the amazing Greek-Onlyism theory that says all New Testament autographs and preservation must be in Greek

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Rick Norris Greek Onlyism for the New Testament Autographs and Preservation

According to scriptural truths and according to the language in which the book of Revelation is preserved, it was written in Greek.

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.
 
Summarizing Rick's position:

New Testament

1) The language of preservation must be the language of original writings. And vica versa.
(supposed scriptural proofs above)

2) Greek is the language of preservation (stated explicitly for Revelation and implicitly for all NT books.)

3) Thus all the New Testament books must be written in Greek, as they are preserved in Greek.

===================

Thus Rick can not even allow other possibilities, such as Luke being an amanuensis who translated the Hebrews of Paul from Hebrew to Greek. This was reported by Eusebius from Clement of Alexandria, but Rick claims it is impossible, because of his supposed scriptural truths! :)

Note though that not one of Rick's verses actually has the text given.

Plus Rick can not accept the simple fact that New Testament preservation included Latin and Syriac, both of which contributed to the Reformation Bible, since that would violate his supposed scriptural proofs.

===================
 
Summarizing Rick's position:

===================

Incorrect. You merely summarize your own strawman misrepresentation and distortion. You failed to quote any of my words that actually state what you claimed. Based on your own speculations and mere assumptions, you try to smear my acceptance of scriptural truths. How is it amazing that I accept what the Scriptures teach? Actual scriptural truths are not "supposed" scriptural truths as you allege. You do not refute by use of the Scriptures the truths I cited. I clearly presented a stronger scriptural case for what I stated than you ever present for your non-scriptural KJV-only theory. I have not stated some of the imagined claims that you improperly and wrongly attempted to put in my mouth. Perhaps your hypothetical, non-scriptural KJV-only theory is being so soundly refuted that you hope to divert attention away from it.

Before the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration to the apostles and NT prophets, I have not claimed that there could not possibly be a translation of one epistle or book given by inspiration of God. The Scriptures do not suggest that actually happened, but if it did, God could choose to preserve either one since both would be part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God and both would be directly given by inspiration. Why should I be concerned about hypothetical possibilities? Possibilities and speculations are not scriptural truth that you should be attempting to demand that others have to accept blindly. My emphasis is on what the Scriptures state and teach instead of on hypothetical possibilities.

You are dodging the fact that I clearly pointed out that my points or statements are based on what the Scriptures state and teach concerning preservation (even some KJV-only authors state the same basic points). The same words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are the same words that God promised to preserve.

What I have clearly maintained is that translations after the end of the giving of NT scripture by inspiration of God are nowhere indicated to be given by inspiration.

You and other KJV-only advocates have not made any scriptural case that God promised to preserve different words than the ones He gave by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Where did God promise to preserve different words in a different language from the words He gave by inspiration? Why do you attack me for believing what the Scriptures teach?
 
Last edited:
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4b)

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope (Romans 15:4)

That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour (2 Peter 3:2)

As it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Eph. 3:5b)

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (Luke 4:4)

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16). The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7). The Scriptures directly given to the prophets and apostles is what is identified as being “given by inspiration of God.”
 
In the KJV-only book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them edited by Kent Brandenburg, the following definition is given for preservation: “complete, inerrant protection and general accessibility of every writing (vowels and consonants, words, and orders of letters and words) of the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, for every generation of believers” (p. 13). Ken Brandenburg asserted: “The position taken by the men writing this book is that scripture teaches God has preserved every and all of His Words to the very letter, and these Words are available to every generation. This is verbal, plenary preservation. These Words are preserved in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament” (p. 23).

Even according to the KJV-only authors of this book about Bible preservation, my points concerning preservation would be in agreement with what the Scriptures teach.

David W. Daniels wrote: “The definition of Preserved is: manuscripts that are the same as what the original writers wrote under inspiration by the Holy Ghost” (51 Reasons, p. 105). Jim Taylor wrote: “Preservation describes the act of God in keeping every word that He inspired to every generation from the time that He gave them until now” (In Defense, p. 76).

According to what the Scriptures state and according to the definition of preservation, would not a consistent, sound, scriptural view of Bible preservation be true both before and after 1611? Glenn Conjurske suggested that many KJV-only advocates “have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word ‘preservation’” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 14; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “In its very nature preservation must be continuous, from beginning to end” (Ibid.). Conjurske added: “The ‘final form’ of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of ‘preservation, and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske concluded: “The very meaning of ‘preservation’ necessitates that he [God] should keep it pure always, and not merely that he should restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years” (Bible Version, p. 63). D. A. Waite agreed: “Bible ‘preservation’ that is not ‘perfect’ is not ‘preservation’” (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 117). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “We can have no restoration, no final form, no coming into being, of anything which has been preserved in perfection” (Bible Version, p. 178).
 
Is it desperation on his part for Steven Avery to try in effect to attack, insult, or condemn the view of the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators?

According to its own title page and its preface, the 1611 KJV professed to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.” The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.” Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds (1549-1607) "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). Mordechai Feingold cited where John Rainolds wrote: “We must diligently give ourselves to reading and meditating of the holy scriptures in tongues in which they were written by the holy Spirit” (Labourers, p. 14). Feingold also cited where John Rainolds asked: “Are not they blind, who prefer a translation, and such a translation before the original?” (p. 121). In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith (?-1624) referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75).

In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.”

Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or no so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indured with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.” Laurence Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (King James, His Bible, p. 47). In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Bishop Thomas Bilson (1546-1616) also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ Thomas Bilson wrote: “That out of the original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue.” John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).
 
Where did God promise to preserve different words in a different language from the words He gave by inspiration? Why do you attack me for believing what the Scriptures teach?
So you do agree that your position is that the New Testament was written and preserved in Greek.

Why all the pretense?
 
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4b)

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope (Romans 15:4)

That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour (2 Peter 3:2)

As it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Eph. 3:5b)
None of these verses

1) prevent various autographic scripture languages being used of God, like Luke assisting Paul with a Hebrew Epistle to the Hebrews, bringing it to Greek. As explained by Eusebius from Clement of Alexandria,

2) prevent various languages from being part of preservation, as occurred with the Greek and Latin Received Text editions, from Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts and editions. This led to the Geneva Bible, which Rick used to favor before his turn to Greek-Onlyism.

3) demonstrate the authorial language of a single book

================

Plus, you can never identify the specific preserved Greek words today,
You almost went to the Robinson-Pierpont text, but not quite,

So your inspiration and preservation is another Rick Norris failure.
 
Last edited:
Why all the pretense?
There is no pretense on my part.
There may be pretense in your bogus strawman distortions, in your desperate, false allegations, and in your human KJV-only opinions.

According to scriptural truths, I would conclude that the New Testament books were given by inspiration of God in the same language or languages in which God preserved them. You have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that they teach otherwise.
 
None of these verses

2) prevent various languages from being part of preservation, as occurred with the Greek and Latin Received Text editions, from Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts and editions
Your biased KJV-only conclusion or opinion is incorrect. The Scriptures do not support your speculations or KJV-only opinions.

What the Scriptures state and teach concerning inspiration and preservation does in effect keep a post-NT translation from being able to preserve the very same exact words that were given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Different words in a different language in a post-NT translation would not be preserving the very same words that were given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Different words may be a translation of the original-language words of Scriptures, but they are not the same words that were given by inspiration. A post-NT translation may preserve the meaning if it is an accurate translation, but it does not preserve the same original-language words that were given by inspiration.

Do you try to violate or contradict the KJV-only tenet that "things that are different are not the same"?
 
What the Scriptures state and teach concerning inspiration and preservation does in effect keep a post-NT translation from being able to preserve the very same exact words that were given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Different words in a different language in a post-NT translation would not be preserving the very same words that were given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Different words may be a translation of the original-language words of Scriptures, but they are not the same words that were given by inspiration. A post-NT translation may preserve the meaning if it is an accurate translation, but it does not preserve the same original-language words that were given by inspiration.

The simple fact is that there was some corruption in the Greek manuscripts (most corruption occurred in the Ante-Nicene era), and the Latin (and Syriac and church writers) were a major part of the preservation process. The Greek alone was not sufficient, and led to a mangled text, such as manuscripts missing 1 John 2:23b, Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses.

The Greek churches, in wisdom, accepted the Reformation Bible corrections on those incredible, foundational verses. They accepted the truth that the Greek manuscript line was not a pure and perfect line, and that the Reformation Bible, using additional sources that often were not Greek, gave fundamental correction.

Plus, different languages can be used by God for expression, God is not limited to one language. His mind and heart can be expressed through Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic and English and many other languages.

2 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

This beautiful promise is not only for those who can read Greek.
Rick's understanding is that he can never actually can read scripture, thus he has nothing profitable for doctrine, etc.

The good news is that we can agree on your position:

Rick Norris - Greek Onlyism for the New Testament Autographs and Preservation

You are welcome to continue to try to give it a defense, but there is not one scripture available that gives your position. And you do not affirm any Greek text as fulfilling your hopes.
 
Last edited:
The simple fact is that there was some corruption in the Greek manuscripts, and the Latin (and Syriac) were a major part of the preservation process.
No they weren't. This is your ASSUMPTION, and is adhered to so strenuously by you for no other reason than because of your view on the Johannine Comma.

Wanna prove me wrong? Then tell me why you accept KJV readings at Rev 16:5 and 17:8 that have absolutely NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT support!

Then explain why you don't believe the Latin preserved the true readings at Rev 16:5 and 17:8.
 
Last edited:
The simple fact is that there was some corruption in the Greek manuscripts
So what? That does not mean that the original-language manuscript copies cannot or do not preserve the original-language words given by inspiration. The Scriptures do not teach that copies would be made by the process of inspiration of God.

There was more corruption in the manuscripts of poor Latin translations with their additions and omissions.
 
Plus, different languages can be used by God for expression, he is not limited to one language.
You try to knock down your own strawman. No one claimed that God is limited to one language.

I choose not to question the wisdom of God in choosing the languages in which He chose to give the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. God chose to end the process of the giving of Scripture by inspiration with the end of the giving of the New Testament.

God could have chosen to give the Scriptures in other languages than the ones He did, but He didn't.
God chose to leave it up to men to make translations of the Scriptures He had given by inspiration of God.
 
This thread has completely failed to provide any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, or scriptural evidence for a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only theory. It was mainly a diversion likely to try to cover up for the lack of any sound scriptural case for non-scriptural KJV-only teachings.
 
The simple fact is that there was some corruption in the Greek manuscripts
You contradict the statements of many KJV-only authors. Some KJV-only advocates seem to claim and believe that there is no corruption in their pure stream. It seems you make no serious effort to get your fellow KJV-only pals to correct their incorrect claims. Do you notice what your pal David W. Daniels claimed?

KJV-only author Ed DeVries claimed: “Using the legible copies of the Received Text Erasmus typeset a text on the printing press. This new printed text was letter for letter and word for word the same as the Received Text from which it was copied” (Divinely Inspired, p. 14). Ed DeVries declared that “these ‘received’ manuscripts are in complete agreement with each other” (p. 16). Ed DeVries claimed: “No one, not even liberal scholars, questions the fact that the Textus Receptus is a perfect representation of the manuscripts from which it was copied” (Ibid.). Ed DeVries declared that “the Received Text manuscripts were exact copies of the original autographs and/or of each other” (p. 17). DeVries claimed: “The Textus Receptus has been proven to be a perfect rendering of the Received Text” (p. 27). Troy Clark asserted that “he [Erasmus] perfectly copied” and that “there was not one Word change from its original form” (Perfect Bible, p. 121). Bob Kendall contended that “the TR has not one footnote” and that “the TR has no footnotes” (How Firm, pp. 28, 41). Troy Clark claimed: “Stephanus used the 16 Majority Text Greek manuscripts in the library of King Francis I and son Henry II. These were all identical, even down to the letter” (Perfect Bible, p. 144). Troy Clark asserted: “The Textus Receptus will always represent the undisputed majority of 95-99% of Greek texts that mirror agreement with each other” (p, 72). Michael Hollner claimed that “the Authorized King James Version is backed up by the majority of all existing manuscripts” and that “the over 95% is called the ‘Majority Text’” (KJ Only Debate, p. 7). Al Lacy asserted: "From God's pure manuscripts came the AV1611" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 18). Al Lacy maintained that “there is a set of manuscripts that are free of error” (p. 85) and that God “kept us error-free COPIES in the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew and the Received Text of the Greek” (p. 116). David W. Daniels claimed that the KJV “was accurately translated from perfect copies of God’s words” (BattleCry, Sept/Oct., 2007, p. 11). Wayne Williams asserted: "There are many infallible manuscripts such as the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus to verify the preserved Scripture" (Does God Have a Controversy, p. 21). Bruce Borders claimed that “over 5000 Antiochian manuscripts or parts of manuscripts are in existence today” and that “each completely agrees with the others, with absolutely no discrepancies” (The Only Bible, p. 14). Jeffrey Khoo asserted: “The Lord has certainly kept these [Byzantine] manuscripts pure and uncorrupted throughout the centuries” (Kwok, VPP, p. 129). James Rasbeary claimed that “the Greek texts used by the [KJV] translators were not marred by mistakes and accumulated errors” and that “these [5300] Greek manuscripts are in agreement with each other and with the King James Bible” (What’s Wrong, p. 103).

Even D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts or over 99% of those preserved for us” and that “the Textus Receptus manuscripts are almost perfect mirrors of one another” (Central Seminary Refuted, pp. 67, 80, 95). D. A. Waite claimed that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text known as the Traditional Text” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 27), that “the Textus Receptus kind of text is represented by over 99% of the 5, 255 manuscripts” (p. 52), and that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 99% (over 5,210) of the Greek manuscripts extant today” (p. 53). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Textus Receptus manuscripts vary in spellings somewhat. Let them vary” (BJU’s Errors, p. 43). D. A. Waite contended that “the ‘Textus Receptus’ was the result of the agreement of thousands of Greek manuscripts” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 132). Waite claimed: “Each of these manuscripts of the Traditional Text or Received Greek Text are virtually identical” (Foes of the KJB, p. 130). David Cloud himself claimed: “Though it is true that the Greek Received Text differs from any single manuscript or texttype, it only does so very slightly” (Faith, p. 710).
 
No one claimed that God is limited to one language.
I choose not to question the wisdom of God in choosing the languages in which He chose to give the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. God chose to end the process of the giving of Scripture by inspiration with the end of the giving of the New Testament.
God could have chosen to give the Scriptures in other languages than the ones He did, but He didn't.
God chose to leave it up to men to make translations of the Scriptures He had given by inspiration of God.

Your only attempted "proof" that the New Testament books must be written in Greek is a backwards attempt, because you assert that the preservation has been only in Greek.

Thus, your position is circular. Neither part of the syllogism is true.

You really have no argument against Luke assisting Paul in Hebrews.

In fact, the New Testament autographs, while likely mostly Greek, could also have involvement of Latin and Hebrew (the languages on the cross) or Aramaic. God providentially can use any and various languages for preservation.
 
This thread has completely failed to provide any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, or scriptural evidence for a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only theory. It was mainly a diversion likely to try to cover up for the lack of any sound scriptural case for non-scriptural KJV-only teachings.

The "diversion" is your smoke and mirrors trying to deflect the falsity and absurdity of your Greek-Onlyism for NT Autographs and Preservation.

It is impossible for you to accept any English text as God's pure and perfect word because of the snare of your Greek-Onlyism.
 
Back
Top