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

    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?
    It is clear that my statement did not refer to any non-existent autographs on earth. I properly referred to what God has actually preserved: the varying, existing original-language manuscript copies of Scriptures that have to be compared by use of sound, just measures/standards.

    Would you attack the actual imperfectly printed and varying original-language text editions of Scripture used in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV?

    Do you close your eyes to the fact that human textual criticism decisions were involved in the making of the KJV?

    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].
      You contunually talk about the preserved scriptures in the original languages?

      Where are they, put a name on them?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
        You contunually talk about the preserved scriptures in the original languages?

        Where are they, put a name on them?
        I have put one of the same names on them that the early English translators and the KJV translators used. The KJV translators made use of multiple varying original-language texts of Scripture and did not follow any one edition 100%.

        I have already explained where they are, but you ignore it or pretend that it has not been done.

        The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are found in the existing, preserved original-language manuscript copies of Scriptures. The variations and differences in them needed to be evaluated and settled by the use of sound, just measures/standards so that any additions, omissions, or errors introduced by copiers can be corrected just as the Scriptures indicate in instructions concerning them.

        The Scriptures do not state that the human process of the copying of the Scriptures would be by a direct miracle of inspiration of God so that it would be impossible for any copier to make a mistake in his copying of the Scripture.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

          It is clear that my statement did not refer to any non-existent autographs on earth. I properly referred to what God has actually preserved: the varying, existing original-language manuscript copies of Scriptures that have to be compared by use of sound, just measures/standards.

          Would you attack the actual imperfectly printed and varying original-language text editions of Scripture used in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV?

          Do you close your eyes to the fact that human textual criticism decisions were involved in the making of the KJV?
          You claim you did not refer to the originals but, instead refer to the existing copies of the original manuscripts for determining the perfect exact wording of the Word of God as it should be. My question is how you manage to gain assurance that your opinions when sorting through the various differences in those manuscripts are infallible?
          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

            You claim you did not refer to the originals but, instead refer to the existing copies of the original manuscripts for determining the perfect exact wording of the Word of God as it should be. My question is how you manage to gain assurance that your opinions when sorting through the various differences in those manuscripts are infallible?
            I do not and have not asked that anyone follow my opinions. I advocate the use of consistent, sound, just measures/standards just as the Scriptures teach. Do you oppose following what the Scriptures teach? Are you claiming that assurance cannot be gained by following scriptural truths justly? How do you supposedly gain assurance from following your own human, non-scriptural opinions?

            It has not been demonstrated that Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or any other textual critic who produced the varying Textus Receptus editions applied any sound textual measures/standards consistently and justly in making their textual decisions. Erasmus did not present any sound textual measures for adding inconsistently some readings from the Latin Vulgate while not adding other readings that may have stronger Greek manuscript evidence than some of the ones that he did add. Erasmus and Beza did not present sound textual measures/standards for their introduction of some conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

              I do not and have not asked that anyone follow my opinions. I advocate the use of consistent, sound, just measures/standards just as the Scriptures teach. Do you oppose following what the Scriptures teach? Are you claiming that assurance cannot be gained by following scriptural truths justly? How do you supposedly gain assurance from following your own human, non-scriptural opinions?

              It has not been demonstrated that Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or any other textual critic who produced the varying Textus Receptus editions applied any sound textual measures/standards consistently and justly in making their textual decisions. Erasmus did not present any sound textual measures for adding inconsistently some readings from the Latin Vulgate while not adding other readings that may have stronger Greek manuscript evidence than some of the ones that he did add. Erasmus and Beza did not present sound textual measures/standards for their introduction of some conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.
              OK, then. You have a system for evaluating manuscripts which has put you at odds in places with scholars like Dean Burgon. Your system is also at odds in places with my views. To each his own.
              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

                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.
                It's not that I don't understand "bishoprick", it's that the translation is an error! It's an ecclesiastical term, used by high Anglicans. The modern spelling is "bishopric" and it means "the district over which the jurisdiction of a bishop extends".
                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 marke View Post

                  . You have a system for evaluating manuscripts which has put you at odds in places with scholars like Dean Burgon. Your system is also at odds in places with my views. To each his own.
                  You fail to prove your claims to be true. I have already demonstrated that my view of the Greek manuscript evidence is closer to that of Dean Burgon than your view is. You fail to prove that my advocating the just application of scriptural truths is at odds with scholars like Dean Burgon. Burgon admitted and pointed out facts that you do not accept. I have provided actual observations and statements made by Burgon that you avoid or dodge and that you do not accept.

                  Are you admitting that your non-scriptural view is at odds with a just application of scriptural truths?

                  John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and the KJV (The Revision Revised, pp. 21, 107, 114, 224, 236, 269). For example, John William Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21, footnote 3). Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Burgon himself asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.). In 1864, Burgon maintained that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69).

                  After discussing the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, Burgon asserted: “Our remarks apply in strictness only to the sacred autographs” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 64). Burgon added: “God has not seen fit to work a succession of miracles for the protection even of His Word” (p. 64). Burgon claimed: “To some, it may seem a matter of regret that a perpetual miracle has not guarded the ispissma verba of the Spirit; but the wiser will judge differently” (p. 77). Burgon observed: “It is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of Scripture then can possibly be rendered by any translation, however faithful; while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority, even than versions” (Last Twelve Verses, p. 19).

                  In his introduction to Burgon’s book, Edward Miller wrote: “In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew‘s Gospel alone“ (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5). Burgon and Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (p. 5). Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96). In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1).

                  Edward Miller maintained that Burgon thought that there were “additions to the Received Text” at Matthew 6:18, Matthew 25:13, and Matthew 27:35 (Burgon, Causes of the Corruptions of the Traditional Text, p. 171). Burgon as edited by Miller noted: “An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke 16:25” (p. 60). Under the heading “Burgon and Miller’s system,” Edward Miller asserted that “The Textus Receptus, which was adopted in the revival of Greek learning, though it agrees substantially with our Canons, fails under the first, which is the virtual embodiment of them all; because some of its readings are condemned by the balance struck upon all the evidence which as been assembled under the unprecedented advantage afforded in this century” (Oxford Debate, p. xiii). Burgon wrote: “S. Luke’s history of the Temptation (4:8) contains five words which some ancient copyist must have inserted from remembering too well the parallel place in S. Matthew 4:10, and confounding it with the language of S. Matthew 16:23” (Treatise on the Pastoral, p. 76). Burgon asked: “See you not that the state of the text of the Bible has no more to do with the Inspiration of the Bible, then the stains on yonder windows have to do with the light of God’s sun?” (Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 119).

                  Marvin Vincent observed: “With Dean Burgon, he [Scrivener] stood for the position that all available authorities, and not the most ancient only, should be considered in the settlement of the text” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 141). Vincent maintained that “John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, was the friend and coadjutor of Scrivener” (p. 142). Peter Ruckman asserted that “Burgon claimed the AV has several corrupt readings in it” (Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes, p. 100). John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72). Burgon suggested that “the inaccurate rendering” of two Greek words in the KJV at Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 was “retained” in the Revised Version (p. 164). Burgon indicated that there are some places where the Revisionists remedy “an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V.“ (p. 220). Burgon wrote: “It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic” (pp. 216-217). Concerning Luke 5:2, Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “The translators of the 1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate, had been before them, to render [the Greek words]--’were washing their nets” (Traditional Text, p. 212). Burgon then maintained that the Revisers of 1881 retained “the incorrect translation” found in the 1611 KJV at this verse (Ibid.).
                  Last edited by logos1560; 02-19-19, 12:45 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by David1701 View Post

                    It's not that I don't understand "bishoprick", it's that the translation is an error! It's an ecclesiastical term, used by high Anglicans. The modern spelling is "bishopric" and it means "the district over which the jurisdiction of a bishop extends".
                    There is more room for diversity in translations than most people think. We do not have the originals so we do not have a single irrefutable final authority on every word and detail. Scholars must use their best judgment and best methods to arrive at the best conclusions, but all scholars will not agree. God will just have to be the judge since not a single scholar on earth has the authority or right to declare his own opinions irrefutable or "inspired."

                    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

                      There is more room for diversity in translations than most people think. We do not have the originals so we do not have a single irrefutable final authority on every word and detail. Scholars must use their best judgment and best methods to arrive at the best conclusions, but all scholars will not agree. God will just have to be the judge since not a single scholar on earth has the authority or right to declare his own opinions irrefutable or "inspired."
                      Until then I will be using God's word in the English language, the good ole AKJV, 400+ years and still going strong!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by marke View Post

                        There is more room for diversity in translations than most people think.
                        You only seem to accept diversity in translating when it is found in the KJV but you will object when other English Bible translations translate differently than the KJV.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by marke View Post
                          God will just have to be the judge since not a single scholar on earth has the authority or right to declare his own opinions irrefutable or "inspired."
                          At other times, you have contradicted your own statement since you have declared your own opinions concerning the KJV to be right and have claimed that no one can prove them wrong, which would be the same thing as claiming that your opinions are supposedly irrefutable.

                          You have refused to present sound, convincing evidence that would prove your opinions to be right, but instead you merely try to declare them right and in effect irrefutable. You avoid your own burden of proof and demand that others have to prove you wrong rather than you making any effort to prove what you claim to be right. You imply that your declaring your own opinions right supposedly makes them right.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                            You only seem to accept diversity in translating when it is found in the KJV but you will object when other English Bible translations translate differently than the KJV.
                            I cannot prove the KJV is the best translation but I can certainly think it is just as much as someone else may think it is not.
                            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

                              At other times, you have contradicted your own statement since you have declared your own opinions concerning the KJV to be right and have claimed that no one can prove them wrong, which would be the same thing as claiming that your opinions are supposedly irrefutable.

                              You have refused to present sound, convincing evidence that would prove your opinions to be right, but instead you merely try to declare them right and in effect irrefutable. You avoid your own burden of proof and demand that others have to prove you wrong rather than you making any effort to prove what you claim to be right. You imply that your declaring your own opinions right supposedly makes them right.
                              Of course I think I am right. Don't you think you are right? I haven't heard you testify here that you truly believe you are wrong in what you believe. Would that even be possible?
                              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

                                I cannot prove the KJV is the best translation but I can certainly think it is just as much as someone else may think it is not.
                                There are sound reasons and compelling evidence as to why you cannot prove the KJV is the best translation since the KJV does not have the best, most accurate rendering of every original-language word of Scripture in every verse. In at least some places, there is compelling evidence from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that another English Bible has a better or more accurate rendering than the KJV.

                                One clear example of where the KJV does not have the most accurate rendering is its use of a plural "unicorns" at Deuteronomy 33:17 where the Hebrew name of the animal is singular in number and where it is clear from the context that this one animal had two horns with one horn representing Ephraim and the other horn representing Manasseh. How is it best and most accurate to refer to an animal with two horns as "unicorns" [one-horned]?
                                Last edited by logos1560; 02-20-19, 10:27 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X