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

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.

All of these refer to the Hebrew language.

Luke 23:38 (KJV)
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 5:2 (KJV)
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

John 19:13 (KJV)
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

John 19:17 (KJV)
And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

John 19:20 (KJV)
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Acts 21:40 (KJV)
And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2 (KJV)
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Acts 26:14 (KJV)
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Revelation 9:11 (KJV)
And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 16:16 (KJV)
And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
 
All of these refer to the Hebrew language.

Luke 23:38 (KJV)
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 5:2 (KJV)
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

John 19:13 (KJV)
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

John 19:17 (KJV)
And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

John 19:20 (KJV)
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Acts 21:40 (KJV)
And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2 (KJV)
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Acts 26:14 (KJV)
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Revelation 9:11 (KJV)
And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 16:16 (KJV)
And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

There you go Avery. Making an argument from the original languages and then using the KJV as your only evidence. Typical misdirection and inconsistency from you.

You don't understand what I said because you have never studied it fully yourself. When you're a KJVOist, all you care about is claiming the KJV is perfect and you STOP THERE.

I said what I said for a reason. Ἑβραΐστί vs Ἑβραΐκός

Think.......

2Co 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
 
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.
I had pointed out that the two streams theory was flawed in posts years before 2003 and also very clearly in my 2003 book. I started studying and writing about the KJV-only issue probably around 1988 to 1990 if not before.

You have failed to correct your pals Will Kinney and David W. Daniels on their use of this flawed, erroneous KJV-only argument since they both still repeat and use it. Other current KJV-only advocates still use this two streams argument.
 
All of these refer to the Hebrew language.

Luke 23:38 (KJV)
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 5:2 (KJV)
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

John 19:13 (KJV)
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

John 19:17 (KJV)
And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

John 19:20 (KJV)
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Acts 21:40 (KJV)
And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2 (KJV)
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Acts 26:14 (KJV)
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Revelation 9:11 (KJV)
And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 16:16 (KJV)
And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
 
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.
Where does it belong then? At the end of the Gospel? Or somewhere in Luke? Or perhaps it's own book? Is there anywhere you would allow the Pericope Adulterae to be printed?
 
You believe incorrectly. I started studying and writing about the issue before I came in contact with Doug Kutilek.

The Benjamin George Wilkinson (1872-1968) error was published in 1930.

Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930)
Benjamin G. Wilkinson
http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm

“Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles."

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

Doug Kutilek was exposing the Wilkinson errors in 1990 and 1991, with an emphasis on how Wilkinson tried to make the Old Latin the good guy and the Vulgate the bad guy. Two main articles were:

Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors. Baptist Biblical Heritage 1, no. 3 (fall 1990)

The Truth About the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin Version. Baptist Biblical Heritage 2, no. 2 (summer 1991)

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

It seems to me that these articles were well-known and available to you.
 
Last edited:
Steven, you are only speculating and guessing.

I had David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible back in the 1970's, and it had much of Benjamin Wilkinson's book in it.

I probably wrote books reviews and articles that were published in Baptist Biblical Heritage around the same period. My earlier research was independent of his research. The two streams argument involves much more than just the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate. I would read his articles along with hundreds of other sources in my over ten year research for my book. Doug Kutilek's information would later be helpful concerning the Old Latin, but I pointed out problems with the two streams argument involving several other Bibles listed in the KJV-only view's good stream.
 
Charles Spurgeon asserted: “I became a Baptist through reading the New Testament,--especially in the Greek” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. I, p. 150). Spurgeon stated: “Our fullest revelation of God’s will is in that tongue [Greek], and so are our noblest names for Jesus. The standard of our faith is Greek. . . . Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes; but in the Greek, never” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. II, p. 327) In his publication The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon commented: “The more reading of the Scriptures the better, and it is best of all when that reading occupies itself with the original. Every member of our churches, who has a fair English education, should aim to acquire sufficient Greek to read the New Testament” (August, 1885, p. 431).
 
The two streams argument involves much more than just the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate.

This is the key fault, especially when you look at how Wilkinson mangled all the issues around the Old Latin, and Wilkinson was mangling Frederick Nolan.

Doug Kutilek made some errors in his attack on Wilkinson, but he got this Old Latin element right. You added a little bit on lesser aspects, and also lots of repetitive quote-snippets.

Afaik, I wrote up the first correction from an AV defender. Then, Bryan Ross studied it out and formalized the corrections with papers and YouTube’s.

You can get a secondary nod, after Doug Kutilek, for giving the argument contra the Wilkinson two streams error. Afaik, you never gave Doug Kutilek proper credit.
 
This is the key fault, especially when you look at how Wilkinson mangled all the issues around the Old Latin, and Wilkinson was mangling Frederick Nolan.

Doug Kutilek made some errors in his attack on Wilkinson, but he got this Old Latin element right. You added a little bit on lesser aspects, and also lots of repetitive quote-snippets.

Afaik, I wrote up the first correction from an AV defender. Then, Bryan Ross studied it out and formalized the corrections with papers and YouTube’s.

You can get a secondary nod, after Doug Kutilek, for giving the argument contra the Wilkinson two streams error. Afaik, you never gave Doug Kutilek proper credit.

What you mean by "old Latin"? I don't you know what you mean.
 
What you mean by "old Latin"?

Any Latin ms. that does not have Vulgate elements from Jerome is Old Latin. The date may be AD 400 or AD 800 but if the text does not have Vulgate elements it comes from the early pre-Jerome line. Many mss. are hybrid, Old Latin and Vulgate.
 
Any Latin ms. that does not have Vulgate elements from Jerome is Old Latin. The date may be AD 400 or AD 800 but if the text does not have Vulgate elements it comes from the early pre-Jerome line. Many mss. are hybrid, Old Latin and Vulgate.

So you are actually saying that someone is using a pre-Vulgate edition? What manuscript might that be? I suspect you don't know manuscripts at all.
 
I think the pre-Vulgate mss in Latin are usually categorized as "Italic". There are quite a few such mss, but I don't think any church anywhere is now still using them in preference to the Vulgate.
 
So you are actually saying that someone is using a pre-Vulgate edition? What manuscript might that be?

There are specific manuscripts that are a pre-Vulgate text. The Speculum is a simple example. Any quote that come from before c. AD 400, like that of Priscillian will be pre-Vulgate. Cyprian's Latin text was pre-Vulgate. Just to give a couple of simple examples.
 
Back
Top