Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

brandplucked

A Response to Rick Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures

Recommended Posts

A Response to Rick Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, A Review of KJV-only Claims and Publications.


The "logical" Premise of Mr. Norris

James D. Price Ph.D, one of the NKJV translators, writes the Foreward to Rick Norris' book called The Unbound Scriptures. In this preface Mr. Price sums up the conclusions of Mr. Norris saying: "Norris demonstrates that the doctrine of inerrancy can be successfully applied ONLY to THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, but not to any translation, including the KJV."
(Caps are mine throughout)


He also says: "Norris shows that the doctrine of preservation can be applied properly ONLY to the text of THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, and that the application of this doctrine to subsequent copies or translations is not a historic Baptist doctrine."

Mr. Price is correct in his analysis of Norris' conclusions. It is ironic to see Mr. Norris use "logic" when he attempts to refute the King James only position. Mr. Norris says: "A conclusion can only be considered valid and true when the premises on which it is based are true....One false assumption or fallacious link can break a chain of evidence and render the whole argument a failure."

Norris' book is full of his references to "the inspired, inerrant original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures". He starts off his first chapter affirming "THE Bible IS the inspired word of God" - he doesn't say The Bible WAS the inspired word of God - yet he never identifies for us what this Bible IS nor WHERE we can find these ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Mr. Norris is very big on logic. He says: "The questions involved in this disagreement are not about what God can possibly do but are about what God has actually done. Only an open examination of the evidence can settle this issue. The validity of any claim or argument concerning this or any disagreement must be settled by the use of logical means." He goes into great detail explaining how we need logic to arrive at sound conclusions concerning the Bible version issue, yet it is blatantly obvious to me that Mr. Norris' logic has failed him miserably in arriving at his conclusions. He has built his entire argument upon a false assumption.

Mr. Norris concludes his first chapter saying: "God's preserved Word in THE ORIGINAL languages MUST BE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY and Standard of truth for evaluating and validating all translations."

Mr. Norris has neglected to inform us of the fact that no such animal as "the original Hebrew and Greek" exists on this planet, and he knows it doesn't exist, yet this is the foundation of his anti-King James Only position.

THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS, and there is widespread and profound differences of opinion as to what they might have said, as is amply witnessed by the multitude of conflicting bible versions so prevalent today. The Bible consists of 66 books, and never has there been such a Book composed only of "the originals" all placed together in one book to form the Bible.

Mr. Norris makes abundant use of quotes from past theologians in an effort to prop up his "historical view" of inspiration and preservation. Here is one of many typical quotes which sounds good on the surface, but in fact says nothing of actual substance. He quotes Francis Turretin (1623-1687) who says: "Our teaching is that ONLY the Hebrew of the O.T. and the Greek of the New have been and ARE authentic in the sense that all controversies concerning faith and religion, and all versions, are to be tested and examined by them."

Well, this would be very nice indeed, if such a thing as THE Hebrew and THE Greek existed, but they don't, and everybody knows it. How then can we consult something that doesn't exist and use them to "test and examine all versions"?

It doesn't matter how many godly men of old said "only the originals are the standard". They were posturing a textual position that does not exist, and they knew it didn't exist when they said it! And Mr. Norris has the nerve to accuse the King James Bible believer of holding a false premise on which he bases his conclusions!

Regarding the practical outworking of the doctrine of the preservation of God's words, the modern version proponents either believe the true words of God are "out there somewhere" in all the variant manuscripts but we are not sure which ones they are; or they reduce "preservation" to the idea that the general, overall message is in all "reliable translations", though the particular words and numbers, many whole verses and the meaning of much of Scripture remains uncertain or even lost. Neither view really means that "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" has actually been divinely preserved through history to the present day.

Instead of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:36), the modern versionist really thinks along the lines of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but most of the general sense of what I said won't pass away."

Here are some quotes from several textual critics you won't find in Norris' book. These men prepared the way for and later adopted the textual theories of Westcott and Hort, whose Greek text forms the basis of most modern New Testament versions, as the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, ISV.

As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book."

In 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

In 1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following judgment: "In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall."

In 1960 H. Greeven also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism - "In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

In 1963 R. M. Grant adopts a still more despairing attitude - "The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible."

In contrast to the modern scholar's affirmation that the Standard or final authority is "the Bible AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN", here are a couple examples of confessions of faith from the past. Notice there is no mention of "the originals only".

 In 1678 the General Baptists of England published the Orthodox Creed. It says: "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678?

Observe this personal confession of faith by a man named Mr. Kinney (no known relation) and the date when he wrote it. LeBaron W. Kinney  wrote in 1942, "When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering, and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. We believe that God overruled His gift of the King James Version of 1611, so that we have in it the very Word of God. We believe that no other English Version will ever take its place. Every one of the various English versions claims to be nearer the original than the others. This could not be true of more than one of them." (Hebrew Word Studies, Acres of Rubies" page 9, published by Loizeaux Brothers).


Examples of Norris' "logic" are found throughout his book. On page 11 he takes up the argument of a KJB believer. He says:"KJV-only advocate Ralph Yarnell claimed: "If the Holy Spirit was in the translation, then it is an inerrant translation, for the Holy Spirt would not be a party to anything less". Mr. Norris then responds: "If this claim were true, would it not also mean that believers must be 100% perfect, infallible, and sinless since the Holy Spirit is in them?"

What Norris misses here is the fact that the Bible itself claims to be the perfect, inspired word of God, whereas the same Bible tells us that believers are not perfect or sinless now, but one day shall be. This is an example of the logic Mr. Norris employs to build his case.

Commenting on a KJB believer who says the AV of 1611 is the standard by which all translations are judged, Mr. Norris says: "In contrast to the claims of KJV advocates, God's Word does not teach that God infallibly guided the KJV translators to restore perfectly the original text from a number of slightly imperfect printed editions of the Greek New Testament. Should the authority of God's Word in Hebrew and Greek be dethroned and replaced by the finite renderings of the uninspired KJV translators?"

Mr. Norris' "logic" has once again failed him here. He speaks of the authority of the Hebrew and Greek, yet does not identify WHICH GREEK and which Hebrew he is talking about. There are easily 25 to 30 very different Greek texts in print, and thousands of manuscripts which differ from each other. The NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV and most modern versions are based on a very different Greek text than those of Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, the Geneva Bible, the King James Holy Bible and the NKJV. It omits some 3000 words in the New Testament alone and even these modern versions do not always follow the same Greek texts among themselves.

A very well done and easy to follow chart showing just SOME of the textual differences between the King James Bible and versions like the NIV, NASB is found at this site. These are not "minor differences". The equivalent number of words from the combined epistles of First and Second Peter have been omitted in most modern versions.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

As for the NASB, NIV, and the ESV, they each reject ALL Hebrew texts in scores of places, thinking they have been corrupted, and often do not even agree with each other on which parts of the Hebrew text they think contain "scribal errors" or where they believe the text is incomplete and must be suplimented from some other source like the Syriac, Septuagint, or the Latin.

For factual documentation of where the NIV, NASB, and ESV depart from the Hebrew texts, and thus would be disqualified as legitimate Bible versions even by Mr. Norris's standards, see my articles on the NASB, NIV here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

And for the ESV, the 2001 English Standard Version now being used by many evangelical churches, which departs from the Hebrew texts much more than even the NIV, NASB see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/ESV.html

It is true that God's word does not mention the King James Bible - But neither does it mention the NASB, NIV, or ESV. God does promise to preserve His words somewhere on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. Mr. Norris tries to give the impression that he knows what they are, but he NEVER ONCE tells us exactly WHERE we can find them.


Mr. Norris goes into great detail explaining how the KJB translators used a variety of Greek texts, manuscripts and other versions to put together the finished product, explaining for us that no two manuscripts are exactly the same and the KJB does not match any of them 100%.

However it should be noted that today's scholars go through the same sifting process in an attempt to restore what they think are the words of God and no manuscript reads the way the NASB, NIV, or ESV do either. Mr. Norris seems to dismiss the possibility that God has kept His promises to preserve His words and done so by guiding a group of men to put together a perfect Bible in the form of a translation. Only God knows for sure which readings are His and only He can guide men to put them in His Book.

The King James Bible believer puts his faith in Almighty God to fulfill His promises; not in any group of fallible and imperfect men, not in the King James translators, and certainly not in men like Westcott and Hort, Bruce Metzger, or cardinal Carlos Martini.

In Mr. Norris' view, only the originals are inerrant and inspired. Mr. Norris has never seen the originals nor has anyone else, mainly because they turned to dust a couple thousand years ago. Norris tells us that no translation can be the inspired word of God and they all are imperfect and limited. Yet throughout his book he says the non-existent "originals" are the Standard by which all versions are to be judged. The only logical conclusion we can then draw from his premise is that there is no inerrant, infallible, inspired Bible anywhere on this earth. Even though Mr. Norris continually speaks of "the inspired original Hebrew and Greek autographs" as the Final Standard, I challenge him to tell us where these can be found.

It is extremely important that from the outset we clearly see where Mr. Norris is coming from in his premise. He and others like him who criticize the Authorized Version have no objective, absolute, infallible Standard by which they sit in judgment on the King James Bible.

The Premise of the King James Bible Believer

In contrast to Mr. Norris' Final Standard premise, which is the non-existent "originals" and a mystical bible that exist only in his own mind, the King James Bible believer relies on the promises of God to preserve His infallible words.


Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy Truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1 Peter 1:23-25: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever... But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God never promised to give every nation or individual a perfect Bible. I know God uses imperfect men and imperfect bible versions to bring people to Christ. The gospel is found in any version out there - this is not the issue. The issue is Did God keep His promises to preserve His complete, inerrant, pure and perfect words somewhere on this earth till the heavens pass away? I believe He did.

"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 147:19-20.

Will Kinney

(to be continued)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh Will, now ya done it, what shall I do, I'm all a twitter in cornfusion,

should I believe the nice man with the logical premise...

[quote]
The "logical" Premise of Mr. Norris
[/quote]

Or God's Holy Word...

[quote]
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy Truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1 Peter 1:23-25: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever... But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."
[/quote]

what shall I do, help me out here someone!?!?!? :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you are in a pickle, aren't you? I guess you will just have to be a fool for Christ and believe His holy Word! :mrgreen:

Boy, glad I could help you out!! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted this on another thread, but it certainly fits here as well.

[quote]
This fight is about the Glory of God!

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The above verses Authored by the Holy Spirit of God through King David says that God's Word is Pure, and it WILL be preserved for ever.

That means for ANY man, and ALL men who will come to believe in God's Works FOREVER.

To say God's Word disappeared in "the originals", and that we have no copy of those words is the epitome of man's arrogance and hatred for God.

It calls God a liar. PERIOD

I HATE to hear God called a LIAR, PERIOD

I defend God's name, AND HE holds His Word Above ALL His NAME!

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
[/quote]

Regarding this...

[quote]
The "logical" Premise of Mr. Norris
[/quote]

Mr Norris THOU ART A FOOL :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi saints, thanks for your interest and comments. Norris' book will keep me occupied for quite a while but I think it is important to address what he has written so more people will not have their faith in God's words destroyed and undermined. Sorry if the posts are long, but so is his book - 544 pages!

God bless,

Will K


Those Dreadful Archaic Words

In chapter Two of Rick Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, he takes up the issue of archaic words. Mr. Norris says: "Nothing does more dishonor to God's Word than to leave it in the condition where there is a necessity for the ordinary preacher to update its archaic words, clarify some renderings, or correct its errors, whether errors of printing or of translation."

Mr. Norris asks: "How are differences in explaining the meaning of archaic words different from having an updated translation with the correct updated meaning of the archaic words?"

Mr. Norris overstates his case just a tad when he says: "Words used with quite different meaning from what they once possessed are like hidden rocks which give no notice of their presence but on which a boat is more likely to be shipwrecked than on rocks that can be seen above the water."

"When KJV-only advocates complain about claimed archaic words remaining in modern translations, in effect they are also condemning the greater number of archaic words in the KJV."

First of all, when Mr. Norris says "nothing dishonors God's word more than having to update or explain archaic words", I strongly disagree with his assessment. If I am to choose between an older version that occasionally uses archaic or difficult words yet is in fact the true, preserved, inerrant, and doctrinally sound words of God, and a more modern version that may be easier to understand but which omits thousands of God inspired words, waters down or perverts sound doctrine and changes the meaning of what God has said, then the choice is a clear and easy one to make.

Mr. Norris is being more than a little inconsistent in applying his standards. On the one hand he tells us ONLY the original Hebrew and Greek are the final authority for evaluating all translations. Yet the Hebrew and Greek languages are both far more difficult and archaic than anything you will find in the King James Bible.

Then he recommends we use a more modern bible version, without ever identifying WHICH Bible version he personally thinks is more accurate and true to "the originals".

I myself have not always been a King James Bible only believer. Several years ago I was presented with the claims of King James Onlyism and I began to examine what I really believed about the Bible. As I studied, prayed and compared the various versions out there, it soon became obvious that they are not all the same and that I can easily find proveable errors in them all except one - the King James Bible.

God has clearly set His providential mark of approval on the English Bible in the way He has used it throughout history. I believe in the sovereignty of God. It was the King James Bible and its underlying texts that was used from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's to carry out the worldwide missionary movement and to translate the Bible into hundreds of foreign languages.

It was the King James Bible that was used of God in every legitimate revival among English speaking people, including the First and Second Great Awakenings in both England and America. The King James Bible was the one taken to the moon and read from outer space - just a "coincidence".

It is the King James Bible that is defended as the only true, inerrant, complete word of God by many believing Christians not only in America, but also in England, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Singapore, and the Phillipines. None of the modern versionists seriously defend their versions as being the inerrant word of God.

It is the King James Bible that has been mercilessly attacked by its critics and yet after all this time not one single error has been proven to exist within its pages. Believe me, I have heard most of the allegations of error in the King James Bible and upon further examination they are found to be groundless.

The King James Bible has become the Standard for all other English translations. Tyndale's New Testament did not follow the same book order as is found in the KJB, and the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible to have chapter and verse numbering, did not match the King James Bible's verse numbers. Yet now every English bible version follows the chapter and verse numbers of the KJB, and even when versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV omit whole verses, they simply "skip over" the numbered verse.

Of far greater dishonor to God's pure words is the perversion of sound doctrines and the subtle attacks on the character and deity of Christ found in ALL modern versions.

Various modern versions teach that God can be deceived; Jesus lied; Christ has an "origen"; there was a time when Christ was not the Son of God; Christ needed a sacrifice to atone for His sins when he was a baby; Satan is the ruler of this world; and our righteousness is our "good deeds".

For several examples of how modern versions detract from the Person of Christ and undermine sound doctrine see my article titled No Doctrines Are Changed? at this site.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

It seems that Mr. Norris cares little about what the various bible versions actually SAY, and which texts they are based on, just so long as they are "easy to understand".

Mr. Norris is mistaken when he says King James Bible believers "complain" about archaic words in the modern versions and thus condemn those that are found in the KJB. Rather we try to point out the inconsistency of those who attack the KJB for words hard to be understood when most modern versions contain many words that the typical high schooler would not know how to define.

Try giving this vocabulary test from the NIV to the average English speaker and see if they would get a passing score.

NIV Vocabulary Test

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part Three - Imperfect men, Perfect Bible

In chapter three of Rick Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, he erects a straw man argument regarding what we believe about the men behind the King James Bible translation and attacks the character and beliefs of King James himself.

Mr. Norris asks a series of questions as though he is challenging what we believe, when in fact, no King James Bible believer that I know of believes any of these things. Mr. Norris says: "The KJV-only view seems to grant to the KJV translators an absolute, perfect, infallible knowledge which is in reality attainable only by divine revelation. When the product of the KJV translators is made the final authority, it would make these men who produced it the final authority. Do KJV-only advocates bind themselves to the opinions and interpretations of the finite and fallible KJV translators as their ultimate voice of authority? This dependence on the authority of the fallible KJV translators indicates a serious weakness with the KJV-only view."

Mr. Norris sums up his argument with: "If the Church of England translators of the KJV could be wrong in their doctrines, they could also be wrong in their interpreting and translating of God's Word."

Well, I would "logically conclude" from Mr. Norris' arguments, that if God requires perfect men who are correct in every doctrinal aspect to translate His words and give us a pure Holy Bible, then there would never be one. But that is already Mr. Norris' position, isn't it? He does not believe any Bible is the inspired word of God and his Final Authority -the originals- don't exist.

In fact, if God required perfect and infallible men to give us "the originals" in the first place, then we would never have had the Bible at all.

God used men like Noah (a drunkard Genesis 9:21), Moses (a murderer - Exodus 2:12, and who did not believe God - Numbers 20:12), David (murderer and adulterer), Solomon (murder in heart - 1 Kings 11:40, idolator and apostate 1 Kings 11:4), Peter ( denied Christ - Mark 14:71, and was an hypocrite - Galatians 2:11-13), Paul (who previously killed Christians, and later was about to offer a blood sacrifice to atone for sins after Christ had died and risen - Acts 21:26) and John (who twice worshipped an angel and was told not to, - Revelation 19:10; 22:8). These are the type of people God used to give us His words "in the originals".

Mr. Norris then launches into a series of smear tactics to defame King James himself. He produces a series of quotes from people who never knew the man personally and who refer to such things as "sexual license ruled", "tainted by sexual and financial scandal", "habit of heavy drinking", "profanity", and "all kinds of licentiousness" to describe the goings on at the king's court.

I got the impression from reading this section of Mr. Norris' book that if King James had a dog, Rick would have dug up some historian's quote that his dog was a flea-bitten, mangy bag of bones that trailed slobber down the palace halls, chewed on the furniture, messed on the rugs, and had the nasty habit of indiscriminately humping the legs of visiting dignitaries.

There are two sides to every story, and Stephen Coston Sr. has written a book called King James, Unjustly Accused?. This book gives a different view of the king with testimony from men who actually knew him. We do know that King James was married to the same wife, had 7 or 8 children with her, (most of whom died at childbirth or shortly thereafer, but three lived to adulthood), wrote love letters and poems to his wife, wrote theological discourses, made a personal translation of the Psalms and Revelation knowing Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and professed a personal faith in and a love for the Lord Jesus Christ.

In any event, the man King James had NOTHING TO DO with the Bible translation that now bears his name. The King James Bible was not even called the King James Version until many years later when other versions began to appear on the scene. It was simply called The Holy Bible. The king himself did not translate a single word of our Holy Bible.

A lot of Rick's friends and perhaps Rick himself are professing Calvinists. Could we not then follow the logic of Mr. Norris and bring up all sorts of nasty things about the character and actions of John Calvin and Martin Luther's virulent anti-Semitism, and then conclude that nothing they ever taught or believed could possibly be correct? This would also include such men who held similar views like Spurgeon, John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), Johnathan Edwards, John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace, and Agustus Toplady who wrote Rock of Ages.

Later on in his book, Mr. Norris seems to reverse himself and says some things that I agree with. On page 171 he states: "The facts about Erasmus, King James, the Church of England translators of the KJV, Dean Burgon, Westcott, Hort, or present day translators are not the essential factor that should determine which translation of God's Word believers should use...Since all men are sinners, it is always possible to find something negative about the person presenting the truth. The imperfections of the person presenting truth does not change the truth presented."

I generally agree with what Mr. Norris says here but I still do not share his opinion about what the Truth of God's word is and how we arrive at this conclusion.

Remember this basic distinction between his views and mine. Mr. Norris says - 1. The Bible IS the inspired word of God. 2. No translation can be inspired. 3. ONLY the originals are the inspired Final Authority.

I therefore conclude from his premise that there is no inspired word of God on this earth today nor has there ever been an inspired Holy Bible consisting of 66 books bound into one volume. By his own definitions, his "inspired Bible" does not exist.

My premise and conclusion - 1. God inspired His words. 2. God promised to preserve them on this earth. 3. God is sovereign and does not lie. 4. We have an inspired Bible today that we can hold in our hands and believe every word. 5. All Bible versions are good to varying degrees, but not all of them are equally the complete, infallible, and pure words of God.

In the remainder of chapter three Mr. Norris criticizes the words "church" saying it should be "congregation", that "baptism" should properly be "immersion" and "charity" should always be "love". Apparently the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV etc. do not meet Mr. Norris' rigorous standards either, since they also use the words "church" and "baptism".

I will close this section dealing with the word "charity" as found in the King James Bible.

1 Peter 4:8 "And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins."


Many modern versionists criticize the King James Bible for using the word charity. If they would only consult a dictionary they would see that one of the principal meanings of the word "charity" is "Christian brotherly love".

The word charity expresses Christian love for other Christians. The word charity is never used in the King James Bible to express the love relationship between God and man, a husband and wife, between parents and their children, or between the believer and the nonbeliever. It is always used in reference to the love Christians should have for fellow believers.

Not only does the King James Bible use the word Charity, but so also do Coverdale 1535 - Romans 14:15 "walkest thou not after charite"; Jude 12 "feasts of charite", the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755 "salute ye one another with a kiss of charity" 1 Peter 5:14, Webster's 1833 translation, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, the KJV 21st Century, Green's Modern KJV 1998, and the Third Millenium Bible. It is not an archaic word and it is properly used in these various versions both old and new.

Will Kinney

(to be continued)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part Four - Revision

In chapter Four of Mr. Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, he addresses an important issue and tries to build his case for what I would call The Uncertain Bible. Mr. Norris raises the question of Revisions of previous English versions and of the King James Bible itself.

Mr. Norris states: "KJV-only advocates imply that believers must not take any view that acknowledges the the KJV needs updating because it will put us on a slippery slope that leads to liberalism. Clearly, there is no logical connection between updating archaic words, correcting any incorrect translation of words, correcting spelling or grammar, AND OTHER TASKS OF PROPER REVISION on the one hand and the completely different evil of corrupting God's Word. The slippery slope fallacy depends on the assumption that all change is bad, leads to evil, and involves a conspiracy to corrupt God's Word...KJV-only advocates often fail to explain precisely what they think consitutes "correcting" or "corrupting" the Bible. Is their evidence for their KJV-only view so weak that they have to tear down all other translations in order to build up the KJV?"

First of all it should be noted that I and many other King James Bible believers would not have a problem with updating certain archaic words ("conversation, prevent, let"), nor of modernizing the spelling of a few words here and there. What we do see as a serious departure from Truth is to change the underlying Hebrew and Greek TEXTS that underlie the King James Bible, and THE MEANING of those texts as found in our English Bible.

We believe that God has Providentially guided the men behind the production of the King James Bible and that the TEXT itself is SETTLED FOR ALL TIME. Call us foolish backwater hicks, but we actually believe God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words in a place where we can find them.

What Mr. Norris' view would have us embrace is a variety of very different, unsettled, and constantly changing TEXTS and contrary MEANINGS found in a multitude of conflicting bible versions. The result is uncertainty, doubt, confusion, and a lack of reverence for God's holy words.

As for the slippery slope into liberalism and several clear examples of what we mean by "corruption" I strongly recommend you read my article What Happens If You Are Not KJB Only?. There you will see how others with whom I discuss this topic view the Bible and some objections they have to the King James Bible. I think you will find it very interesting.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NotKJB.html

The Bible itself warns of those who corrupt the word of God. "For we are not as MANY, which CORRUPT the word of God" - 2 Corinthians 2:17. "For ye have perverted the words of the living God" - Jeremiah 23:36.

Satan has not ceased his efforts to cast doubt about what God has said. The very first question recorded in Scripture is the devil himself asking: "Yeah, hath God said...? "But when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." - Mark 4:15.

The Bible itself predicts a falling away from the faith in the latter days. "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" - Luke 18:8.

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves (self-esteem?)...Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof...ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." - 2 Timothy 3:1-7.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy..." - 1 Timothy 4:1.

"Now we beseech you, brethren,...that ye be not soon shaken in mind...as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man decieve you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first..." 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it." Amos 8:11-12.

What do some of the men behind these modern versions actually believe about the Bible itself? I'm not talking about their character or their doctrinal stance on "the fundamentals", but what they actually believe about the Scriptures they are forming and translating into the modern versions.

The beliefs of Westcott and Hort have been well documented, so I will only mention in passing that never once did either of these men profess a faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God.

Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh me aching ribs, ya gotta stop it...

[quote]
I got the impression from reading this section of Mr. Norris' book that if King James had a dog, Rick would have dug up some historian's quote that his dog was a flea-bitten, mangy bag of bones that trailed slobber down the palace halls, chewed on the furniture, messed on the rugs, and had the nasty habit of indiscriminately humping the legs of visiting dignitaries.
[/quote]

:rollover: :rollover: :rollover:
:rollover: :rollover:
:rollover:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]
Regarding this...

Quote:
The "logical" Premise of Mr. Norris


Mr Norris THOU ART A FOOL
[/quote]

Ya beat me to it, PreachIt. :D

[b][i]"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."[/i][/b] ~ Rom. 1:22

or alternatively...

1 Cor 1:25, [b][i]"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."[/i][/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Craig, glad you liked the one about the dog. I thought it was good to add a bit of humor there.

Will

Part 5 - Printing Errers and Spellin

In his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Mr. Norris brings up the issue of the various editions of the King James Bible and shows how they differ from one another. Anyone who has studied the Bible version issue for some time knows that printing errors have been made in the past and some still exist today when we compare the Cambridge King James edition with the Oxford edition.

Among the examples Mr. Norris lists are changes from "LORD" to "Lord"; "seek good" Psalm 69:32 - a clear printing error of one letter quickly changed to the correct "seek God", which is what the Hebrew text says; omitting "Amen" at the end of Ephesians to putting it in again, and examples like one KJB spelling as "enquire" while another spells it "inquire".

Throughout the history of Bible printing there have been some rather humorous examples of printing errors that have occurred. It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

A 1631 edition became known as the "Wicked Bible" because the seventh commandment read, "thou shalt commit adultery." The printer was fined 300 pounds.

The printer of the "Fool Bible" had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God."

In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God" and one in Romans 6:13 that read, "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin." This Bible became known as "the Unrighteous Bible."

In 1716, the "Sin On Bible" commanded, "Go, and sin on more" in John 8:11.

In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the "parable of the vineyard" which called it the "Parable of the vinegar." This Bible was called "the Vinegar Bible."

In 1801, Jude 16 stated, "these are murderers" instead of "murmurers", and Mark 7:27 stated, "let the children first be killed" instead of "filled." This Bible was nicknamed "the Murderers Bible."

In 1820 a KJB edition was printed that had Jesus saying, "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" in Matthew 13:43, and this was called "the Ears to Ear" Bible.

In 1823 another KJB printing had Genesis 24:61 read "Rebekah arose, and her camels", instead of "her damsels," in "Rebekah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]
The cause for all of these defects may be found in "the Printers' Bible" (1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, "printers have persecuted me" (instead of "princes" have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of irony, this is it. "Printers have persecuted me."
[/quote]

I hope none of you think me blasphemous, but that one was funny!! :lol:

Guess they had lysdexia back then too. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part 6 - Inspiration and Inerrancy

In chapter eight of his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Rick Norris takes up the topic of inspiration and inerrancy. Rick asks: "Does not God's Word IN THE ORIGINAL languages have divine authority to correct any translation including the KJV? Would they claim that God's Word IN THE ORIGINAL languages has passed away or was unacceptable as THE STANDARD OF AUTHORITY?...a few (KJV-only advocates) go to the extreme by denying the authority of the Word of God in Hebrew and Greek."

It is as clear to me as the noonday sun that Mr. Norris is sitting in judgment on the of the King James Bible by upholding a "standard of authority" (that is, "the originals") when no such thing as the originals in Hebrew or Greek exist - and he knows they don't exist even while he continues to say it!

Mr. Norris asks: "Would they claim that God's Word in the original languages has passed away as the standard of authority?" Yes, Rick, we would claim this. If you can show us the originals, then we will be glad to change our minds and admit that your standard of authority has merit.

Mr. Norris' entire premise has no factual basis, yet he continually refers to "the originals" as though he were looking at them while he writes his book and compares them to the King James Bible. Then he accuses the KJV advocates of holding to a man-made doctrine that God has preserved His inerrant words, and done so in the King James Bible, while at the same time he himself clings to a mystical bible he has never seen in his entire life. The irony is overwhelming.

Nowhere in the Bible does it ever mention "the originals", nor that "ONLY the originals can be inspired". Neither does the Bible ever teach the commonly accepted idea Mr. Norris promotes that "No Translation can be the Inspired Words of God". Where did he get this idea? Certainly not from any Bible I have read. The Bible itself clearly teaches by many examples that a translation CAN BE the inspired words of God.

See my article on this called: Can a Translation be Inspired? at this site:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Mr. Norris believes and quotes others who have stated "ONLY THE ORIGINAL is God-breathed." Where does this idea come from? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself tells us "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" - John 6:63. The Scriptures teach us that "the word of God LIVETH and ABIDETH for ever" - 1 Peter 1:23. The true and inspired words of God can be likened to water that sustains life. If the same water is removed from one vessel and placed into another, without addition or subtraction, it is the same water.

We are not claiming "double inspiration" for the King James Bible or that the KJB translators were inspired. It is God's words that are inspired. It is not a case of "once upon a time, long, long ago and far away the Scriptures WERE inspired ONLY in the originals". God did inspire certain men to speak and write His words of truth, but the words continue to be the inspired words of God. The inspiration of God's words did not cease when copies were made and the apostles and prophets died off.

Mr. Norris also says: "Because of the differences in languages, a translation cannot possibly reproduce all the exact meanings of the words in the other language. Therefore, all translations must at some points be inferior to the original although they may come very close to its meaning."

Again, Mr. Norris has no "the original" to compare anything to, but this has not stopped him from reaching his conclusions. His philosophy about translations is totally humanistic. God has no problem translating His words into another language. The Scriptures themselves show us that He has done this very thing many times. (Again, see my article, Can a Translation be Inspired?)

I and many other King James Bible believers hold the view that God Providentially guided the translators to give us His inerrant and perfect words in the English language. The translators themselves were imperfect and sinful men as we all are. They just happended to be the tools or vessels God chose to use in fulfilling His promises to preserve His inspired words.

Mr. Norris recognizes this is our view and tries to refute it. He says we King James Bible defenders "end up making an assumption that the KJV translators received infallible divine guidance in their translating which kept them from possibly making any errors in translation." Yes, Rick, I agree with you here. This is our assumption, though I prefer to call it faith in the promises of God based on substantial evidence. But you have nicely summed up what most of us believe.

Mr. Norris reveals his flawed premise when he concludes: "Making a translation the final authority makes it an authority above which there is no other, which means that God's Word in the original Hebrew and Greek would be of lesser authority than the KJV."

Does Mr. Norris need to be reminded again that he can not tell us where to find one single verse from "the original Hebrew and Greek"? He tells us his Final Authority is something that he has never seen and which no longer exists, and then accuses us of following a man-made doctrine. Rick, you are following a "made-up doctrine". THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS. Rick, will you please tell us all where we can get a copy of this original Greek and Hebrew you keep telling us about?

Mr. Norris further states: "To claim the action of the KJV translators was free from all the effects of sin and any possibility of error without any act of divine inspiration would be in effect to contradict the Scriptural doctrine of the depravity of man."

I don't know of any KJB defender who claims what Mr. Norris just said. We claim the Providential guidance of God Almighty, not an "act of divine inspiration". As for the depravity of man, no one denies this. God has always used depraved, fallen men to give us His words, even in the originals. Don't the modern version translators assume they can receive divine guidance and providential direction when they pray to God and ask Him for wisdom in their translational work? Cannot God work in this way? Why deny the possibility that God providentially guided the KJB translators and then assume it can happen for others?

In this chapter, Mr. Norris mentions one specific example of what he thinks is a typographical error still found in the KJB. He says the King James reading in Matthew 23:24 is a misprint. He says "strain AT a gnat" should be "strain OUT a gnat."

Let's take a moment to look at and discuss Matthew 23:24

"Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There are many who criticize the King James reading of "strain at a gnat". Some tell us this is a printing error, yet I would ask how do they know this? It is a mere assumption on their part.

The word "to strain" (diulizo) is found only once in the New Testament. How to translate this word is a matter of perspective. There are at least two different ways I know of to look at the verse as it stands in the King James Bible, and both make sense.

#1. The rendering of "strain at" a gnat, implies only the effort to try to strain out the gnats that might ceremoniously defile their drink and food; it does not necessarily mean they succeeded in always getting them out. The modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and even the older English versions of Tyndale and Geneva say "strain OUT a gnat", as though they accomplished what they intended.

In 1729 Daniel Mace made a translation of the New Testament, and in Matthew 23:24 he translated as: "strain..FOR a gnat", which carries the same meaning as that found in the Authorized Version.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat." Other commentators in the past have had no problem with the way the phrase stands in the King James Bible.

John Gill - "To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain AT (caps mine) a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater."

Matthew Henry - "they strained AT a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained AT gnats, warned people against every the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice they strained AT gnats, heaved AT them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were afraid of it in the least instance"

These two commentators do not try to change the King James reading here, though they both do so in other parts of the Scriptures. They affirm that the Pharisees had a great outward revulsion for minor sins, yet they swallowed a camel.

How many gnats do you suppose were on that camel they swallowed?

#2 Another way to look at this verse was suggested at a Bible club I belong to. It makes a lot of sense. This brother said that since the word gnat is in the singular and not the plural, the idea is that the Pharisees would strain AT a gnat, which is among the smallest of creatures, in the sense of "at discovering a gnat" or "at finding a gnat in their drink", they would begin the process of straining.

He pointed out the following: "The KJV is speaking of the Pharisitical practice of straining wine after a gnat is found in it - hence, straining at the discovered presence of a gnat. When a gnat was found in wine, of course it was removed by hand. Insects aren't kosher, though some locusts are. What, according to Jewish law, allowed the remaining wine to be kosher was straining it, just in case any more impurities might be found in it. If you couldn't strain it, all the wine was to be thrown away. So - they strained AT the discovery of a gnat, which may or may not strain additional gnats.

I understand many KJV opponents love this "error", but in my opinion, the only error here is with their understanding of English and Jewish law.

This construction in English is very clear to me and to the editors of what is arguably the utmost authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. Jews strained when an insect was found - that is, at (the discovery of) a gnat.

Again, far from being an error in the KJV, the KJV has the best translation which fits all the facts. The King James Bible has the better translation."


Will Kinney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]
Mr. Norris believes and quotes others who have stated "ONLY THE ORIGINAL is God-breathed."
[/quote]

Where does this idea come from?

The pit, yes the same pit that, "Yea, hath God said" came from :mad:

[quote]
Mr. Norris further states: "To claim the action of the KJV translators was free from all the effects of sin and any possibility of error without any act of divine inspiration would be in effect to contradict the Scriptural doctrine of the depravity of man."
[/quote]

IF Mr. Norris believes this,
[quote]
"ONLY THE ORIGINAL is God-breathed."
[/quote]


What can he know of this,
[quote]
Scriptural doctrine of the depravity of man
[/quote]

What is 'scripture'? What is 'doctrine'?

Since the demise of the 'originals', it's a man-breathed, man-made free for all :lol:

Is Mr. Norris as confused as the 'god' he is professing :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part 7 - Alleged Errors in the King James Bible

In this Response to Mr. Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, I would like to follow a different order of topics and address a couple of issues he brings up regarding the King James Bible. Lord willing, we will then address the supremely important doctrine of the preservation of Scripture; Where was the inerrant word of God before 1611?; and then a summation of the principal arguments and some closing thoughts.

But first - On page 103 of his book, Mr. Norris asks the question: "Is their evidence for their KJV-only view so weak that they have to tear down all other translations in order to build up the KJV?"

Later in his book Mr. Norris himself dedicates three whole chapters consisting of 60 pages to "tearing down" the King James Bible by alleging a whole series of mistranslations, errors, and assorted blunders as being "an unhappy translation", "this is not correct", and "a mere oversight of our KJV translators".

I think one of the main reasons many of us who are King James Bible defenders are so fervent about this whole Bible version issue is because the attack first began by those who placed their individual learning, scholarship, and opinions as the final authority of what God REALLY said, and tried to rob us of our faith in an inspired Bible.

This process began years ago in various commentaries where the author would write "the Authorized Version has an unfortunate rendering here", or "It really says...", or "the Greek really means...". They were in effect distancing us from the sure words of God and making themselves a type of intermediary between us and hearing God's voice directly through His written word. We just got tired of it and decided to believe what The Book says about itself.

Various new bible versions were not even subtle about this attack on our beloved Bible. When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 it contained these remarks in the Preface.

"The King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision of the English translation."

Ronald F. Youngblood, one of the NIV translators has this to say regarding the underlying Greek texts of the King James Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part 8 - Let Me Count The Ways

It seems brother Rick Norris and James White have a lot in common. Both of them have written anti-King James Only books and both have similar scholarly findings regarding the counting of words.

On page 303, among other things, Mr. Norris complains about the actual words of the King James Bible. He says: "APPOINT is used in the KJV as a translation of 30 different Hebrew words and 12 different Greek verbs."

This may sound shocking at first glance, but if he would have looked at the NIV he would have seen that it has 27 different Hebrew words translated as "appoint" and 15 different Greek verbs as "appoint".

Mr. Norris further states that the KJV has Seven different Hebrew words translated as "ax" or "axes". A quick look at the NKJV, NIV, and NASB concordances shows they each have Six different Hebrew words translated as "ax" or "axes".

Mr. Norris saves the big one for last. He says Robert Young of Young's literal translation observed that the verb "destroy" is used for no less than 49 Hebrew words. Mr. Norris continues: "When one English word is used for many different Hebrew or Greek words, the subtle distinctions and nuances between these different words may not be detected by the English reader."

This part is always so boring, but I actually checked the NASB and counted 40 different Hebrew words translated as "destroy" while the NIV has 45 different Hebrew words translated as "destroy".

I really wish these two brothers would count their own "reliable versions" before they print such alarming statistics. Do they do it for shock value? One of several things about Mr. Norris' book that I do appreciate is that he does make a good case for eliminating shoddy study of the issues and shock value statements. I agree with him that both sides of the Bible version issue need to be open to a reasonable presentation of the truth. We still may not draw the same conclusions, but we should try to be more factual than inflammatory.

We all make mistakes and sometimes present false or unsubstantiated arguments. When shown to be clearly in error, we should revise and adjust our statements to better fit the facts. In the heat of battle I have also said things that were too harsh or unfounded. God is still working on me and hopefully I will learn as I continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy, has an even more outrageous "shock value" claim of comparison.

In James White's book, The KJV Only Controversy, in the ninth chapter, titled "Problems in the KJV", on page 231 Mr. White states: "Jack Lewis notes that the KJV is also well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word. Now certainly there are many times when one will wish to use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally important in determining the actual meaning of a word, but the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times. For example, the Hebrew term for "word" or "thing" is rendered by EIGHTY FOUR different English words in the KJV! Another term, "to turn back" is rendered in one particular grammatical form by SIXTY different English words! Those who have attempted to follow the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of the KJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder." - End of quote.

Most people who read this in Mr. White's book would think something like: "Oh, that nasty KJV. What a lousy translation it is and how unscholarly. Why would anybody want to use that?"

Most people would never take the time to verify if there is any validity to what Mr. White says here; they would just accept his "scholarly" statements as facts. The word for "word" or "thing" is # 1697 Dabar. I only counted 78 different meanings found in the KJB, but I'll give Mr. White the benefit of the doubt and let him have his 84.

James White now works for the New American Standard Bible organization. He knows both Hebrew and Greek and professes to be an expert in textual matters. He either didn't check the validity of the claims of Jack Lewis, or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to bolster his attacks on God's preserved words in the King James Bible. In either case, his
word count example is inexcusable.

A simple look at the complete NASB concordance shows that the NASB has translated this single word Dabar in at least NINETY THREE very different ways while the NIV has over 200 different English meanings for this single Hebrew word.

Among the 94 different English words the NASB uses to translate this single Hebrew word are: account, act, advice, affair, agreement, amount, annals, answer, anything, asked, because, business, case, cause, charge, Chronicles, claims, commandment, compliments, concerned, conclusion,
conditions, conduct, conferred, consultation, conversation, counsel, custom, dealings, decree, deed, defect, desires, dispute, doings, duty, edict, eloquent, event, fulfillment, harm, idea, instructed, manner, matter, message, nothing, oath, obligations, one, order, parts, pertains, plan, plot, portion, promise, proposal, proven, purpose, question, ration, reason, records, regard, reports, request, required, rule, said, same thing, saying, so much, some, something, songs, speaks, speech, talk, task, theme, thing, this, thoughts, threats, thus, told, trouble, verdict, way, what, whatever, word and work.

As I said, the NIV has over twice this amount of different meanings - well over 200 - as compared to the KJB's 84.

The second word mentioned by Mr. White is "to turn back" and it is # 7725 Shub, and in this case Mr. White is correct in that the KJB does translate it some 60 different ways. However what James forgot to mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same single Hebrew word at least 104 different ways while the NIV again has over 200 different meanings!

This is the type of baseless, pseudo-scholarship that both sides should avoid.

I'm not going to address every example Mr. Norris presents in these three chapters of alleged "incorrect renderings". Most of them are quite easy to respond to and refute, but I will try to answer the more difficult ones by way of example.

In chapter fourteen Mr. Norris continues his unfounded premise by which he sits in judgment on the King James Bible. He says: "Of course, not all translations of God's Word are good since some translations are inaccurate because of a liberal bias." Yet Mr. Norris never tells us which translations he thinks are not good and inaccurate.

He continues: "Because of the plenary, verbal inspiration of God's Word IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, the translator must follow THE TEXT as closely as possible."

This all sounds very good indeed, but Mr. Norris has no "the original manuscripts" to follow and there is a vast difference of opinion among Bible translators as to what THE TEXT really is. Mr. Norris is constructing an edifice whose foundation is empty air.

Will Kinney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part 9 - Beasts or living creatures?

Revelation 4:6-8 - "Beasts" versus "living creatures"

"and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind." - Revelation 4:6

In Mr. Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, he says: "An additional example where the KJV does not present a distinction that exists in the Greek is the book of Revelation. In this example, the KJV is following all the other English Bibles which also did not indicate this distinction."

Mr. Norris then goes on to quote several "experts" who criticize the King James Bible's translation of this word, saying: "Concerning Revelation 4:6-8 in his commentary, John Walvoord observed: "The translation 'beasts' is QUITE INACCURATE and should be changed to 'living ones'...Barnes' Notes on the N.T. has this comment about the rendering 'four beasts': "This is A VERY UNHAPPY TRANSLATION, as the word beasts BY NO MEANS conveys a correct idea of the original word."

John Rice noted: "The four beasts should be called "living creatures".

OK... So let's look at this example a bit more closely to see if there is any merit to Mr. Norris' complaint. One scholar says it should be "living ones" and the other says it should be "living creatures". Apparently they all do agree that the King James rendering of "beasts" is totally inappropriate and by no means conveys the idea of the original word.

As Mr. Norris correctly pointed out, all the previous English Bible versions translated this word as "beasts" including Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599. In addition to these earlier English versions, the modern Bible in Basic English 1961, which is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, also translates the word as "beasts" in Revelation 4:6-8.

A few versions like the Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed, and others translate the word as "animals". In all fairness we ask, If rendering the word zoon as beasts "by no means conveys the correct idea of the original word", then why does the NIV translate this exact same word as "beasts" in 2 Peter 2:12 "like BEASTS they too will perish."

Why does the NKJV translate this same word as "beasts" in Hebrews 13:11 "the bodies of those BEASTS are burned outside the camp"; and in 2 Peter 2:12 "beasts made to be caught and destroyed", and in Jude 10 - "what they know naturally, as brute BEASTS"? Maybe the NIV and the NKJV also "by no means convey the correct idea of the original word".

If they are so concerned about subtle distinctions in the Greek, why then does the NIV translate two very different Greek words (ktisma and zoon) as "living creature" in the book of Revelation, and the NKJV has the misfortune to translate Three different Greek words in the book of Revelation as "living creature"? (zoon, ktisma, and psukee) See Revelation 4:7; 8:9, and 16:3. Could we then not equally charge that a reader using the NIV, or the NKJV could become confused upon reading that a third of the "living creatures" died?

In the New Testament, the NIV uses three different Greek words and translates them as "creatures", while the NASB has a whopping 7 different Greek words translated as "creatures" (therion, ktisis, zoon, herpeton, ktisma, enalios, and phusikos). Are the subtle distinctions likewise lost in the NIV, NASB?

Looking at Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon 1978 edition on page 274, under the word zoon it gives the following definitions of this Greek word: "a living being, animal, a brute, a BEAST."

We could also look at the Hebrew language. For example, the NASB translates the word chayyah # 2421 as "beasts, creatures, living thing, animals, living being, and wild beasts".

See how funny some scholars are? Get ten of them in a room and you end up with twelve different opinions. There is nothing wrong with the King James Bible nor all the others Bible versions which likewise have translated this word as "beasts" in Revelation 4:6-8.

I have never confused the four beasts round about the throne who worshipped God with the many headed beast in Revelation 13:1 who rose up out of the sea speaking blasphemy and making war. But what could confuse some Bible students are the totally different readings found in Revelation 13 in the various bible versions out there today.

In the King James Bible, NKJV and several others we read in Revelation 13:1 - "And I STOOD upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the NAME of blasphemy."

However the NIV reads: "And THE DRAGON STOOD on the shore of the sea. (Not "I" but the dragon) And I saw a beast coming out of the sea...and on each head a blasphemous NAME."

The NASB read differently from 1960 through 1977. It said: "And HE stood on the sand of the seashore. AND I saw a beast coming up out of the sea...and on his head were blasphemous NAMES."

Then in 1995 the NASB once again changed to now read: "And THE DRAGON stood on the sand of the seashore. THEN I saw a beast coming up out of the sea..and on his head were blasphemous NAMES."

So is it " I " who stood on the sand of the sea, or "He" who stood on the sand of the sea, or "the dragon" who stood on the sand of the sea? Is it "the name" of blasphemy (singular) or "names" of blasphemy (plural)?

In Revelation 13:8 the KJB, NKJV, and the NIV tell us: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life of the LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD." But the NASB doesn't teach that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, but reverses the Greek order of words and says: "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain."

Apparently these "subtle distinctions" are less important to some Bible experts than the difference between "beasts" and "living creatures". Go figure.


Will Kinney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part 10 - Mules or Hot Springs?

Everyone is biased one way or another regarding the Bible version controversy. I am biased and I freely admit it. I believe God has kept His promises to presere His inerrant words, and after having prayed a lot and examined much of the evidence, I came to the conclusion they are found in all their purity only in the King James Holy Bible. I don't know all the answers to every objection that is raised against my beliefs, but I believe I have seen enough confirmed to me by God over and over again to give me this conviction. So now I start from the position that the King James Bible is correct - always.

Mr. Norris says in his book that we should examine the evidence on both sides and then make our decision. Yet he obviously is out to "prove" the King James Bible is not the inerrant, complete and inspired words of God. He does this not only by what he says, but by what he doesn't say. A clear example of this is found in his opening salvo of verses he thinks are incorrect as found in the King James Bible.

The first example on page 322 in large, highlighted and underlined letters is Genesis 36:24.

The King James Bible says: "...this was that Anah that found THE MULES in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father."

Mr. Norris says: "In Genesis 36:24, ALL HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS have a word THAT MEANS "water or hot springs" according to MOST Bible scholars, but the KJV translators followed the rendering of the Talmud and Luther (mules). The old Syriac Peshitta an the Latin Vulgate also have a word meaning "waters" or "springs".

Mr. Norris then quotes a whole bunch of scholars that agree with him who tell us there is no way the Hebrew word can be rendered as "mules", but only as "hot springs". He tells us nothing about the other side of the story in defense of the KJB reading.

Among the bible versions that read "hot springs" are the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, and the Catholic versions. What Mr. Norris fails to mention is how many equally qualified scholars and Bible translators have sided with the King James reading of "mules".

"Mules" is the reading not only of the King James Bible but also of the 1936 Jewish translation by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York, Coverdale's Bible 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1998 (los mulos en el desierto), the Italian Diodati (de' muli nel deserto), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, the Third Millenium Bible, and even the New English Bible of 1970.


Several modern versions are at least a bit more honest as to the uncertainty of what this Hebrew word really means, and they tell us so in their footnotes. The NRSV footnote says the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain or obscure. The NIV gives this informative footnote: "the Vulgate and Syriac say he discovered water, but the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain."

Mr. Norris makes it sound as though it is a slam dunk certainty that the King James Bible is wrong, when a more thorough examination of the evidence reveals that there are real differences of opinion even among those who have gone to "the original languages".

John Calvin gives us his translation and exposition of this verse in Latin. He translates the specific word as "mules" and not as "hot springs" - MULOS in deserto, quum passceret asinos Sibhon patris sui.

Calvin then remarks in his commentary : "This was that Anah that found the mules. Mules are the adulterous offspring of the horse and the ass..."

Adam Clarke remarks in his commentary on this verse: "St Jerome, who renders it aquas calidas, (warm springs) says THERE ARE AS MANY OPINIONS CONCERNING IT AS THERE ARE COMMENTATORS."

Mr. Clarke further states of the Syriac: "The Syriac renders it "many waters"; the author of this version having read in the Hebrew copy from which he translated µym mayim, waters, for µmy yemim, the first letters being transposed. The Targum of Johnathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the place thus: "This is the Anah who united the onager with the tame ass, and in process of time he found mules produced by them." R.D. Kimchi says: "This Anah...caused asses and horses to copulate, and so produced mules. R.S. Jarchi is of the same opinion.

Gusset, in Comment. Heb. Ling., supposes that mules, not the Emin, were found by Anah. Wagenseil thought stronger reasons led him to believe that the word means a sort of PLANT.

Mr. Clarke concludes: "From the above opinions and versions the reader may choose which he likes best or invent one for himself." He then states that he personally favors the reading of mules.

John Gill comments: "The Vulgate Latin version renders it, "hot waters"; but then to the fixing of either of these versions, the word must be altered either in its points or letters, for which there is no authority. The Targum of Onkelos renders it mighty ones or GIANTS...and with this AGREES THE SAMARITAN VERSION, "he found giants, in the wilderness"; Aben Ezra observes that many interpret the word of PLANTS OR HERBS ; and Wagenseil is of opinion that the word used is the name of an useful herb or plant, first discovered by Anah."

So, do you see how the game is played? I like to call this process Scholar Poker. "Well, my scholar can beat your scholar." "No, he can't. I'll see your scholar and raise you two more." "Ok, you're on. I call." - and they're both bluffing.

Mr. Norris and "his hand" of scholars can assert all they want about the meaning of the word, but they have merely chosen the one they like. There are many others who just as vehemently would disagree with them.

Again, "Mules" is the reading not only of the King James Bible but also of the 1936 Jewish translation by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York, Coverdale's Bible 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1998 (los mulos en el desierto), the Italian Diodati (de' muli nel deserto), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, the Third Millenium Bible, and even the New English Bible of 1970.

Will Kinney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you brother. I appreciate the interest and the encouragement. I get a lot of flak from the Whateverists, so it is nice to hear from some who love and appreciate God's true words.

In His grace,

Will K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I absolutely love your presentational style!

It is non threatening to the reader who may be defending the multiversions.

You just simply state the facts and quite honestly I can't see why the multiversionist just don't reject all the KJB critics and accept that God has preserved His Word in the English KJB!

You simply blow these critics right out of the pond!

I would love to see you publish a book of your own on these matters because God has obviously given you the desire and ability to defend His Word in a way that most of us just wouldn't take, or have, the time or no where to begin.

I know you have a web site with many of these articles on but I believe a book would get this information out to a broader audience.

God Bless! :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i]Preach It said:

Why DON'T they see the errors that are so blatant to us?[/i]

Preach It,

You and Ricky seem to be cut from the same cloth. Preach It, you study the KJV issue a lot - many people don't. Ricky is the ONLY KJV1611-only person I have ever come across who actually owns a genuine 1611 version and I have been around plenty of KJV1611-only people. I respect you both for those respective issues.

However, you both present your views and beliefs in an abrasive, insulting manner. You both have said some rude things to me and to others. How do you expect people to give any credence to what you have to say when you are rude to them? It is possible to present your views in a non-abrasive manner. As your sister in Christ, I would urge you to rethink how you present yourselves to others. HOW you say what you say is just as important as what you say.

People who grew IFB like I did will understand your viewpoints. People who did not may not be so understanding. Your testimony and reputation are at stake here.

Now, please don't write and berate me - I am just trying to help you to see what others surely must see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
**Why DON'T they see the errors that are so blatant to us?**

Elsewhere I said, **The King James Bible is always right, and it is the Word of God, and there is only one such Work!**

The 'bible scholar' @ the BB states, "All bibles are authored by the same Holy Spirit, for all people.

The 'dokter' has also studied the issue :D

Hence, the question,

**Why DON'T they see the errors that are so blatant to us?**

This was directed to those that are aware of the subject, no one that has not seen the errors could be expected to be aware of them.

***However, you both present your views and beliefs in an abrasive, insulting manner***

Above I just called the 'dokter' a liar, it is very likely you will take
that as abrasive, and insulting.

I think the hugeness of the lie, determines the confrontation.

Thus the different ways the Lord dealt with 'error'. From over turning tables, or calling Pharisees, 'snakes, and broods of vipers', (quite abrasive, don't you think), or merely pointing out that they err by not knowing scripture.

I believe that the rise of the modern per-version has caused the downfall of true Christianity, this is proven by the sodomite churches bible, the NRSV

http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboa ... xual+bible

God's name is His Word, and His Word is ABOVE all His name.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

If I have been rude to you, or others, I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...