Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Critique Of Author Rick Norris, The Unbound Scriptures, KJVOnly

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

  • Originally posted by marke View Post

    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.
    But it is a lie to not acknowledge that they are in the 1611 Bible and came with virtually all KJV Bibles until the 1885's or so. God's word for you has changed. God's word in the KJV Bible used to come with the Apocrypha always, then later in history usually does not. That is a real change, that even you can see.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by marke View Post

      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.
      Then you are misjudging the book on purpose and giving false witness about it. You also deny the changes to the original 1611 KJV Bible and many, many other KJV Bible's. You cannot see the plane differences between different editions of God's word. Why is that?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by marke View Post

        I do not believe God's Word has changed over the years due to human involvement in its preservation, transcription and translation.
        According to erroneous KJV-only reasoning, God's word has changed. It changed in 1611 from what it was in the pre-1611 English Bible, then in 1629 from what it was in 1611, then in 1638, then in 1743, then in 1762, then in 1769, then in the 1800's including in 1873, etc.

        You show that you do not deal with the actual facts as you close your eyes and mind to them.

        Evidently you choose to believe KJV-only fiction or false claims or KJV-only assumptions based on fallacies.. You fail to show that you believe consistent truth that would include truth before 1611.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by marke View Post

          I'm sure you have lots of followers and supporters. However, I am not one of them.
          Actually it is what the Scriptures state and teach that has lots of followers and supports, and your support of erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching does show that you may not be one of them at least concerning what the Scriptures would teach that relate to the subject of Bible translations.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by marke View Post

            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.
            It's a good translation; but not totally trustworthy.

            Acts 1:20 (KJV) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

            Bishoprick? Seriously? Since when were there "bishopricks" in the Old Covenant? There shouldn't even be "bishopricks" in the New Covenant! Not only that but this refers to Judas Iscariot, who was an apostle, not a "bishop".
            John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Conan View Post

              But it is a lie to not acknowledge that they are in the 1611 Bible and came with virtually all KJV Bibles until the 1885's or so. God's word for you has changed. God's word in the KJV Bible used to come with the Apocrypha always, then later in history usually does not. That is a real change, that even you can see.
              Believe what you like. God does not give His people junk for the written Word of God for their nourishment.
              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

                Then you are misjudging the book on purpose and giving false witness about it. You also deny the changes to the original 1611 KJV Bible and many, many other KJV Bible's. You cannot see the plane differences between different editions of God's word. Why is that?
                I tend to focus on the Christians' need for God's Word to be written in their own language so that they can read, study, honor and obey it as they seek Him for truth, wisdom and guidance for living.
                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

                  According to erroneous KJV-only reasoning, God's word has changed. It changed in 1611 from what it was in the pre-1611 English Bible, then in 1629 from what it was in 1611, then in 1638, then in 1743, then in 1762, then in 1769, then in the 1800's including in 1873, etc.

                  You show that you do not deal with the actual facts as you close your eyes and mind to them.

                  Evidently you choose to believe KJV-only fiction or false claims or KJV-only assumptions based on fallacies.. You fail to show that you believe consistent truth that would include truth before 1611.
                  No, I do not believe God has allowed men to change His Word so that He must give Christians today a written Bible that is full of errors.
                  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

                    Actually it is what the Scriptures state and teach that has lots of followers and supports, and your support of erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching does show that you may not be one of them at least concerning what the Scriptures would teach that relate to the subject of Bible translations.
                    I have no idea what you think the Scriptures teach about translations, but I am convinced the Scripture teaches that God's Word is pure and that God expects people to study it, honor it and obey it.
                    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 David1701 View Post

                      It's a good translation; but not totally trustworthy.

                      Acts 1:20 (KJV) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

                      Bishoprick? Seriously? Since when were there "bishopricks" in the Old Covenant? There shouldn't even be "bishopricks" in the New Covenant! Not only that but this refers to Judas Iscariot, who was an apostle, not a "bishop".
                      If I encounter a difficult word in the Bible I simply ask the Lord to give me a right understanding of what the word means. I do not think God's Word has gone bad because I do not immediately understand everything I read in it.
                      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 marke View Post

                        No, I do not believe God has allowed men to change His Word so that He must give Christians today a written Bible that is full of errors.
                        Really? Are you really consistent and just in that belief or do you in effect only in practice assert that claim in 1611?

                        Do you say that God has not allowed men to change His word in the NKJV or do you suggest that God was only able to do what you claim in 1611?

                        On what sound, scriptural basis can you imagine that God would allow men to change His word in the NKJV, but not in the KJV?

                        Are you suggesting that God contradicted His own wisdom from above and showed partiality to the Church of England makers of the KJV?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                          Really? Are you really consistent and just in that belief or do you in effect only in practice assert that claim in 1611?

                          Do you say that God has not allowed men to change His word in the NKJV or do you suggest that God was only able to do what you claim in 1611?

                          On what sound, scriptural basis can you imagine that God would allow men to change His word in the NKJV, but not in the KJV?

                          Are you suggesting that God contradicted His own wisdom from above and showed partiality to the Church of England makers of the KJV?
                          Let me ask the geniuses who think God has allowed men to alter His Word down through time. How do those geniuses know which contradicting wording is of God and which is of men?
                          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

                            Really? Are you really consistent and just in that belief or do you in effect only in practice assert that claim in 1611?

                            Do you say that God has not allowed men to change His word in the NKJV or do you suggest that God was only able to do what you claim in 1611?

                            On what sound, scriptural basis can you imagine that God would allow men to change His word in the NKJV, but not in the KJV?

                            Are you suggesting that God contradicted His own wisdom from above and showed partiality to the Church of England makers of the KJV?
                            Marke, you ask questions, but you do not answer the questions that you are asked. You do not engage in serious discussion.

                            You make a false allegation in trying to imply that any believer who disagrees with your non-scriptural opinions concerning the KJV supposedly think that they are "geniuses."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by marke View Post
                              How do those geniuses know which contradicting wording is of God and which is of men?
                              Perhaps humble believers who do not follow the opinions and traditions of men know the same way that believers before 1611 knew and the same way that later correctors of the 1611 edition of the KJV knew [by comparison to the proper standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages].

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                                Perhaps humble believers who do not follow the opinions and traditions of men know the same way that believers before 1611 knew and the same way that later correctors of the 1611 edition of the KJV knew [by comparison to the proper standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages].
                                By referring to the infallible originals?
                                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