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

[logos1560]

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.

Your statement is not true. You have fallen for the snare of following human opinions and traditions or false teaching. It is your own KJV-only theory that is circular and that involves the use of fallacies. You unsoundly try to demand blind acceptance of KJV-only hypothetical speculations. Your hypothetical "could" or "can" is your subjective opinion.

I do not accept KJV-onlyism because it is false, non-scriptural, human teaching, and it is not a doctrine of God. Clear scriptural truths conflict with human non-scriptural KJV-only teaching. According to the Scriptures, God cannot contradict what He says as KJV-only teaching would in effect have to have Him do. The Scriptures teach that use of divers measures [double standards] is an abomination to the LORD while KJV-only teaching uses them as acceptable and necessary and as though God accepts or approves them. Human KJV-only teaching applies different measures/standards to the KJV than it inconsistently and unjustly attempts to apply to other English Bibles.

 

[Steven Avery]

Your statement is not true. … I do not accept KJV-onlyism because it is false, non-scriptural, human teaching, and it is not a doctrine of God.

There is nothing complicated here.

You hold to an absurd theory that the New Testament autographs and preservation are Greek-only. The attempts to prove this theory are circular and grossly deficient.

Therefore you must reject the Reformation Bibles including the AV, since they were on a full-orbed base, robust use of both Greek and Latin preservation, and Greek and Latin linguistic excellence.

Everything else is blah-blah. Your root error is clear.

 

[logos1560]

There is nothing complicated here.

Of course, there is nothing complicated in my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach.

Your own absurd, inconsistent, modern KJV-only theory involves circular reasoning and the use of other fallacies.

You failed to prove any errors on my acceptance of the Scriptures and all that they teach about themselves.

You falsely allege that I reject Reformation Bible translations including the KJV when the truth is that I accept them as what they actually are. You cannot dictate to me what I believe. You improperly try to put words in my mouth.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as Reformation Bible translations such as Luther's German Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1602 Valera Spanish Bible, the Reformation French Bible, the Dutch Bible, etc. and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bible translations such as the NKJV.

 

[Steven Avery]

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as Reformation Bible translations such as Luther's German Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1602 Valera Spanish Bible, the Reformation French Bible, the Dutch Bible, etc. and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bible translations such as the NKJV.

So you accept that the Latin Vulgate preservation contributed to the Reformation Bible text.

Heavenly WItnesses
Luke 2:22
etc.

And you are now falsifying and refuting your Greek Onlyism for autographs and preservation.

Yet you will not reject even one corruption from the Westcott-Hort text.

Your contradictory positions self-destruct.

 

[Steven Avery]

You cannot dictate to me what I believe.

It is 100% clear that you claim all inspiration and preservation must be in Greek.- Greek Onlyism.

Beyond that, your shifting positions (Robinson-Pierpont, Reformation Bible, Westcott-Hort) are all mud.
Dancing Versions.

 

[logos1560]

So you accept that the Latin Vulgate preservation contributed to the Reformation Bible text.

I have repeatedly pointed out the influence that the Latin Vulgate had upon the KJV and other Bible translations sometimes resulting in the introduction of errors.

It is erroneous KJV-only reasoning that contradicts and self-destructs.

 

[logos1560]

It is 100% clear that you claim all inspiration and preservation must be in Greek.- Greek Onlyism.

You can provide no statement where I state what you imagine and falsely allege. Are your bogus strawman distortion games fun for you?

Even you should know that your statement is not true since you know that I do not claim that the Old Testament text was given by inspiration and was preserved in Greek.

 

[Steven Avery]

I have repeatedly pointed out the influence that the Latin Vulgate had upon the KJV and other Bible translations sometimes resulting in the introduction of errors.

if you do not believe the Latin Vulgate historically contributes to the pure Reformation Bible, then you are playing games whenever you.call the Reformation Bible editions scripture.

What you really mean is

”scripture marred with 1,000 errors, including the heavenly witnesses, Acts 8:37, 1 John 2:23b and Luke 2:22”.

 

[Conan]

if you do not believe the Latin Vulgate historically contributes to the pure Reformation Bible, then you are playing games whenever you.call the Reformation Bible editions scripture.

What you really mean is

”scripture marred with 1,000 errors, including the heavenly witnesses, Acts 8:37, 1 John 2:23b and Luke 2:22”.

The Latin Vulgate most definitely contributed to marring a perfect Bible by introducing errors that were not in the Greek but the Latin. If one were to remove these places they would be removing scribal errors from the Bible.

 

[logos1560]

What you really mean is

I state what I really mean while you improperly attempt to put words in my mouth that I do not state nor claim. You cannot deal with the truth I state so you invent and imagine your incorrect and distorted accusations or play false accusation and strawman distortion games.

How can anything you post be trusted when you repeatedly bear false witness with the false declarations that you try to put in the mouths of others?

 

[logos1560]

In post # 115 on page 6 of the thread entitled KJVO tenets, Unbound68 quoted several statements from Will Kinney's web site and then he stated:

"Not only does [Will] Kinney agree with the orthodox position concerning the language of the NT being GREEK -- contra Steven Avery and his new doctrine -- but he cites Confessions that say the NT was PRESERVED ("kept pure in ALL ages") in GREEK!"

KJV-only advocates often contradict each other and even contradict themselves at times, but their eyes may be closed to seeing it. Would Steven Avery condemn Will Kinney for maintaining that the language of the NT was Greek?

 

[christ_undivided]

if you do not believe the Latin Vulgate historically contributes to the pure Reformation Bible, then you are playing games whenever you.call the Reformation Bible editions scripture.

What you really mean is

”scripture marred with 1,000 errors, including the heavenly witnesses, Acts 8:37, 1 John 2:23b and Luke 2:22”.

Till you came along Avery, every single KJVOist I have ever meet..... tried to teach that the KJV had zero Latin influence from the Vulgate.

Now that they realize that is an impossible position to take, they are making silly claims of the superiority of the Vulgate tradition.

You've been doing this how many years now Avery? I seem to remember you once took that position as well. That the KJVO never used any Vulgate renderings. Nor LXX renderings. Now all of you want to "change your mind" when you're proven wrong.

KJVOism continually proves itself to be an ever evolving canard....

 

[Unbound68]

Till you came along Avery, every single KJVOist I have ever meet..... tried to teach that the KJV had zero Latin influence from the Vulgate.

Now that they realize that is an impossible position to take, they are making silly claims of the superiority of the Vulgate tradition.

You've been doing this how many years now Avery? I seem to remember you once took that position as well. That the KJVO never used any Vulgate renderings. Nor LXX renderings. Now all of you want to "change your mind" when you're proven wrong.

KJVOism continually proves itself to be an ever evolving canard....

And all for the sake of the Comma. No other reason.

Rather than drop the silly "2 streams" argument, they've instead welcomed the "corrupt Latin line" into the "pure stream" itself! Made all the more hilarious in light of most of their views on the Roman Catholic Church.

Which contradicts another tenet of KJVOism:

Doesn't a little leaven leaven the whole lump?

 

[Unbound68]

In post # 115 on page 6 of the thread entitled KJVO tenets, Unbound68 quoted several statements from Will Kinney's web site and then he stated:

"Not only does [Will] Kinney agree with the orthodox position concerning the language of the NT being GREEK -- contra Steven Avery and his new doctrine -- but he cites Confessions that say the NT was PRESERVED ("kept pure in ALL ages") in GREEK!"

KJV-only advocates often contradict each other and even contradict themselves at times, but their eyes may be closed to seeing it. Would Steven Avery condemn Will Kinney for maintaining that the language of the NT was Greek?

I meant to post that in THIS thread, not the KJV tenets thread.

 

[logos1560]

Rather than drop the silly "2 streams" argument, they've instead welcomed the "corrupt Latin line" into the "pure stream" itself! Made all the more hilarious in light of most of their views on the Roman Catholic Church.

Which contradicts another tenet of KJVOism:

Doesn't a little leaven leaven the whole lump?

In his commentary on the Psalms, Peter Ruckman wrote: “A pure Bible couldn’t come from an impure source” (Vol. II, p. 979). D. A. Waite claimed: “If the SOURCE be corrupted, the PRODUCT likewise must be corrupted” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1979, p. 2). Thomas Corkish asserted: “God does not associate with something impure” (Bradenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 151). Terence McLean claimed that “the Bible of the true Christians never cross-pollinated with the corrupted texts until the nineteenth century” (History of Your Bible, p. 33).

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? (Job 14:4). And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean (Lev. 10:10).

Would KJV-only advocates claim that the 1582 Rheims was an absolutely clean, holy, and pure source from which the makers of the KJV could borrow renderings? Is the 1611 KJV associated with a corrupt Bible—the 1582 Rheims and with another corrupt Bible--the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?

 

[Unbound68]

From the book, Answers to Your Bible Version Questions, pp. 9, 10, By David W. Daniels, for whom Avery provided "research" for his other book about Sinaiticus:

Choice 1: Hebrew​

From at least as far back as Abraham (around 2000 BC) to the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, God chose the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew, to communicate to His chosen people. God gave His law in Hebrew to teach men that they were sinners, and in need of a Saviour.​

​

Choice 2: Greek​

In the first century AD, God made a second choice. The main language of the world for three centuries had been Greek. God used that language to give the New Testament for the world to read. And it spread like wildfire.​

​

[....]​

​

In the 1500s William Tyndale worked to translate the Bible from the accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that God had so carefully preserved.​

​

(Bolding mine.)​

​

Will Avery now condemn his buddy David W. Daniels, along with Will Kinney, for believing the NT was actually written and preserved in Greek?

 

[Unbound68]

From Is Our English Bible Inspired?, by Sam Gipp:

Can the Originals be “corrected? No, no, NO! The Originals were perfect, without error when written. But, as we all know, the Originals, both Hebrew and Greek disappeared long ago. (pg. 64)​

But we do believe God has preserved His infallible text, in spite of a few omissions in the copies of Hebrew and Greek that we have. (pg. 67)​

From An Understandable History of the Bible, by Sam Gipp:

There were hundreds of languages on this earth also, when God chose Greek for his New Testament. (pg. 21)​

​

God chose to write the New Testament in Greek, (pg. 32)​

 

[Shoonra]

I would assume that, since the NT and its various parts were written to persuade non-Jews, they were written in Greek, which was (from surviving evidence other than the NT) the language of non-Jews in the Holy Land at that time, rather than in Hebrew or Aramaic which many (most?) non-Jews could not read.

 

[Steven Avery]

You try to knock down your own strawman. No one claimed that God is limited to one language.

Sure you do. You retrofit a theory that the autographs could only involve Greek, and preservation could only involve Greek

Not only is there zero evidence for your tying the hands of God in this way, but it also is AGAINST the actual preservation in Latin and Syriac as well.

 

[Steven Avery]

I would assume that, since the NT and its various parts were written to persuade non-Jews, they were written in Greek, which was (from surviving evidence other than the NT) the language of non-Jews in the Holy Land at that time, rather than in Hebrew or Aramaic which many (most?) non-Jews could not read.

Hi Shoonra, I do appreciate that you discuss this coherently, since the forum usually gets blah-blah from the Greek-Onlyist position.

The inscription on the cross shows Latin, Greek and Hebrew, all were in use. Aramaic was also a commonly used language, the Hebrew inscription would be understandable to those whose primary language was Aramaic. Clearly, it is unlikely that autographs involved any other languages than those four.

Mark wrote to Rome, where he assisted Peter, according to ancient colophons, so it is very likely that Latin was part of his writing (e.g. it could be in Latin and then translated, or in two editions. The text does have the sense of being translation Greek. Some scholars have theorized that his original was in Aramaic, however the Latin contribution theory appears to be much stronger.

Hebrews was specifically written to the Jews, this is discussed in the Eusebius section I quoted earlier, that is why it is likely that Paul wrote it in Hebrew, and Luke his amanuensis brought the text to Greek, as Eusebius learned from Clement of Alexcandria.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/kjvo-tenets.11276/post-878503

Revelation has its own evidence for a Hebrew origin. Note, I just discussed this with a Revelaion scholar, Dean Furlong, and he sees this as a sensible proposition.

Matthew - The proposition of a Hebrew Matthew edition is well known, discussed by many early church writers, and almost certain. However that Hebrew edition was likely a different text than our canonical Matthew, based on the reports of Jerome. He saw it at the library at Casesarea and/or from Syrians with whom he was in touch.