Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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.

  • logos1560
    replied


    Is it interesting that some will make accusations about a book that they have not read firsthand so they do not really know whether the claims they blindly repeat are accurate or inaccurate?

    Leave a comment:


  • logos1560
    replied
    KJV-only advocates show that they cannot discuss and answer what I actually wrote so they try to divert with misrepresentations, distortions, and straw men.

    KJV-only advocates cannot refute scriptural truths and verifiable facts, and they cannot present any positive, clear, sound, just, true, scriptural case for their erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jaeger
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigboy View Post
    This is an oldie but a goodie !!!!!!!!

    Bump
    Yes it is!!

    Leave a comment:


  • marke
    replied
    Originally posted by Conan View Post

    Then you should be able to see errors in the KJV using Burgon's facts and logic. If you understand through textual criticism that you learned from Burgon.
    I am not a disciple of Burgon. I am a disciple of the Lord. Burgon made some good and persuasive points about some bad manuscripts and texts based upon those manuscripts, which was something I believe the Lord led me to study. I don't believe the Lord is moving me to find scholars who criticize the KJV for whatever their various reasons about various passages.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conan
    replied
    Originally posted by marke View Post

    I may not agree with Burgon on every point, and I don't think I even know every point Burgon had. He convinced me with facts and logic that W&H were wrong to concoct their new Greek text. That is why I agree with him on that.
    Then you should be able to see errors in the KJV using Burgon's facts and logic. If you understand through textual criticism that you learned from Burgon.

    Leave a comment:


  • marke
    replied
    Originally posted by Conan View Post

    Burgon also said the KJV needs revising. Do you agree with him there? In that he agreed fully with Westcott and Hort. Also Burgon knew that on occasion, Westcott and Hort's Greek text sometimes was more accurate than the Textus Receptus /KJV when it was corrupt. Do you?
    I may not agree with Burgon on every point, and I don't think I even know every point Burgon had. He convinced me with facts and logic that W&H were wrong to concoct their new Greek text. That is why I agree with him on that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conan
    replied
    Originally posted by marke View Post

    Never mind what people say about Sinaiticus, Burgon condemned the Greek text of W&H and we need to be careful what Greek texts we follow as we seek wisdom from God from His written Word.
    Burgon also said the KJV needs revising. Do you agree with him there? In that he agreed fully with Westcott and Hort. Also Burgon knew that on occasion, Westcott and Hort's Greek text sometimes was more accurate than the Textus Receptus /KJV when it was corrupt. Do you?

    Leave a comment:


  • marke
    replied
    Originally posted by Conan View Post

    Read with intelligence. Did Burgon say Sinaticus was a forgery? No he did not. You have given false witness about both Burgon and Sinaticus, which is a copy of the Word of God. You have been captured by onlyism.
    Never mind what people say about Sinaiticus, Burgon condemned the Greek text of W&H and we need to be careful what Greek texts we follow as we seek wisdom from God from His written Word.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conan
    replied
    Originally posted by marke View Post

    Burgon condemned the Westcott/Hort revised Greek based heavily upon the Sinaiticus forgery. Christians should seek wisdom from God before putting too much confidence in modern Greek texts.
    Read with intelligence. Did Burgon say Sinaticus was a forgery? No he did not. You have given false witness about both Burgon and Sinaticus, which is a copy of the Word of God. You have been captured by onlyism.

    Leave a comment:


  • marke
    replied
    Originally posted by Conan View Post

    It cannot be a counterfeit. Because sometimes it corrects the KJV , even if only in a minority of cases. You are saying a counterfeit Greek New Testament is better than the KJV in @ least a few cases? Wouldn't that make it legitimate right there?
    Burgon condemned the Westcott/Hort revised Greek based heavily upon the Sinaiticus forgery. Christians should seek wisdom from God before putting too much confidence in modern Greek texts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conan
    replied
    Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

    P.S. The (Novum Testamentum Graece) Is A counterfeit!

    Corrupt trees can't bring forth good fruit.
    It cannot be a counterfeit. Because sometimes it corrects the KJV , even if only in a minority of cases. You are saying a counterfeit Greek New Testament is better than the KJV in @ least a few cases? Wouldn't that make it legitimate right there?

    Leave a comment:


  • logos1560
    replied
    Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
    I demonstrated to you their are two types of adultery, physical and spiritual, and they have two different requirements for repentance.
    You have failed to demonstrate what you claim and speculate. The same word adultery is used at Matthew 5:28 and Matthew 19:9 with no added adjectives to modify either one as you try to add. The Lord Jesus Christ asserted that the sin of adultery that He noted in Matthew 5:28 is the same sin of adultery in the ten commandments (Matthew 5:27). You have also proven no different requirements for repentance. Perhaps you demonstrate that you are adding to the Scriptures things that it does not actually state as you in effect invent your own definitions and your own claimed requirements for repentance. It seems that your private interpretations are not sound and just.
    Last edited by logos1560; 03-10-19, 09:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truth7t7
    replied
    Originally posted by Conan View Post

    How do you not know that his first wife did not leave him. Oh that's right, you do not know the truth of the matter. Since we do not know the facts, your words must be considered mere conjecture.
    While the Textus Receptus may be a more accurate New Testament than Nestle/Aland most of the time, there are at least a few cases where Nestle/Aland is correct against the TR.
    Dose'nt make any difference if Ingeborg divorced Kurt, can't be married while your spouse is living.

    However Kurt divorced his wife Ingeborg, and ran off and married his student in the college class, do your research, come back and prove me wrong?

    P.S. The (Novum Testamentum Graece) Is A counterfeit!

    Corrupt trees can't bring forth good fruit.
    Last edited by Truth7t7; 03-10-19, 02:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truth7t7
    replied
    Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

    Your allegation against me is not true. You have not demonstrated and proven that I run away from any scriptural truth.

    Disagreeing with your imperfect human opinions is not running away from the truth.

    I clearly demonstrated that a statement that you made was not actually true even though you thought that it was.
    I demonstrated to you their are two types of adultery, physical and spiritual, and they have two different requirements for repentance.

    Unmarried men cannot commit "Physical Adultery", because they aren't married to a person while their spouse lives.

    "Spiritual Adultery", that is to look on a woman with lust, is forgiven in the breath of a word in repentance to the Lord.

    Unlike being physically married while your spouse lives, this takes a literal divorce and repentance for forgiveness.

    For an unmarried man to have sexual relations with a married woman is "Fornication" on both the man and woman's part.

    Keep running away from the truth, as Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingeborg, and ran off and married Barbara, Adultery.

    If Kurt and Barbara had sexual relations and never married this would be "Fornication", and Ingeborg would have the scriptural right to divorce Kurt for "Fornication" Matthew 19:9
    Last edited by Truth7t7; 03-10-19, 02:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X