Steven Avery
Well-known member
My purpose is to advocate the truth.
Do you really believe the truth is in the Greek Onlyist theory that says that all NT autographs and all preservation is in Greek?
My purpose is to advocate the truth.
So you're saying you accept the "final product" in foreign language versions but the final product you "accept" is not perfect?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.
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.
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.
And he said he knows it was written in Greek because its preservation is in Greek.
The theory is nonsense, on both ends, but that is where he stands.
There is no imperative that the autographic writing of Hebrews, Revelation, Mark, etc. had to be in Greek.
And preservation has included manuscripts from Greek, Latin and Syriac.
Why should I have confidence in the Vulgate? You're accepting the Latin and Syriac editions solely based upon the fact the KJV used them.
You're changing again. Why can't you be accurate with your claims the "first time, every time"?
You can embrace a Greek Majority text, which only looks at the Latin and Syriac on tie-breakers. Your Bible will miss some beautiful words, but you can choose your own version.
That is not what I stated. You failed to quote my words as you try improperly to create your own strawman distortion and misrepresentation of what I did state. Based on your own speculations and mere assumptions, you try to smear my acceptance of scriptural truths. You are dodging the fact that I clearly pointed out that my point is based on what the Scriptures state and teach concerning preservation (even some KJV-only authors state the same basic point). The same words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are the same words that God promised to preserve.Rick Norris Greek-Onlyist Theory - All the New Testament Autographs and Preservation are in Greek Only
And preservation has included manuscripts from Greek, Latin and Syriac.
Bolding and underlining mine.TWO STREAMS OF MANUSCRIPTS HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED The foregoing comments serve to show that the claim of some modern translations and paraphrases, that the oldest manuscripts are the best, is altogether based on a wrong foundation.
Dr. D. Otis Fuller, in his book "WHICH BIBLE," has shown that Christians of all ages have recognised that two streams of manuscripts have always existed.
The muddy stream of the corrupt text, including the Western family (characterised by interpolations), and the Alexandrian family {characterised by omissions) has flowed through channels such as Origen (who denied the deity of Christ) Eusebius, Jerome (who produced the Latin Vulgate), and in the last century, through Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.
The pure stream of the New Testament has flowed to us through the Received Text, which Dr. D. Otis Fuller tells us: "had authority enough to become either in itself, or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church, of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy, of the Gallic Church of Southern France, and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland, as well as the official Bible of the Greek Church (BYZANTINE TEXT)." The reformers stood firmly by the Received Text, Luther's German Translation and Tyndale's magnificent English Translation were from it. When 47 scholars translated the Authorised Version in 1611, by Divine Providence the Received Text was used.
So Steven Avery's pal Will Kinney still advocates the KJV-only view's two streams of Bibles argument on his website. I thought it was suggested that he had supposedly learned better from Steven Avery and was no longer using that erroneous KJV-only argument.From Will Kinney's website, article "The True Character of the so called 'oldest and best' manuscripts Part Two - John to Revelation."
Kinney also quite often quotes old school KJVO authors like Fuller, Gipp, Grady and others. How much "more excellently" can Kinney possibly understand anything when he's still drawing from that well?So Steven Avery's pal Will Kinney still advocates the KJV-only view's two streams of Bibles argument on his website. I thought it was suggested that he had supposedly learned better from Steven Avery and was no longer using that erroneous KJV-only argument.
The Westminister Confessions of 1646 is probably the most famous Confession of Faith ever written. It says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." This is of course not a Baptist Confession, but it has had great influence among Baptists. This Confession says that the Scriptures were "inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..." How could anyone make such a statement, unless they believed that they had reliable copies of the originals and reliable translations?
The Second London Confession of 1677 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native language of the people of old) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the Nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages, are therefore authentical; so as in an controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
Further on in this article they state that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament were "inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in as controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."
Commenting on the KJV Bible in 1922 William L. Phelps, Professor of English Literature at Yale, wrote, "The Elizabethan period"a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642 is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature.... the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorised Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611.... the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the [KJV] Bible. WE ANGLO-SAXONS HAVE A BETTER BIBLE THAN THE FRENCH OR THE GERMANS OR THE ITALIANS OR THE SPANISH; OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS; THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WAS INSPIRED." (Human Nature in The Bible, William Lyon Phelps, 1922, pp. 10, 11)
It all boils down to how big of a God we serve. Did He have the power and desire to preserve the word in written form for us today, so that we are not left in the dark concerning what is the word of God? Is His power so weak or His Divine purpose so unsure, that we must now search out all the manuscripts, all the Hebrew and Greek texts, and all the versions, in order to say that we do have the word of God mixed in with all the errors.
I'm pretty sure he, like Hollner, thinks the KJV English corrects and supersedes the Greek, because, says Kinney, "there's no such thing as THE Greek."This is a paradox. After arguing that the KJV is a perfect translation of a perfect Greek original, there is a concession that there are places in the KJV where the English doesn't conform to the Greek original -- and rather than concede that as evidence of KJV defects there is this difficult doctrine that, in these places, the KJV English is somehow the correct Scripture and the Greek original is wrong.
This is the result of deciding that the KJV is the One and Only True Word of God. Everything else has to be compared and conformed to it, including all Greek and Hebrew sources. ? This is unthinking, pseudo-intellectual (if not anti-intellectual) idolatry.This is a paradox. After arguing that the KJV is a perfect translation of a perfect Greek original, there is a concession that there are places in the KJV where the English doesn't conform to the Greek original -- and rather than concede that as evidence of KJV defects there is this difficult doctrine that, in these places, the KJV English is somehow the correct Scripture and the Greek original is wrong.
A Bible translation does not take the actual same or identical original-language words that were given by inspiration of God and preserve them unaltered or unchanged and without any additions of men. The inspired, preserved original-language words of Scripture are changed to different words in a Bible translation. KJV-only author John C. Phillips acknowledged: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2). Mickey Carter claimed: “Things that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Phil Stringer also asserted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). Al Lacy contended: “DIFFERENT WORDS CAUSE CONFUSION” (Can I Trust, p. 106). Jack Hyles asserted: “Two things that don’t agree cannot both be right” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 23). Jack Hyles claimed: “If two books do not contain the same words, one of them cannot contain the words of God” (p. 16). T. S. Luchon declared: “God wants His Words written as He gave the Words, and He wants no other Words!” (From the Mind of God to the Heart of Man, p. 40).The big 5 tenets of KJVOism:
4. Modern Bibles are corrupt because they not only differ from the KJV, but from one another ("things different are not the same").