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

I am quite willing to accept Mark without the longer ending and I do not believe that the Pericope Adulterae does not belong in John chapter 8. I don't pretend to be an expert but I do have my own opinions.
 
Last edited:
100% consistent.
Your opinion is inconsistent. You are not applying the same exact measures/standards. It is clearly not 100% consistent since there are many significant textual differences between the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and the varying Textus Receptus editions.

Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred words in just one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17).
 
You are fighting the Scripture that showed Paul speaking to the people of Jerusalem in Hebrew. Scholars today accept the Hebrew language use, correcting the false idea that Hebraisti is Aramaic. The corruption versions led you astray.

Your tone magnifies your false position.

Semitic languages have many things in common but they witness to division. The similarities between Hebrew and Aramaic witness to the facts of divisions within the languages themselves. You're not a linguist Avery. You never have been. I often have to work among many people from different cultures. If you were surrounded with this type of situation that existed during the first century, there is no way you'd believe that Hebrew was a thriving language that every person of "Hebrew" descent understood Paul. That is why the LXX existed. For Hebrews. Not Greeks. Hebrews did not want to share their Scriptures with anyone but their believers. They were much like you Avery. Wanting all men to come their way to know God.

I've watched you change over the years. I know what you've taught and said in the past and you act like it never happened. That you're perfect and have always believed this "perfect canard" you're peddling. You haven't. That is what all KJVOist do.
 
I erred, what I meant to say is that I don't believe the Pericope Adulterae belongs in John chap. 8.
What is Hebraisti?
And can I ask, who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews? Someone did a word analysis many years ago and decided it was not Paul.
 
there is no way you'd believe that Hebrew was a thriving language that every person of "Hebrew" descent understood Paul. That is why the LXX existed. For Hebrews. Not Greeks. Hebrews did not want to share their Scriptures with anyone but their believers.

Greek was more popular up in the Galilee of the Nations (Isaiah 9:1).

And I still think you are being confused by the corruption texts that say Aramaic in the New Testament. You should catch up on Ken Penner, Alan Millard and others. Penner changed the scholarship back around 2004 at the SBL, confirming the historic Geneva and AV that translates with the word Hebrew.
 
And can I ask, who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews? Someone did a word analysis many years ago and decided it was not Paul.

If Paul's Hebrew was translated to Greek by Luke (who had likely been a priest in the Temple, one of the "great company" that came to faith and wrote to the high priest Theophilus) then that would likely negate any such word analysis.

In fact, Eusebius says, referencing Clement of Alexandria as a source, that this is why stylistically Hebrews is akin to Acts (thus Luke too) rather than the Pauline Epistles. When a stylistic argument comes from Clement and/or Eusebius, and involves full books, it deserves respect.
 
Last edited:
I've watched you change over the years. I know what you've taught and said in the past and you act like it never happened. That you're perfect and have always believed this "perfect canard" you're peddling.

My faith and Bible journeys are an open book.
Obviously you are hokey dokey fabricating in the "you're perfect" claim.

If you think you have some great insight to share from earlier days, then share away!
 
Your opinion is inconsistent. You are not applying the same exact measures/standards. It is clearly not 100% consistent since there are many significant textual differences between the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and the varying Textus Receptus editions.
Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred words in just one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17).

The Latin Vulgate contributed to the Reformation Bible and in many spots was rejected by the Reformation Bible. If you have the text of Vulgate phrases that are not in the TR, you should print the Latin words, preferably with translation.

Taking Acts 4:25

Acts 4:25 (AV)
Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said,
Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

There is a variant of a few words, with some complexities, having David speak by the Holy Spirit.

The corruption version from Vaticanus-primacy lacks c. 45 full verses.

So you are proving my point.
The Vulgate is an historic Bible with limited corruptions, and a comparison to the huge Westcott-Hort problems fails.
 
Last edited:
Greek was more popular up in the Galilee of the Nations (Isaiah 9:1).

And I still think you are being confused by the corruption texts that say Aramaic in the New Testament. You should catch up on Ken Penner, Alan Millard and others. Penner changed the scholarship back around 2004 at the SBL, confirming the historic Geneva and AV that translates with the word Hebrew.

I'm not confused at all. You can deal with what I said instead of deflecting.

Jews where scattered through the known world. They ended up in Australia and South America. Your claims are bogus. You need to study the "Jewish Diaspora".

Those you referenced had a "flavor" of Hebrew they understood. They carried around various varying scrolls of Hebrew. The singular collection they used was the LXX. This is evidence by the DSS and the varying collection of writings that existed among largely different sects of Hebrews.

I don't need to reference a single person you prefer. I know the facts of what happened. I don't need another's "spin" on those facts. If you want to talk about a "fact".... then do so. Stop posturing.
 
I know for a fact that you rejected any Latin influence in the KJV.

Really?

Here I was defending the Vulgate and its historic contributions from unfair two streams attacks back in 2010.

Streams of Bibles, the Reformation Bible & KJB Defense
https://kjvbibleforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=4680

REFORMATION BIBLE DYNAMIC
And by making the Vulgate the textual enemy, the KJB defender has to work awkwardly around the fascinating and powerful Reformation Bible dynamic, which actually incorporated together the preservation from the Greek fountainhead and the Vulgate and Old Latin, with excellent reference to and support from early church writers and internal evidences. Thus the lacks in the Greek text that were correct in the Latin (often simply omissions, the most trivial scribal error, like the heavenly witnesses and minority textual representation for Acts 8:37) were easily seen to be pure scripture by the solid combination of textual considerations. This was done by the Bible textual giants of Erasmus unto Stephanus unto Beza .. with a providential process of correction and purification unto 1611.

How far back do we need to go?
 
Do you agree that Hebrew is the proper word in the New Testament and that versions that have Aramaic are simply wrong?

In Luke 23:38. Yes.

There is room left in the other occurrences to question exactly what the author is referencing. Luke is exacting in his choice of words.

Even so, there is still room to see a blended Semitic language.
 
Are you seriously going to deny that once rejected Latin influence in the KJV.

Note: I once rejected the AV.

Once I accepted the AV as the pure word of God, I quickly saw that Latin influence is significant. Most early discussions are in email forums and not easily found. I doubt if I ever "rejected Latin influence" because I studied the issues with the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Waldensians, etc. I remember for awhile on the Which Version Yahoogroups forum I looked at the Tepl version and thought that it might be superior to the Vulgate, but later I saw that this was really a scholastic dead-end, since the Vulgate shared the same excellent readings like the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37.

I studied and I came to the conclusion that Doug Kutilek was actually largely right on these issues and I wrote that two streams theory was flawed, as you see in the 2010 forum.

A few years back Bryan Ross saw my writings and wrote extensively on these flaws. I explained to Bryan how Benjamin Wilkinson had mangled Frederick Nolan in coming up with this theory, which Wilkinson liked because it superficially went well with the SDA emphasis on the Waldensians.
 
Last edited:
Note: I once rejected the AV.

Once I accepted the AV as the pure word of God, I quickly saw that Latin influence is significant. Most early discussions are in email forums and not easily found. I doubt if I ever "rejected Latin influence" because I studied the issues with the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Waldensians, etc. I remember for awhile on the Which Version Yahoogroups forum I looked at the Tepl version and thought that it might be superior to the Vulgate, but later I saw that this was really a scholastic dead-end, since the Vulgate shared the same excellent readings like the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37.

Bingo. That was longer than you're allowing in your response.

I studied and I came to the conclusion that Doug Kutilek was actually largely right on these issues and I wrote that two streams theory was flawed, as you see in the 2010 forum.

A few years back Bryan Ross saw my writings and wrote extensively on these flaws. I explained to Bryan how Benjamin Wilkinson had mangled Frederick Nolan in coming up with this theory, which Wilkinson liked because it superficially went well with the SDA emphasis on the Waldensians.

I can testify to the fact that you've been at odds with your fellow KJVOist in some small areas. Latin is one of them but you must admit that you've changed. You're admitting to some degree now but not enough.

I have never argued for the origins of KJVOism. I deal with the facts of the belief.
 
Bingo. That was longer than you're allowing in your response. I can testify to the fact that you've been at odds with your fellow KJVOist in some small areas. Latin is one of them but you must admit that you've changed. You're admitting to some degree now but not enough. I have never argued for the origins of KJVOism. I deal with the facts of the belief.

I certainly hope I have changed as I have learned.
 
I certainly hope I have changed as I have learned.

Which what we all should do. There is enough evidence for you to abandon a KJVO position.

Has anyone ever pointed out to you how the KJV unjustly has "ruler" in Hebrews 13? This one error should be enough for you to see the influence James had upon the translation.
 
Back
Top