Heretic Hunter
Active Member
That's a solid statement I agree with!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the Greek reliable?
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, but the Greek >>>>>>>>>>>> KJV...or any other version.
Does a consistent, just application of this person's argument suggest that the Church of England makers of the KJV could have tampered with God's words in their translating and could have translated in a way to favor and support some Church of England doctrines? This argument would be unjust if it is not applied to all Bible translators including the KJV translators.
The Church of England makers of the KJV adjusted or changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views.
Does a consistent, just application of this person's reasoning suggest that the Bible given by inspiration of God as preserved in the original languages are no longer the authority and that the opinions of what an exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 say has become the authority?
Are there many completely different Greek texts of the New Testament or is there basically one Greek text presented in different editions with a small percentage of difference? Is it possible to try to overstate the differences and ignore or avoid the large amount of agreement? Some scholars suggest that all the different editions (even the ones most different) are in basic agreement as much as 90% of the time.
One reason that there are actual textual differences in the Greek NT text editions is the fact that there are actual differences and variations in the Greek NT manuscripts on which they are based. Different text editors have not agreed on which manuscripts to follow or in what textual measures/standards to apply in dealing with the textual differences in the Greek manuscripts.
Another reason for some differences is the fact that textual critics or editors have sometimes added readings from other sources such as Erasmus adding several readings from the Latin Vulgate.
There were as many as thirty textually-varying editions of the Textus Receptus, and yet it is often referred to as if it was only one text.
There are over 100 editions of the KJV with some variations or differences, and yet it is referred to as "the KJV" by KJV-only advocates.
Last edited:
Forever Settled
Active Member
I heard about you on Christian Radio.
Critique Of Author Rick Norris, The Unbound Scriptures, KJVOnly - Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums
Oh yeah I heard that too just wasn’t realizing this was the Guy .
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
There was a Baptist that spoke about Rick Norris on the Radio, and revealed things about the Author of The Unbound Scriptures.
Critique Of Author Rick Norris, The Unbound Scriptures, KJVOnly - Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums
Are you trying to attack or accuse a person rather than discussing ideas or doctrines?
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
The Baptist that spoke on Christian Radio brought attention to the man that is notorious for attacking Christians that believe God and what is written in The Holy Bible.
Do you think that the Published Author should be challenged and questioned? Are you the man that the Baptist spoke about on the Radio?
That unproven allegation would be misleading and even false since I do not attack Christians for believing God and what is written in the Holy Bible. Perhaps that person has it backwards since KJV-only advocates may be the ones who will attack believers for believing God and what is written in the Scriptures when they disagree with KJV-only opinions of men.
The modern, non-scriptural KJV-only theory has not been demonstrated to be written in the Scriptures including in a Bible translation [the KJV], and it has not been demonstrated to be believing what God stated in the Scriptures.
Last edited:
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
Perhaps that man got it right.
Why is it that you refer to Bible Believing Christians that have faith in God and trust what is written in The Holy Bible as being "KJV-only advocates" and lump Born Again, by the Spirit of God, Christians into a group with Seventh Day Adventists knowing that the Seventh Day Adventists are a false prophet cult that didn't come about until the 1840's that were taught by William Miller that was a false prophet and wolf wearing sheepskins in a Baptist Church? The Holy Bible was had by Baptists first before William Miller and Ellen G. White came along. Without The Holy Bible, what do you have? Can there be a Church without The Holy Bible? Can there be Sunday School without The Holy Bible? Can the false prophets be exposed and refuted without The Holy Bible?Who is this Rick Norris? Is this man a Greek Scholar? Can that man fluently speak Biblical Greek? Can that man write Biblical Greek? Can that man read, with full comprehension and understanding, Biblical Greek? Was that man appointed by God to determine that The Holy Bible is no longer any good or reliable? I dare to say that the answer to the latter questions can be answered in a single word: No!
Since the KJV is an English translation, the term KJV-only view would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain viewpoint/teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive, only claims for one English Bible translation—the KJV.
Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view.
A KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV, not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Those who advocate KJV-only opinions would be accurately described as being KJV-only advocates.
Since non-scriptural KJV-only opinions or claims are not written or taught in the Bible, how can those KJV-only claims be accurately described as "Bible-believing"?
Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view.
A KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV, not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Those who advocate KJV-only opinions would be accurately described as being KJV-only advocates.
Since non-scriptural KJV-only opinions or claims are not written or taught in the Bible, how can those KJV-only claims be accurately described as "Bible-believing"?
By Holy Bible, do you actually mean the KJV?
You ask many questions, but you do not prove the premises behind your questions to be true.
There were local churches before the KJV ever existed. The body of Christ is not dependent upon one English Bible translation. There are believers and churches where English is not spoken.
The Scriptures directly given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles were not in English and were not the KJV.
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
Bible Believing Christians discern the difference between wheat and tares. The wheat are the children of God and tares are the children of the Devil.
Is all of what you wrote, in the quoted post, your own opinion? Opinion is not fact. That is a man made term with a man made definition. When was the term and definition made and by which man? Can the term and definition be found in a Dictionary, Commentary, or any other book written by the man that coined such a preposterous term and definition to sew disunity, discord, and division among Believers in the Church? I dare say that such a man was not a godly man!
You do not prove that his allegation is true or right. Do you merely assume or speculate?
Last edited:
KJV-only assumptions and KJV-only opinions are not verifiable facts and are not Bible doctrine.
It is a fact that the KJV is an English Bible translation, and it is fact that "only" has the meaning or definition soundly given it in the combination of the two [KJV-only].
Do you try to deny the fact that the KJV is an English Bible translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV?
Do you suggest that the accurate term Baptist for certain beliefs and views sows disunity, discord, and division in the church? The term KJV-only is soundly used in a similar manner as the term Baptist.
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
You have failed to answer the questions that I raised.
Are you Rick Norris? 
Are you saying that your are not Rick Norris and not answering the questions to elude the issues? 
So what? You have failed to answer the questions that you were asked so you do not practice what you preach.
Your questions could be considered diversionary since they do not directly concern the subject of Bible translations. The focus of this forum is not supposed to be on an individual person.
Heretic Hunter
Active Member
It is proven that you hide behind "focus of this forum is not supposed to be on an individual person" to propagate your agenda. Was it you that made the term "KJV-only advocate" with its ficitious definition to cast down on The Holy Bible, and to injure Christians' faith in God? Would you like for me to share with my Brothers here, examples of people that have been injured by your man made propaganda?
Did you find what you were hunting for?You have failed to answer the questions that I raised.
- Status