The Unbound Scriptures, by Rick Norris - A Response

Michelle: "My question to you, and still is,
to which you AVOID,
is where is the scriptural support
for holding to a version/versions to which
have/has omitted/added to God's words of truth."

Simple Answer - BAD QUESTION.
Yes, i do believe a blame to be appropriated for
a bad question is to the one who formed the
bad question, not the one who fails answers it.

More complete answer:

1. This question reminds me that you have never
read a modern version and have no basis, knowledge
or qualification for judging modern versions.

2. You appear to have no idea which KJV edition
you are using (but you are correct that you
use a KJV). You have no basis, knowledge or qualification
for judging KJVs.

3. You appear to be cluless about foriegn languages, the
problems of transfering information from one
language is not an exact science but rather an art.
You have no basis, knowledge or qualification
for judging translations, translators, or
translation schema.

4. There is no modern version
(save for a couple of bad ones discussed)
which adds to or subtracts from the blessed
message God has for us. How can a
meaningful question
be asked about something that does not exist?

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!

 

This the most
ridiculous thing I've heard concerning the issues and smacks the promises of God concerning
the words of God, for He preserved them for
every generation.

Do you agree with the modern method of using capatilized pronouns
when the Blessed Holy Trinity is
the referent? I see the nKJV uses it.
It is used to show respect to God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit
who are due our respect and highest devotion.

I see the various flavors of the KJV
(being written 100s of years ago) do
not capatilize pronouns. This seems to
no follow the modern method of showing
honor unto God.
I notice most KJVOs and some non-KJVOs
are so used to the KJV that they do
not capatilize pronounds refering
to members of the Trinity. I notice
most of the non-KJVOS here do shew
honor and respect by capitalizing
pronouns referrant to the Trinity,
a much more Christocentric modern method.

 

Michelle: "There are no contradictions in GOd's words,
and with a little effort on our parts, and desire
to know the truth, in prayer, GOd will show us
the answer, and sort out for us what
seems to be contradicting, which in fact it is not."

Amen, Sister Michelle -- Preach it!

I define "God's words" to be all faithful
English translations. What do you define
as "God's words"?

 

Michelle:The origionals do not exist, nor have they existed for hundreds of years! The KJV translators had a full knowledge of the Greek language and culture of the day to that period of the Greek New testament Text by Erasmus.

Actually, they used several editions of the TR.
http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/variations_in_the_textus.htm


Their language abilities far exceed that of any scholar of today. I know many do not like to hear it, but many today have been dumbed down. The assumption is that people are getting smarter, and that those ancient peoples were dumb as rocks. Oh how silly that is indeed, and how egotistical of modern man to say and believe such a thing, ecspecially when the opposite is true.

It isn't the intelligence of the various translators at issue here; it's the amount of info available to them. The AV translators had more material available to them than Tyndale did, plus, they had Tyndale's work itself.

Eddie Rickenbacker, a fellow Ohioan, was called the best engine mechanic who ever turned a wrench. But were he to be resurrected today, would you fly in a jetliner that he'd been sent to service? Doubtlessly, given his ability, he could've soon learned jet mechanics, and he said as much, as he lived up into the Jet Age, but he wasn't born knowing anything about any engines at all.

The later translators had all the work of their predecessors, plus the additional mss found, that the AV translators didn't have.

Something you ignore about those men-from their AV preface, we see that they would've rejected almost every KJVO argument. And they dertainly would've scoffed at some of the attributes credited to them by today's KJVOist.


No doubt, there are probably smart people today on that same level of intelligence, but I would gather very few indeed. Men back then actually used thier minds and their strong faith in God, rather than the reliance upon technology that we have today which gives us all a false sense of intelligence. Society has made us lazy in all aspects of life. To the point, no, I do not observe that anyone posting here on these boards could even compare intellectually in the area of Greek and Hebrew languages, as those of the translators of the KJV.

And no one today has the inventive genius of Edison. BUT-today's stereo record player is a far cry ahead of the wax cylinder recorder-player invented by Edison, just as a modern cell phone is far-advanced from Bell's telephone. maybe no one now has the particular genius of Edison or Bell, but, bit by bit, other men made little improvements to their inventions, and those who followed built on all the work of their predecessors. Some day these pcs will be museum pieces.

Just as the AV men built upon the works of others, today's translators have the material available to them, plus 400 more years of works & discoveries. Remember the vast increase of knowledge prophesied to Daniel.


Did Skanw, or Dr. Bob study the Greek and Hebrew languages from their childhoood on? Do they have a full working knowledge of these languages? I gather not, and if they claimed they did, I would sincerely doubt it, as this society and culture does not cater to such a thing, as was a common and expected thing of the days of the KJV translators of the upper class.

Henry Ford tinkered with mechanical things from childhood, and not only did he invent a simple, reliable car, somewhat advanced over existing cars, but he invented the industrial assembly line, enabling him to make his cars at a fraction of the cost of other cars built from scratch.

But did he rest on the Model-T? of course not. In 1927 he came out with the much-improved Model-A. And today's Taurus is vastly-improved over the models invented by Henry Ford himself.

Should we just sit back with an old Bible whose language is now archaic & say there can't be anything better, pertinent for OUR generation? The KJVO insists that Psalm 12:7 is about God's WORDS unto every generation, so why can't God present His word in the current language, which we have by His will? If men can build upon a basic invention such as the wheel, why can't GOD build upon what is His anyway? Did God want His word to be static? Not hardly.

Psalm 68:11, KJV "The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it."

Regarding texts that the KJV translators did not have as compared to those of today is the most ridiculous thing I have heard concerning this issue and smacks the promises of God and faith in those promises squarely in the face.

Not really. Did David have the Book of Isaiah?


God is not doing a new thing, and no one has recieved any new revelation from God concerning the words of God, for he has preserved them for EVERY GENERATION, and they have NEVER BEEN LOST! If anything, we have seen omittions due to these newly found older manuscripts, that contradict long understood verses and words of scriptures for centuries within believing churches that God himself has preserved, even unto this very day.

That's your prob, Michelle. You've made up your mind that an older ms somehow omits something found in a newer one, but you can't even begin to prove it. The ONLY thing that could prove it would be the existence of a ms older than ALL the ones in question, which should be the one used by translators anyway.

let's see some REAL PROOF that what you say is omitted was REALLY omitted, & not added later. Just saying, "it aint in the KJB" won't cut it.

 

This topic needs to go to the second volume
located at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/1572.html?