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

  • Originally posted by marke View Post
    After all, they were not called to write or rewrite the Bible, as other translators felt called to do, they were charged with simply translating what was there to be translated.
    The KJV is not solely and completely an original new English translation. The KJV is actually more of a revision or a rewriting of earlier English Bibles than it is an original new translation.

    The KJV translators acknowledged that they engaged in a process of Bible correcting, Bible revising, Bible rewriting [that is, making corrections, improvements, and revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles which they identified as being the word of God], and later editors/printers of KJV editions also engaged in a process of Bible correcting in making some corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition of the KJV.

    In their dedication to King James, the KJV translators maintained that their translation would be "one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue," which would put their translation on the same level or in the same category as pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible.

    Those who read the KJV are in effect accepting the actions of Bible correcting, Bible revising, and Bible-rewriting by the KJV translators and by later KJV editors so that the obvious hypocrisy of those who make the inconsistent charge of Bible correcting and Bible re-writing against readers of other English Bible translations is clearly exposed.

    The KJV translators asserted that if anything in a Bible translation was "not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected."

    In their 1611 preface to the readers, the KJV translators wrote: "For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance in one or other of other editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."

    The KJV translators also asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it

    Comment


    • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

      My book is not a critique of the Bible as you incorrectly allege. My scripturally-based book is a critique of the modern, non-scriptural, man-made KJV-only theory.
      Perhaps Mark could purchase a copy and read it for himself? Then he would know first hand what the book was really about, instead of false rumor?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trucker View Post

        Actually the answer is readily available for anyone wishing to see it. We don't have the original Autographs.See how easy that was!! But you're in no position to saddle that mule .... evidently you don't have any Scripture that would justify a belief in or a preaching of the false, man made doctrine known as King James ONLYISM! ,And that doesn't seem to bother you at all!!
        A+ on your assignment!



        Comment


        • Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
          A+ on your assignment!
          Thanks for confirming that you cannot present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, or scriptural case for your human KJV-only reasoning.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

            Thanks for confirming that you cannot present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, or scriptural case for your human KJV-only reasoning.
            This week it's the spanish Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602, next week it will be the KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
              This week it's the spanish Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602
              Why do you appeal to two different Spanish Bibles--the 1569 Spanish Bible and the 1602 Spanish Bible with the two of them have some differences with each other and with them have some textual differences and many differences of translation with the KJV?

              Why are you inconsistent since you do not identify the English Bible with more than one date even though the KJV is a combination and revision of earlier English Bibles?
              Would a consistent application of your claim concerning the Spanish Bible indicate that the English Bible should be referred to as the 1526, 1535, 1537, 1539, 1557, 1560, 1568, 1611 Bible or as the 1560/1611 Bible?



              Comment


              • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                Why do you appeal to two different Spanish Bibles--the 1569 Spanish Bible and the 1602 Spanish Bible with the two of them have some differences with each other and with them have some textual differences and many differences of translation with the KJV?

                Why are you inconsistent since you do not identify the English Bible with more than one date even though the KJV is a combination and revision of earlier English Bibles?
                Would a consistent application of your claim concerning the Spanish Bible indicate that the English Bible should be referred to as the 1526, 1535, 1537, 1539, 1557, 1560, 1568, 1611 Bible or as the 1560/1611 Bible?


                I read the (AKJV) not Blaney's 1769 Oxford

                Its the (AKJV) this week

                Reina/Valera Antigua next week

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
                  I read the (AKJV) not Blaney's 1769 Oxford

                  Its the (AKJV) this week

                  The AKJV states for American KJV (a modern revision of the KJV). Other KJV-only advocates do not accept that KJV edition.

                  Most present KJV editions are based more on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV edited by Benjamin Blayney than on the 1611 edition.

                  Comment


                  • https://studybible.info/version/AKJV

                    This is a translation of the Bible based on the original King James Version. It is a simple word for word update from the King James English. Care has been taken to change nothing doctrinally, but to simply update the spelling and vocabulary. The grammar has not changed the grammar because that could alter the doctrine.

                    The American King James version of the Bible was placed into the public domain on November 8, 1999.

                    Michael Peter (Stone) Engelbrite

                    You may use it in any manner you wish: copy it, sell it, modify it, etc.
                    You can't copyright it or prevent others from using it.
                    A special thanks to Tye Rausch and Eve Engelbrite who helped tremendously on this project.
                    You can't claim that you created it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Conan View Post
                      https://studybible.info/version/AKJV

                      This is a translation of the Bible based on the original King James Version. It is a simple word for word update from the King James English. Care has been taken to change nothing doctrinally, but to simply update the spelling and vocabulary. The grammar has not changed the grammar because that could alter the doctrine.

                      The American King James version of the Bible was placed into the public domain on November 8, 1999.

                      Michael Peter (Stone) Engelbrite

                      You may use it in any manner you wish: copy it, sell it, modify it, etc.
                      You can't copyright it or prevent others from using it.
                      A special thanks to Tye Rausch and Eve Engelbrite who helped tremendously on this project.
                      You can't claim that you created it.
                      Thanks for the info, I love the ole "Thee's and Thou"s" don't you?

                      I have Alexander Scourby's audio tapes, love it!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Conan View Post

                        The 1611 KJV and almost all KJVs up until the 1850's contained the Apocrypha Mark. Wouldn't that make more than 66 books?

                        http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html

                        1611 KJV
                        ​APOCRYPHA
                        1 Esdras
                        2 Esdras
                        ​​​​​​
                        Tobit
                        Judith
                        Additions to Esther*
                        Wisdom of Solomon
                        Ecclesiasticus
                        Baruch
                        Epistle of Jeremiah
                        Song of the Three Children**
                        Story of Susanna**
                        Bel and the Dragon**
                        Prayer of Manasseh
                        1 Maccabees
                        2 Maccabees
                        I do not read or value books that are not included in the KJ Bible.
                        I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                        If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                        For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                          My book is not a critique of the Bible as you incorrectly allege. My scripturally-based book is a critique of the modern, non-scriptural, man-made KJV-only theory.
                          I'm sure you have lots of followers and supporters. However, I am not one of them.
                          I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                          If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                          For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                            You fail to deal with all the actual facts.

                            One of the actual sources used by the KJV translators was an edition of the Latin Vulgate by Jerome which includes the Apocrypha. Another one of the sources used by the KJV translators was a printed edition of the Greek Septuagint which included the Apocrypha. The truth is that the "alien books" were in sources used in the making of the KJV.

                            The 1611 KJV had no clear disclaimer concerning the canonicity or inspiration of the Apocrypha. In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 KJV that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches as holy scripture. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority.
                            Men could never have been the ultimate authorities to decide what specific books should be in the Bible even though men were involved in those decisions. I am comfortable accepting the idea that I don't need the books of the Apocrypha and that there is no harm in putting no value in them whatsoever.
                            I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                            If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                            For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                              The KJV is not solely and completely an original new English translation. The KJV is actually more of a revision or a rewriting of earlier English Bibles than it is an original new translation.

                              The KJV translators acknowledged that they engaged in a process of Bible correcting, Bible revising, Bible rewriting [that is, making corrections, improvements, and revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles which they identified as being the word of God], and later editors/printers of KJV editions also engaged in a process of Bible correcting in making some corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition of the KJV.

                              In their dedication to King James, the KJV translators maintained that their translation would be "one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue," which would put their translation on the same level or in the same category as pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible.

                              Those who read the KJV are in effect accepting the actions of Bible correcting, Bible revising, and Bible-rewriting by the KJV translators and by later KJV editors so that the obvious hypocrisy of those who make the inconsistent charge of Bible correcting and Bible re-writing against readers of other English Bible translations is clearly exposed.

                              The KJV translators asserted that if anything in a Bible translation was "not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected."

                              In their 1611 preface to the readers, the KJV translators wrote: "For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance in one or other of other editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."

                              The KJV translators also asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it
                              Some Christians do not trust any Bible translation to be totally trustworthy. I am sorry for them. I believe the KJ Bible is totally trustworthy.
                              I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                              If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                              For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Conan View Post

                                Perhaps Mark could purchase a copy and read it for himself? Then he would know first hand what the book was really about, instead of false rumor?
                                I don't need to read it. I do not believe God's Word has changed over the years due to human involvement in its preservation, transcription and translation.
                                I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                                If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                                For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X