Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Critique Of Author Rick Norris, The Unbound Scriptures, KJVOnly

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Critique Of Author Rick Norris, The Unbound Scriptures, KJVOnly

    A Critique Of Rick Norris?

    http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1353

    Quote:
    These counts of 618, over 800, or 1000 did not even include the fact that a good number of these words are used more than once in the KJV. While a few of these words may be used only one time, others are used several times. Some may be used as many as one hundred times or more.
    Norris goes on to include “thee”, “thou”, “ye”, etc. to reach

    Quote:
    possible totals of 6,000 to 20,000.
    This fast becomes ludicrous when there might or might not be 14,000 archaic words. Of course, there are actually nought, but if we accept the most conservative claim of 6000, that is still way more than what non-KJBO word experts claim,
    http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/to...nd-scriptures/

    A Response to Rick Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures

    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"?
    A King James Bible Believer's Response to Rick Norris' book 'The Unbound Scriptures' by Will Kinney

    Part 1 - 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 Mr. 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. Norris' true Scriptures are so "unbound" they are not even found for sure in a loose leaf notebook nor in hundreds of scraps of "original language" manuscripts. A far more accurate name for Norris' book would be "The UNFOUND Scriptures". He doesn't know where they are and, of course, he can't tell you either.

    Part 2 - Those Dreadful Archaic Words

    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".

    Part 3 - 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.

    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".

    Part 14 - The Preservation of the words of God

    In his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Mr. Rick Norris reveals a great deal about how he views the doctrine of the Preservation of the words of God.

    On page 207 he says: "Most defenders of the KJV refuse to name any certain Hebrew or Greek manuscript as inerrant and pure or any one certain printed text as inerrant."

    This seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black. Mr. Norris has repeatedly referred to "the original Hebrew and Greek texts" knowing full well that there is no such thing on the face of this earth. He hasn't given us any certain Hebrew or Greek manuscripts either.
    Truth7t7
    Last edited by Truth7t7; 08-06-17, 06:18 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
    A Critique Of Rick Norris?
    Never heard of him.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bob Carabbio View Post

      Never heard of him.
      I Think He's A Close Friend Of logos1560?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

        Mr. Norris is being more than a little inconsistent in applying his standards.
        Thanks for demonstrating that it is KJV-only advocates who do not apply the same exact standards to the early English translators including the KJV translators that they attempt to apply to others.

        The unreliable KJV-only source to which you link merely confirms the clear evidence of the KJV-only use of double standards or unjust measures. Are your eyes closed to seeing the clear use of double standards on the part of the person to whose article you appeal?

        I encourage the application of the same exact standards and measures to all Bible translations in contrast to the KJV-only showing of partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 and the KJV-only use of different, double standards for the KJV.
        I encourage and welcome the applying of the same exact standards to me that KJV-only advocates apply to themselves, but instead KJV-only posters demonstrate that they apply different standards and measures to themselves than they apply to those against whom they throw out their unproven allegations.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

          I Think He's A Close Friend Of logos1560?
          Never heard of THAT either.

          Comment


          • #6
            Of the two names you have mentioned, Will Kinney is woefully lacking in credability.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
              A Critique Of Rick Norris?

              On the one hand he tells us ONLY the original Hebrew and Greek are the final authority for evaluating all translations.
              Like many KJV-only advocates, the KJV-only author of this article does not accurately present what the author actually stated, but instead he attempts to put words in the mouth of the author that are not actually stated by him. This KJV-only article or review is based on improper misrepresentation and on creating a bogus straw-man argument that is not an actual argument presented in the book. No direct quotation is provided for this straw-man allegation or misrepresentation.

              In agreement with the view of the KJV translators themselves, it is actually the existing, preserved Scriptures in the original languages that are presented as being the proper standard and greater authority for the trying of all Bible translations.

              According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ Earlier on the third page of this preface, Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.“ D. A. Waite acknowledged that the preface of the 1611 "had the approval" of all the KJV translators (Defending the KJB, p. 64). William Savage asserted that “the preface was written and affixed by the king’s command” (Dictionary, p. 39). Laurence Vance indicated that Smith wrote the preface “in the name of all the translators” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (p. 47). In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).

              Truth7t7, are you trying to suggest that the KJV translators themselves were wrong in their view of the Scriptures and are you trying to suggest that the Hebrew and the Greek from which they claimed to translate were unfound and did not exist?


              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                Like many KJV-only advocates, the KJV-only author of this article does not accurately present what the author actually stated, but instead he attempts to put words in the mouth of the author that are not actually stated by him. This KJV-only article or review is based on improper misrepresentation and on creating a bogus straw-man argument that is not an actual argument presented in the book. No direct quotation is provided for this straw-man allegation or misrepresentation.

                In agreement with the view of the KJV translators themselves, it is actually the existing, preserved Scriptures in the original languages that are presented as being the proper standard and greater authority for the trying of all Bible translations.

                According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ Earlier on the third page of this preface, Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.“ D. A. Waite acknowledged that the preface of the 1611 "had the approval" of all the KJV translators (Defending the KJB, p. 64). William Savage asserted that “the preface was written and affixed by the king’s command” (Dictionary, p. 39). Laurence Vance indicated that Smith wrote the preface “in the name of all the translators” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (p. 47). In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).

                Truth7t7, are you trying to suggest that the KJV translators themselves were wrong in their view of the Scriptures and are you trying to suggest that the Hebrew and the Greek from which they claimed to translate were unfound and did not exist?

                I Believe You Have Stated The Original Autographs Are Inspired, Would I Be Incorrect In This?

                If Yes, Then Where Are The Autographs Today?

                Truth7t7
                Last edited by Truth7t7; 08-06-17, 11:10 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                  Thanks for demonstrating that it is KJV-only advocates who do not apply the same exact standards to the early English translators including the KJV translators that they attempt to apply to others.

                  The unreliable KJV-only source to which you link merely confirms the clear evidence of the KJV-only use of double standards or unjust measures. Are your eyes closed to seeing the clear use of double standards on the part of the person to whose article you appeal?

                  I encourage the application of the same exact standards and measures to all Bible translations in contrast to the KJV-only showing of partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 and the KJV-only use of different, double standards for the KJV.
                  I encourage and welcome the applying of the same exact standards to me that KJV-only advocates apply to themselves, but instead KJV-only posters demonstrate that they apply different standards and measures to themselves than they apply to those against whom they throw out their unproven allegations.
                  You Wound About In A Circle, Saying The Same Thing Three Times, Just Like The Author Rick Norris That The Critics Explain In Their Critique.

                  Have You Read His Book?

                  Truth7t7

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                    Like many KJV-only advocates, the KJV-only author of this article does not accurately present what the author actually stated, but instead he attempts to put words in the mouth of the author that are not actually stated by him. This KJV-only article or review is based on improper misrepresentation and on creating a bogus straw-man argument that is not an actual argument presented in the book. No direct quotation is provided for this straw-man allegation or misrepresentation.

                    In agreement with the view of the KJV translators themselves, it is actually the existing, preserved Scriptures in the original languages that are presented as being the proper standard and greater authority for the trying of all Bible translations.

                    According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ Earlier on the third page of this preface, Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.“ D. A. Waite acknowledged that the preface of the 1611 "had the approval" of all the KJV translators (Defending the KJB, p. 64). William Savage asserted that “the preface was written and affixed by the king’s command” (Dictionary, p. 39). Laurence Vance indicated that Smith wrote the preface “in the name of all the translators” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (p. 47). In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).

                    Truth7t7, are you trying to suggest that the KJV translators themselves were wrong in their view of the Scriptures and are you trying to suggest that the Hebrew and the Greek from which they claimed to translate were unfound and did not exist?

                    Response to Rick Norris' book 'The Unbound Scriptures' by Will Kinney

                    Part 11 - "Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?

                    Genesis 49:6

                    In Mr. Norris's second salvo he plays the same game of Scholar Poker. He amasses his various scholars who all tell us the King James reading of "in their selfwill, they digged down a wall" is totally incorrect and the true reading should be "in their self-will they hamstrung an ox" as the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and most Catholic versions have it.

                    In Genesis chapter 49 Jacob is telling each of his sons something about what will befall them in the last days, and of their blessings or penalties. There we read what Jacob said concerning his two sons Simeon and Levi. "Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."

                    "They digged down a wall" is the reading of the King James Bible, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 and 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1998, the 2004 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez Bible -"y en su voluntad arrancaron muro” - the Italian Diodati 1649, the Modern Greek Old Testament (not the Septuagint) - και εν τω πεισματι αυτων κατηδαφισαν τειχος, the Jewish Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Douay Rheims of 1950, (though more recent Catholic versions like Jerusalem Bible and St. Joseph New American Bible read "hamstrung oxen") Webster's 1833 translation, the 1994 KJV 21st Century version, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.

                    In Mr. Norris' previous example of "hot springs" versus "mules" he summoned the Syriac Peshitta version to his side; however this time, the Syriac translation agrees with the King James reading and says: "in their rage they destroyed a town wall."

                    Again John Calvin sides with the King James reading. He translates into Latin " et voluntate sua eradicaverunt murum". Then he comments: "Interpreters also differ respecting the meaning of the word (shor.) Some translate it "bullock," ... But a different exposition is far preferable, namely, that they "overturned a wall." For Jacob magnifies the atrociousness of their crime, from the fact, that they did not even spare buildings in their rage."

                    John Wesley comments on Genesis 49:6 saying: "They slew a man - Shechem himself, and many others; and to effect that, they digged down a wall, broke the houses to plunder them, and murder the inhabitants. "

                    The NKJV says "THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX", the NIV "they hamstrung OXEN" and the NASB says "they LAMED AN OX." Young's has "they ERADICATED A PRINCE"!!! So what is going on here?

                    It all has to do with the pointed consonants introduced in the 6th century after Christ, and the points are not considered inspired. It is well know that an individual Hebrew word can multiple meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word. We believe He has done this in the King James Bible.

                    The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen", as found in the NKJV, is also contrary to the context. We are told in Genesis 34:27-29 that Simeon and Levi came upon the city of Hamor and Shechem his son and slew all the males; they spoiled the city and took their sheep, oxen and their asses and carried away all their wealth, their wives and children. They did in fact destroy the city but they did not kill or hamstring the oxen, but rather took them alive for themselves. Why would they damage what was now their own property?

                    The King James Bible is right, as always. Don’t let the Bible Correctors, who themselves do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is the complete, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God, fool you into not believing The Book.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

                      I Believe You Have Stated The Original Autographs Are Inspired
                      Why don't you quote my actual words instead of trying to speak for me?

                      I made it very clear that it is the existing, preserved original language Scriptures that are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. Why did you not discuss or comment on what I actually stated instead of trying to divert? I did not claim that the original autographs still are found on the earth so clearly I did not suggest that translators have them to use as their direct source.

                      In other posts, I have also made it clear that the actual preserved original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would remain inspired in copies. On the other hand, according to actual scriptural truths, any errors made or introduced by copiers would not be inspired and any words added by copiers would not be inspired




                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

                        You Wound About In A Circle, Saying The Same Thing Three Times,
                        Is it interesting that a person who has repeated the same unproven allegations many times in posts in a number of threads tries to complain that something supposedly is stated three times?

                        If you practice what you preach in your own statement above, will you not repeat again and again the same unproven allegations?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

                          You quoted Will Kinney as stating: "The King James Bible is right, as always."
                          Does Will Kinney practice what he preaches and identify to which one of the many varying editions of the KJV he refers?

                          Is this statement claiming that the 1611 edition of the KJV "is right, as always"? Would he say that the actual errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV are "right as always"?

                          Will Kinney once claimed that the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV was inerrant or perfect, but after many actual differences between the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV and any one of the present varying editions of the KJV were pointed out, he may no longer say that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

                            Have You Read His Book?
                            Of course, I have read that book. I even wrote it. I have posted information from it since it is my own research and writing. Evidently you have not read it, and therefore, you do not know whether what it stated is accurately represented in the article or review from which you quote.

                            In another post, you had claimed that you have done or do your homework. If you had done your homework and checked concerning my other book of which I gave you the title Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions, you should have learned that I am also the author of the book The Unbound Scriptures. You should practice what you have preached and do your homework by reading the book yourself instead of blindly repeating allegations that may misrepresent it. You do not actually know whether the allegations that you merely repeat are true or not since you have not read the book that you seek to attack.
                            Last edited by logos1560; 08-07-17, 12:05 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                              Of course, I have read that book. I even wrote it. I have posted information from it since it is my own research and writing. Evidently you have not read it, and therefore, you do not know whether what it stated is accurately represented in the article or review from which you quote.

                              In another post, you had claimed that you have done or do your homework. If you had done your homework and checked concerning my other book of which I gave you the title Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions, you should have learned that I am also the author of the book The Unbound Scriptures. You should practice what you have preached and do your homework by reading the book yourself instead of blindly repeating allegations that may misrepresent it. You do not actually know whether the allegations that you merely repeat are true or not since you have not read the book that you seek to attack.
                              It Appears The Critics Are Correct, You Don't Take A Firm Stand, Either They Do Or Don't Misrepresent It, "A Big Waffle In My Opinion"

                              It Appears They Do Represent The Truth, You Don't Deny This Claim

                              Truth7t7

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X