Heretick or Divisive?

[Will J. Kinney]

Heretick or Divisive?

The idea for this article comes from brother Teno Groppi, who is a strong King James Bible believer and has a wonderful ministry teaching about creation versus evolution. Here is his homesite:

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/index.html

A heretic (modern spelling) is defined in Webster's 1999 dictionary as 1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church. 2. anyone who does not conform to an established view, doctrine, or principle.

Heresy is defined as 1. religious opinion at variance with opinion or doctrine. 2. any belief or theory that is at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

The Authorized King James Holy Bible says in Titus 3:10 "A man that is an HERETICK after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

The Greek word found here in all texts is haireticos, and it is used only one time in the New Testament. Not only does the KJB correctly translate the word as HERETICK, but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible 1599, Green's Modern KJV, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 (hombre hereje), the Italian Diodati, Wesley's 1755 translation, Darby, Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible, and even the New English Bible of 1970.

Here is a parable applicable to this verse:

A certain church was visited by some "Heaven's Gate Jim Jones Grape Kool-Aid" cultists. The pastor, trying to be a good shepherd to his flock, warned them about the visitors. He told them that these people were cultists and heretics and that his people should reject them after admonishing them to receive Christ and get right with God.

Of course this caused no small stir among the Kool-Aid cultists, who accused the pastor of not showing Christian love or tolerance, and being divisive.

The pastor stood his ground. His congregation appreciated his steadfastness and protection, and they killed a fatted calf and celebrated as most Baptists are wont to do. Amen.

Now let's look at how many modern versions render this verse. Some of the versions try to make the "archaic" King James English "easier to understand" by using "factious", but that's a synonym for "divisive".

NIV - Titus 3:10 Warn a DIVISIVE person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

NASB -Titus 3:10 Reject a FACTIOUS man after a first and second warning,

NLT- Titus 3:10 If anyone is causing DIVISIONS among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with that person.

RSV- Titus 3:10 As for a man who is FACTIOUS, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,

ESV- Titus 3:10 As for a person who STIRS UP DIVISION, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him.

NKJ -Titus 3:10 Reject a DIVISIVE man after the first and second admonition.

These modern versions would have you reject the pastor for causing division and being factious and intolerant, instead of avoiding the hereticks!

But wait, it gets worse.

Mat 25:31-32 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd DIVIDETH his sheep from the goats:

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I (Jesus) am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather DIVISION:

John 7:43 So there was a DIVISION among the people because of him (Jesus).

John 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a DIVISION among them.

John 10:19 There was a DIVISION therefore again among the Jews for these sayings (of Jesus).

Jesus was and continues to be a divisive man, but He was not a heretic. The King James Bible tells us to avoid heretics. The modern versions, including the NKJV, tell us to avoid and have nothing to do with a divisive man, and, if we follow the logic of simple words, this would include Jesus!

By changing the meaning of a single word, these new versions allow for an interpretation that is the exact opposite of what the Holy Ghost intended. Hey, but no essential doctrines are changed, right? Think about it.

Will Kinney

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Heresy is defined as 1. religious opinion at variance with opinion or doctrine. 2. any belief or theory that is at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

Are you saying that KJV-onlyism, because it is at varience with orthodox, historical, established Christian doctrine (and also causes division within the church, btw), is heresy?

 

[Johnv]

The contextual definition of the greek word is "one who chooses to divide". This was one of the definitions of the generic word "heretick" in the days of the AV1611, Geneva, et al. Today, the defenition of "heretic" is specific to religious doctrinal issues, but such was not solely the case in the 1500's/1600's.

Hope that helps.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you for that interesting site, Brother Will J. Kinney.
I found a link to a link that said:
"We believe the AV 1611 King James Bible to be
the perfect and infallible word of God."

I believe that to be a deception
(probably a self-deception, defining
"AV 1611 King James Bible" to mean "KJV1769"):

For the third and last time I ask:
Which is the King James Bible?
Here is a sample test:

1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):
... and he went into the citie.

2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.

3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.

I note that most KJV electronic sources
are from the KJV1769.

If you continue to avoid my question,
your believeability here declines to zero.
This is your last warning, if you decline to
answer I'll have to mark you a divisive heretic.

"Divisive" and "heretic" mean
the same thing. "Divisive" and
"division" do NOT mean the same thing
Again "division" has 10 meanings,
one of which is a sin, one of which is
a Jesus thing. I leave it as an
exercise for the student to figure out
which is which.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Bro.Ed~I thought all Bibles that say "King James" were "King James". I realize there is a difference in the publishers, but surely not in the message?

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Bro.Ed~I thought all Bibles that say "King James" were "King James". I realize there is a difference in the publishers, but surely not in the message?

GrannyGumbo, Grab a few different editions of the KJV and you will see some differences.
I even have two 1769 that changes names to match throughout the whole Bible. EX Esiais is changed to Isaiah in the NT. No Biggie.
But there are some changes in each different revision, edition, whatever you want to call them. Bro. Ed is right about the "he","she" differences in the different editions. But IMO it makes no doctrinal difference. What does it matter if Boaz went into the city, or Ruth? They both probably ended up there anyway. Common Sense.
But, you see, the same principle or standard I apply to the differing KJVs, I apply to all differing versions and their underlying texts. (What does God's Word say about the sin of weighing things with different scales?) I have still not found one difference between versions that make any doctrinal differences.

God wrote and preserved His words in such a way that if we didn't have 1/2 the Bible we could teach and study the major doctrines, especially Baptist Doctrines.
Now if people use just one verse to formulate a doctrine, then they are wrong.

Granny get a hold of a 1611 edition and compare it to your KJV, which most now are the 1769.
Your Brother in Christ, Tim

 

[tinytim]

Will you post:"Here is a parable applicable to this verse:

A certain church was visited by some "Heaven's Gate Jim Jones Grape Kool-Aid" cultists. The pastor, trying to be a good shepherd to his flock, warned them about the visitors. He told them that these people were cultists and heretics and that his people should reject them after admonishing them to receive Christ and get right with God."

Then you post:" These modern versions would have you reject the pastor for causing division and being factious and intolerant, instead of avoiding the hereticks!"


In my opinion the pastor that would cause that type of division in a church service is a HERETIC, if it happened at a service. He caused division within the church at the wrong time. Notice what CHRIST says on this subject:
(Mat 13:24) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
(Mat 13:25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
(Mat 13:26) But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
(Mat 13:27) So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
(Mat 13:28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
(Mat 13:29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

There are too many Proud pastors that think they are God, and have a right to pick and choose who they preach to. Jesus does the dividing because he is the only one that truly knows one's heart.

the following happened at thanksgiving. One our our church members stop to help pull a car out of a ditch. They then invited the people to our church. The people that our member helped were
Get this MORMONS! AGHAST, A BAPTIST HELPING A MORMON!!!
Well next service the mormon showed up to church. Instead of our pastor pointing them out and calling them names, He shared the Good News with them. UH OH, another boo, boo! We should never talk to "that kind of person!!"
They never caused a problem, and left our church knowing how to be saved. Who knows, they may be searching for the Truth. Would we let them teach, or speak about their religion, of course not. But then again if I went to a JW kingdom hall I wouldn't try to speak. It's called RESPECT!
Get it? RESPECT!
Which is something a lot of KJVOnlists need to learn. We are not hypocrites, heretics, or perverted, just because we decide to use a different translation than you.
It just means were right.

, Just a joke.
Don't take it seriously.
To cause division from an orthodox teaching of a church is heresy. plain and simple.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Heresy is defined as 1. religious opinion at variance with opinion or doctrine. 2. any belief or theory that is at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

Are you saying that KJV-onlyism, because it is at varience with orthodox, historical, established Christian doctrine (and also causes division within the church, btw), is heresy? </font>[/QUOTE]No, BrianT, Will was saying that many , if not all, the mv's are heretical and need to have their followers admonished.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Bro.Ed~I thought all Bibles that say "King James" were "King James". I realize there is a difference in the publishers, but surely not in the message?

With all due respect, Ma'm, there cannot be much more difference between messages when one reads "he" & the other reads "she".

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
No, BrianT, Will was saying that many , if not all, the mv's are heretical and need to have their followers admonished.

How can that be, since it is clearly the KJVO position that is heretical.

Any, I repeat, ANY version-only position, be it KJVO, NIVO, NASBO, etc, is heretical, since it elevates a translation above the texts from which it came. This is idolatrous, in the very least.

 

[Precepts]

Tiny, by your post all can see you have a problem discerning the practice of a shepherd to protect his sheep from ravening wolves. Your reference to Will's post concerning the "parable" about the Jim Jones crowd gives that away. Also all sheep are not all that strong to withstand the deceptions put forth by mormons and jw's. I would rather my pastor see the wolves and warn me against them than take the chance of my getting mauled and eaten. Now I am speaking as the shepherd of my little flock.

Example: the website http://www.choirmusic.com has those precious little sheep in that choir that the shepherd of Concord Missionary Baptist in Calhoun, Ga has spent endless hours on his kness in prayer to help those sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd and beware the ravening wolves. A good shepherd will wield his sword in defense of even the slightest sign of wolves. When a wolf sees the glimmer of his sword, he'll flee, unconverted sheep will stick around.

What I'm saying is the youth choir is that way in theior walk and ability is because they have been warned by the shepherd and the sword is there for observation.

I'll preach the truth in love and without comprimise, and I will not tolerate wolves in my flock taking his pick at random. You can let the wolves in your gate all you want, but if you are a real shepherd and not the hireling, you'll wield the sword! Cry aloud and spare not.

Thanks Brother Will, I'll try to reference the Holy Bible as the KJHB from now on!

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Heresy is defined as 1. religious opinion at variance with opinion or doctrine. 2. any belief or theory that is at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

Are you saying that KJV-onlyism, because it is at varience with orthodox, historical, established Christian doctrine (and also causes division within the church, btw), is heresy? </font>[/QUOTE]No, BrianT, Will was saying that many , if not all, the mv's are heretical and need to have their followers admonished. </font>[/QUOTE]But what Will DIDN'T say was what his source of AUTHORITY is for such as he DID say.

And he DIDN'T say that 'haireticos' also means, "one who is FACTIOUS; one who causes a schism".

"Silence" is golden-for the supporter of a false doctrine.

 

[gb93433]

The original poster does not understand division and unity.

The word for heretic is an adjective. It is not the noun. It is a word that descibes the man. The man is one who causes divisions. A heretic is one who intentionally leads people down the wrong road. He causes divisions among God's people leading them astray. He is selfish and does not glorify God both by his life and teaching.It is not someone who teaches a wrong teaching. If that were the case every pastor would qualify under his own admission. Every pastor as he grows gains more knowledge and is better equipped.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
No, BrianT, Will was saying that many , if not all, the mv's are heretical and need to have their followers admonished.

How can that be, since it is clearly the KJVO position that is heretical.

Any, I repeat, ANY version-only position, be it KJVO, NIVO, NASBO, etc, is heretical, since it elevates a translation above the texts from which it came. This is idolatrous, in the very least. </font>[/QUOTE]Depends on how you define KJVO doesn't it? If youdefine KJVO as holding forth the Word of God in the KJHB, then you are the heretick. BUT! If the KJVO define the King James Bible alone is the Word of God that is heresy, simply because the KJHB was derived from texts containing
the pure Word of God from which we get the KJHB. Now that can't be said about other versions, and that is admonishable to prevent becoming a heretic, getting the picture yet?

When you depart from the Received Text, you are become a heretick. That is what the mv's do, depart. I already know you declare KJVO as a false doctrine and in the way I described it as the KJHB as the ONLY Bible, that would hold true, but by your definition of KJVO as one holding forth the KJHB as the Holy Bible to the English speaking people, you call us a heretick according to what you believe, but by what I believe you are the heretick and not me. The evidence is established in the truth thet KJHB is accurate, precise, and w/o error. Now you will disagree, because you are a heretick, and not able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH!

 

[Precepts]

Cranston, I understood what Brother Will was saying, how come you didn't?

 

[Ed Edwards]

QuickeningSpirit: "When you depart from the Received Text,
you are become a heretick. That is what the mv's do, depart. "

The King James Version, 1611 Edition (KJV1611)
has sidenotes denoting over 200 variations among the Received Text
documents. My KJV1769 does not document these
variations. Therefore the KJV1769, a Modern Version, departs
from the Received Text and they are heretick who read it,
study it, worship it.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
QuickeningSpirit: "When you depart from the Received Text,
you are become a heretick. That is what the mv's do, depart. "

The King James Version, 1611 Edition (KJV1611)
has sidenotes denoting over 200 variations among the Received Text
documents. My KJV1769 does not document these
variations. Therefore the KJV1769, a Modern Version, departs
from the Received Text and they are heretick who read it,
study it, worship it.

Uh, Ed, I believe you just revealed why we who stand on the Authorized Version known as the Holy Bible in the King James 1611 are not heretics. You can spout all you want about the 1769, but you'll never find it departing from the 1611 in doctrine or thought or principle. But now since yopu seem to claim the 1873? containing the nkjv and other versions, then you are heretick to the faith and need to be admonished to that respect.

I have pointed out only one verse in Job 24:22 that proves beyond a shadow of the doubt to those who are able to discern the truth the nkjv is NOT the same as the KJHB.

I do like you Ed, but I sincerely disagree with you on this one.

I did hear a "preacher" say that those who are KJVO and say to others,"I don't like you" was rather childish. I found his remark rather childish and walked out. he wasn't sure what the Word of God is, he thinks the nkjv and the nasv are transalted the same, they are not.

The context of the KJHB clearly indicates the nkjv and the nasv as heretick.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Depends on how you define KJVO doesn't it?

I define KJVO as being one who elevates the KJV to a point where it is to have athority over all other English translations, regardless of their source. Some KJVOists believe that the KJV has autnority over the texts from which it came. Some KJVOists believe that the KJV has authority over all translations, including foreign ones. All these views, imo, are unbiblical.

If you define KJVO as holding forth the Word of God in the KJHB, then you are the heretick.

Which, since you eschew other trsnalations that have come from the TR to be wrong, that is what you are doing, isn't it?

BUT! If the KJVO define the King James Bible alone is the Word of God that is heresy, simply because the KJHB was derived from texts containing the pure Word of God from which we get the KJHB. Now that can't be said about other versions, and that is admonishable to prevent becoming a heretic, getting the picture yet?

The KJV is not the only English translation based on the TR. The Darby, Geneva,, Webster, New King James, Tyndale, and Young's all use the TR as their primary source (also, the NIV has footnotes that include TR text when there is a differentiation). You're defining a TRO person, not a KJVO person. The TRO position, btw, I could understand.

When you depart from the Received Text, you are become a heretick. That is what the mv's do, depart.

As I said, that's the definition of a TRO, not KJVO.

I already know you declare KJVO as a false doctrine and in the way I described it as the KJHB as the ONLY Bible, that would hold true, but by your definition of KJVO as one holding forth the KJHB as the Holy Bible to the English speaking people, you call us a heretick according to what you believe, but by what I believe you are the heretick and not me.

How do you know if I'm a heretick or not? You don't know what translation I prefer.

The evidence is established in the truth thet KJHB is accurate, precise, and w/o error.

Except for all other translations. There are a few errors in the KJV, such as the use of the word "Easter" instead of "Passover", and one instance of the word "Jesus" being used instead of "Joshua" (Hebrews 4). "Wind" in John 3:8 should be translated "Spirit" (pnuema is so translated everywhere else in the Bible - there is another word for wind).

The bigger issue with the KJV is actually one of archaic verbage. For example, "God forbid" should today be translated "Let it not Be". "God save the King" should be translated "Let the King Live". "made" in John 1:3 should be "came into being" by our use of the term today. "We do you to wit" (2 Cor. 8:1), today means "We make known to you." Arhcaic expressions and obsolete words such as asswaged (eased), amerce (fine), candlestick (lampstand), caul (lobe), neesings (sneezings), provender (fodder), shittim (acacia), taches (hooks) and trow (think), should all be updated, since those words are no longer used, or are used differently that was used at the time the KJV was translated. "Let" meant to hinder then; now it means to allow. "Suburbs" in the KJV means "open lands". "Corn" then meant grain, not the crop grown today. "Botch" and "Blains" referred to inflammations. "Advertise" in Num 24:14 meant to "advise". "Prevent" meant only to go before; now it meana to keep a thing from happening.

There is certainly nothing unbiblical or heretical to want Elizabethan English words, like gaddest, riddeth, puttest, whilst, wouldst, and provokedst; to be updated to gad, rid, put, while, would, provoked.

Now you will disagree, because you are a heretick, and not able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH!

In regards to the translation issue, your definition of heretic, however, is not biblical supported. Even a TRO position cannot be firmly substantiated biblically, aside from preference of use.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

I have pointed out only one verse in Job 24:22 that proves beyond a shadow of the doubt to those who are able to discern the truth the nkjv is NOT the same as the KJHB.

So?

I did hear a "preacher" say that those who are KJVO and say to others,"I don't like you" was rather childish. I found his remark rather childish and walked out. he wasn't sure what the Word of God is, he thinks the nkjv and the nasv are transalted the same, they are not.

So?

The context of the KJHB clearly indicates the nkjv and the nasv as heretick.

By whose authority?

 

[Ed Edwards]

QuickeningSpirit: "... then you are heretick
to the faith and need to be admonished to that respect."

I'm just going to have to start reading
the stuff i write before i post. I'd have done
that before, had i conceived anybody was reading it.