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 Steven Avery View Post
    The Geneva Bible of 1560 is missing some precious Bible verse and phrases that are in the Authorized Version, here are three examples.

    John 8:6
    .... as though he heard them not.

    Luke 17:36
    Two men shall be in the field;
    the one shall be taken,
    and the other left.

    1 John 2:23
    ... (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.


    Afaik, Rick Norris has never answered the question as to whether these are pure scripture.
    Still unanswered.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
      Still unanswered.
      You have not answered many questions that you have been asked.

      Your question could be considered diversionary and inconsistent since you have not presented or accepted any sound textual measures that you are willing to see applied consistently and justly. You have not identified any specific original-language Old Testament text and any original-language New Testament text that has been demonstrated to be the absolutely perfect, pure standard for determining whether words are added or omitted. You still have not answered the challenge given you to present a positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, scriptural case for your modern KJV-only view.

      Comment


      • The question is simple and straightforward.

        Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
        The Geneva Bible of 1560 is missing some precious Bible verse and phrases that are in the Authorized Version, here are three examples.

        John 8:6
        .... as though he heard them not.

        Luke 17:36
        Two men shall be in the field;
        the one shall be taken,
        and the other left.

        1 John 2:23
        ... (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.


        Afaik, Rick Norris has never answered the question as to whether these are pure scripture.
        Still unanswered.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
          The question is simple and straightforward.

          Still unanswered.
          Just as the OP states, Mr. Norris states the word of God can be found in the original autographs?

          Where are these autographs?

          Still unanswered.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
            The question is simple and straightforward.

            Still unanswered.
            Missing as compared to the KJV doesn't = wrong.

            Simple answer.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
              Just as the OP states, Mr. Norris states the word of God can be found in the original autographs?

              Where are these autographs?

              Still unanswered.
              Why doesn't the validity of the KJV .,.... ALSO.... rest on this answer?

              We have everything the KJV translators had and MORE.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
                Just as the OP states, Mr. Norris states the word of God can be found in the original autographs?

                Where are these autographs?

                Still unanswered.
                Speaking of The Greek New Testament, they are recorded in hand written Greek manuscripts and printed editions of The Greek New Testament. You should aquire @least one. A textus receptus perhaps. Let me know if you would like a more specific recommendation.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  The question is simple and straightforward.

                  Still unanswered.
                  The True answers are not as straightforward as you seem to imply. To examine the evidence, one has to look @ the several editions of the KJV since there are differences in interpretation between the Original 1611 KJV and the more modern 1769 KJV. There are also different editions of the Textus Receptus to consider. Do we go with the Greek Reading, or the Roman Catholic Latin vulgate sometimes followed by the 1611 translators, and apparently @ different times by the 1768 king james revisors. These are very good examples of the above that you picked. Now, what do the Original 1611 translators and the 1769 KJV revisors say in marginal notes? Remember, not all kjvonly believers have access to the Original notes.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Conan View Post

                    Speaking of The Greek New Testament, they are recorded in hand written Greek manuscripts and printed editions of The Greek New Testament. You should aquire @least one. A textus receptus perhaps. Let me know if you would like a more specific recommendation.
                    The "Original Autographs" where are they?

                    Still unanswered?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
                      The "Original Autographs" where are they?

                      Still unanswered?
                      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!!
                      Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

                      Comment


                      • 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?

                        God did not use men in heaven to translate the Bible. He used sinners. It does not matter what kinds of sins the sinners had or what erroneous thoughts they may have, when they translated the Bible they were under God's direction and He was obviously unconcerned about their flaws. 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.

                        I have much more respect for the KJV than for translations which show their translators' inability to recognize the errors of manuscripts containing alien books not currently recognized by the overwhelming majority of Christians as the inspired canon of 66 books which make up the KJV 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 Truth7t7 View Post
                          A Critique Of Rick Norris?

                          Truth7t7
                          Rick was no doubt much younger when he wrote that critique of the Bible. I suspect he later could quite possibly have realized his errors and repented of his mistakes. However, he may still be making money off of that book. That might motivate him not to publish a retraction of the errors even if he did gain better understanding as he matured.
                          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 have much more respect for the KJV than for translations which show their translators' inability to recognize the errors of manuscripts containing alien books not currently recognized by the overwhelming majority of Christians as the inspired canon of 66 books which make up the KJV Bible.
                            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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by marke View Post

                              Rick was no doubt much younger when he wrote that critique of the Bible.
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by marke View Post


                                I have much more respect for the KJV than for translations which show their translators' inability to recognize the errors of manuscripts containing alien books not currently recognized by the overwhelming majority of Christians as the inspired canon of 66 books which make up the KJV Bible.
                                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.
                                Last edited by logos1560; 02-09-19, 12:01 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X