But many of the posters there accept the modern versions and it occurred to me they may be a bit leery of the very word "heretic" because their versions don't use the term. A couple there have even seemed to suggest that the very idea of heresy went out with the Middle Ages when many considered to be heretics were persecuted, tortured and put to death.
Anyway, here is my latest post on the subject there:
Even the New King James has the altered version of this verse:
If I am convinced by others here that ***** does not deserve to be called a heretic then of course I would agree that he is to be accepted as a brother in Christ.
But if he does deserve it then the KJV has this to say:
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
But anyone who does not have a KJV (or a Webster's) will have a different reading at that verse -- you will have a reading that in fact strongly implies to the average reader the exact opposite: that it is someone who identifies a heretic who should be rejected, as a "divisive" or "factious" person.
Here is a page from Blue Letter Bible that makes that clear.
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,A DIVISIVE man!!!! Not a heretic but a "divisive" man!!!
If you consult Strong's you'll find that "divisive" and "factious" are meant to refer to a person who holds false doctrine, or a heretic, but that's not how the average reader understands the term, as the devil of course well knew when he planted the term in the ear of Westcott and Hort.
A comparison of the different readings of Titus 3:10 ought to set off loud alarms among God's people about the many heresies in the modern Bibles put there by the heretics Westcott and Hort back in 1881.