
However, your purpose is not to learn, but to try to uphold the:
Rick Norris Greek-Onlyist Theory - All Autographs and All Preservation is in Only Greek.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
I understood what he said. It appears you are the issue.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
I've read Rick's work and there is no such claim to be found. You're misrepresenting his efforts.
The Scriptures were written in a handful of different languages and some of the best extant witnesses come to us form other languages. None of which are English.
Which is your problem. The idea English word choices are superior is ridiculous.
Are you mourning your Queen's death? King James is dead too. The Scriptures are not bound to whims of dead people.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
While you are right about important NT witnesses in other languages, you are simply not reading Rick.
Rick Norris does not accept any other language in the autographs of the NT other than Greek, nor for preservation.
This is all on recent posts on this forum.
Rick Norris Greek-Onlyist Theory - All Autographs and All Preservation is in Only Greek.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
Care to share an example?
Why ignore that fact that you only accept the final product in English?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The English Bible is beautiful and readable, pure and perfect. However, there are many who use wonderful Bibles in other languages, who have little or no English skills. So it is wrong to say that I "only accept the final product in English."
Steven Avery
Well-known member
First, here is where Rick made it clear that he is talking Greek-Only for autographs and preservation.
Now, do you need to see the blah-blah behind this absurd claim?
It is what every educated person believes. The KJV in English isn't even preserved from 1611 until now. There are many different editions of the KJV out there. How can even the English be preserved when the KJV exists in many different editions.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
It is not perfect. Hiding behind what other readers do doesn't change the facts of what I stated.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Steven Avery
Well-known member
There is no hiding. You misstated my position, I simply corrected your error.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
What Rick said and what you claim he said are two different things. He said it was written in Greek. You're misrepresenting what he said.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
What other language editions do you accept as perfect? Please list them and tell us how you know. Surely you're not reference a language you do not speak.
A perfect and typical example of your complete inability to construct a proper sentence in English.
Is it amazing to see how Steven Avery in effect tries to distort, insult, and smear the view stated by Puritans William Fulke and William Whitaker who studied the Bible with some of the KJV translators and expressed a view very similar if not identical to the one indicated in the preface of the 1611?
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).
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).
You repeatedly misstate the position of other posters, and you do not correct your misrepresentation when those posters point out and correct your erroneous distortions.
My purpose is to advocate the truth. I am willing to learn from KJV-only advocates and have quoted them favorably when they make sound points or when they present or acknowledge the truth.
According to your posts, your purpose is not to discuss and learn since your purposes seem to be to try to uphold or excuse human, non-scriptural KJV-onlyism and to try to insult, smear, or attack personally posters who do not blindly accept KJV-only opinions.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nonsense.
Basically, they did a good job defending the Beza text (which includes Latin Vulgate elements) against the straight Latin Vulgate. A surprisingly large amount of the discussion was Old Testament, with the Masoretic Text and Geneva English being defended.
That does not mean that every sentence they wrote is Gospel.
Rick Norris Greek-Onlyist Theory - All the New Testament Autographs and Preservation are in Greek Only
=========================
Luke 2:22 (AV)
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
Theodore Beza corrected this text to match the Latin Vulgate, since the Greek mss. had been corrupted.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
We know there are dozens of editions in foreign languages that are exceedingly strong. Many of the historical ones are discussed in the Jaroslav Pelikan book, The reformation of the Bible, the Bible of the Reformation. And I do not claim other language texts as perfect.