The Unbound Scriptures, by Rick Norris - A Response

Skan posts:
Originally posted by michelle:
The correct translation of that word is "heaven" in the singular,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, michelle, are you saying that God made a mistake when He inspired the word "shamayim" which is NOT singular? Is your god so stupid he doesn't know the difference between shameh and shamayim?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skan, you're getting a bit testy with sister Michelle, aren't you? You should know that many times in Hebrew a plural can correctly be rendered as a singular and some singulars as plural. All versions do this.

Besides the King James Bible translating Genesis 1:1 as "heaven" singular, so also do Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, Geneva, Bible in Basic English, Webster, Spanish, and perhaps more importantly for you in this case, both Jewish translations that I have, the JPS 1917 edition and the 1936 Hebrew Pub. Company version. These were Jews using their own language and they translated it as a singular.

Your "rules of grammar" do not always apply in the way you personally think they do. You and Dr. Bob should just write each of you your own bible version and be done with it. But of course your bible will be different from the good doctor's, but, Hey, they're all inspired by the same Holy Spirit, right?

So, what is Dr. Bob complaining about? The KJB is just as inspired as the ESV, NIV, NKJV, RSV, and the Cabbage Patch bible, remember? So why is Dr. Bob criticizing the KJB when it is inspired by the same Holy Spirit?

I confess, I just don't understand his reasoning.


Will K

 

Part 5 - Printing Errers and Spellin

In his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Mr. Norris brings up the issue of the various editions of the King James Bible and shows how they differ from one another. Anyone who has studied the Bible version issue for some time knows that printing errors have been made in the past and some still exist today when we compare the Cambridge King James edition with the Oxford edition.

Among the examples Mr. Norris lists are changes from "LORD" to "Lord"; "seek good" Psalm 69:32 - a clear printing error of one letter quickly changed to the correct "seek God", which is what the Hebrew text says; omitting "Amen" at the end of Ephesians to putting it in again, and examples like one KJB spelling as "enquire" while another spells it "inquire".

Throughout the history of Bible printing there have been some rather humorous examples of printing errors that have occurred. It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

A 1631 edition became known as the "Wicked Bible" because the seventh commandment read, "thou shalt commit adultery." The printer was fined 300 pounds.

The printer of the "Fool Bible" had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God."

In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God" and one in Romans 6:13 that read, "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin." This Bible became known as "the Unrighteous Bible."

In 1716, the "Sin On Bible" commanded, "Go, and sin on more" in John 8:11.

In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the "parable of the vineyard" which called it the "Parable of the vinegar." This Bible was called "the Vinegar Bible."

In 1801, Jude 16 stated, "these are murderers" instead of "murmurers", and Mark 7:27 stated, "let the children first be killed" instead of "filled." This Bible was nicknamed "the Murderers Bible."

In 1820 a KJB edition was printed that had Jesus saying, "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" in Matthew 13:43, and this was called "the Ears to Ear" Bible.

In 1823 another KJB printing had Genesis 24:61 read "Rebekah arose, and her camels", instead of "her damsels," in "Rebekah’s Camels Bible."

The cause for all of these defects may be found in "the Printers' Bible" (1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, "printers have persecuted me" (instead of "princes" have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of irony, this is it. "Printers have persecuted me."

Three of the "big examples" that men like Mr. Norris and Doug Kutilek often bring up are Ruth 3:15, Song of Solomon 2:7, and Jeremiah 34:16.

Mr. Norris' friend, Doug Kutilek says: "It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."


To address the example Mr. Kutilek gives us in Ruth 3:15, let's look at what happened. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."

There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. In the original 1611 edition Ruth 3:15 read, "and HE went into the city", which would refer to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, this printing error of one letter was caught and changed to the correct reading of "and SHE went into the city", which refers to Ruth. These two editions became known as "the Great He Bible" and "the Great She Bible", respectively. The simple fact is they BOTH went into the city as we see from reading the rest of the chapter.

There still are differences among the many versions even today in Ruth 3:15.

Among the versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, the Jewish 1917 translation, World English Bible, New Living Translation, and the New Revised Standard Version.

The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB, Revised Standard Version, Coverdale, Bishop's, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Geneva bible, 1936 Jewish translation, and the 2001 English Standard Version. Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again. Also observe that the two Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936 differ from one another.

The NKJV, which reads "SHE went into the city" as do the King James Bible and the NASB, has a footnote which says: "Masoretic text reads HE; some Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read SHE" - as do the NIV, RV, ASV, NRSV.

Additionally, I know of two places where the King James Bible Cambridge edition differs from the Oxford KJB edition still today. One is in Jeremiah 34:16 where the Cambridge KJB reads: "whom YE had set at liberty" while the Oxford edition says: "whom HE had set at liberty".

The second is found in the Song of Solomon 2:9 where the Cambridge KJB edition says: "that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till HE please", while the Oxford KJB says "nor awake my love, till SHE please." Mr. Norris also mentions these two in his book.


Song of Solomon 2:7

Song of Solomon 2:7 "O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till HE please."

In the original AV 1611 a printer's error occured and it read: "till SHE please". It was soon discovered and changed to read as it stands today in both the Oxford and Cambridge editions - "till HE please".

Here is how other Bible versions render this verse.

"till IT please" - Revised Version, NIV, NKJV

"till SHE please" - NASB, Geneva Bible

"till HE please" - American Standard Version 1901, Jewish translation 1917, King James Bible (Oxford and Cambridge editions)

Jeremiah 34:16

Jeremiah 34:16 "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom YE had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection..."

The original 1611 said "YE" as does the Cambridge edition today, but the Oxford KJB edition says "whom HE had set at liberty". Again, it makes perfect sense in the context and is a minor printing error that has not yet been corrected in some editions of the King James Bible.

Other Bible Versions in Jeremiah 34:16

"whom YE (or YOU) had set at liberty" - ASV, RV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, 1917 Jewish translation put out by Jewish Publication Society.

"whom HE had set at liberty" - NKJV, Youngs, 1936 Jewish translation put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York. Notice that both Jewish translations differ again between themselves and the NKJV sides with the Oxford edition.

Mr. Norris and Mr. Kutilek are all worked up about a little printing error they think they have found in the King James Bible, and they recommend we abandon this old relic to the dustbin and take up the modern versions, yet the Modern Versions continue to disagree even with each other in these minor examples. I firmly believe they are straining at gnats and swallowing a camel in the process.

On the other hand, there are huge differences that exist among the various bible versions, with literally thousands of words found in some but not in others, and hundreds of verses which have very different meanings in them, yet those who attack the King James Bible come up with examples like Ruth 3:15 and Jeremiah 34:16 where no doctrine is affected and it is nothing more than a simple printing error. It seems they think that if they can manage to find just one little "error" in the King James Bible, then their case for "No translation is the inspired word of God" can be made and the door is then wide open for the flood of conflicting and contradictory bible versions to come pouring in.

This whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non-issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen; not as a serious issue concerning the truth of Scripture and its preservation.

Most people who reject the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: "The KJV is not based on the best manuscripts", or that "God forbid" is wrong, or "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible."

They previously assumed that all King James Bibles read the same since the very beginning. It wasn't till later they learned of the minor printing errors and now they gleefully toss this up as a dodge and a pretext. If someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. It is a non-issue of no importance.

For a more detailed study called What About Those Printing Errors? please see my article at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html

If one adopts the view that printing errors negate any Bible version, Hebrew or Greek text from being valid and true, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. This is the only logical conclusion to their argument. Guess who wants you to think this way?

God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making "printing errors", but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original form and meaning.

The King James Bible we have today is the same as the one printed in 1611. Printing errors have occured and continue to occur from time to time, but the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible have not changed in the least.

Even the American Bible Society, which promotes and publishes most modern bible versions, wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

I hope this helps you to better understand the nature of the so called "thousands of changes" that have occured in the King James Bible since 1611 to the present.

Will Kinney

 

Part 6 - Inspiration and Inerrancy

In chapter eight of his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Rick Norris takes up the topic of inspiration and inerrancy. Rick asks: "Does not God's Word IN THE ORIGINAL languages have divine authority to correct any translation including the KJV? Would they claim that God's Word IN THE ORIGINAL languages has passed away or was unacceptable as THE STANDARD OF AUTHORITY?...a few (KJV-only advocates) go to the extreme by denying the authority of the Word of God in Hebrew and Greek."

It is as clear to me as the noonday sun that Mr. Norris is sitting in judgment on the of the King James Bible by upholding a "standard of authority" (that is, "the originals") when no such thing as the originals in Hebrew or Greek exist - and he knows they don't exist even while he continues to say it!

Mr. Norris asks: "Would they claim that God's Word in the original languages has passed away as the standard of authority?" Yes, Rick, we would claim this. If you can show us the originals, then we will be glad to change our minds and admit that your standard of authority has merit.

Mr. Norris' entire premise has no factual basis, yet he continually refers to "the originals" as though he were looking at them while he writes his book and compares them to the King James Bible. Then he accuses the KJV advocates of holding to a man-made doctrine that God has preserved His inerrant words, and done so in the King James Bible, while at the same time he himself clings to a mystical bible he has never seen in his entire life. The irony is overwhelming.

Nowhere in the Bible does it ever mention "the originals", nor that "ONLY the originals can be inspired". Neither does the Bible ever teach the commonly accepted idea Mr. Norris promotes that "No Translation can be the Inspired Words of God". Where did he get this idea? Certainly not from any Bible I have read. The Bible itself clearly teaches by many examples that a translation CAN BE the inspired words of God.

See my article on this called: Can a Translation be Inspired? at this site:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Mr. Norris believes and quotes others who have stated "ONLY THE ORIGINAL is God-breathed." Where does this idea come from? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself tells us "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" - John 6:63. The Scriptures teach us that "the word of God LIVETH and ABIDETH for ever" - 1 Peter 1:23. The true and inspired words of God can be likened to water that sustains life. If the same water is removed from one vessel and placed into another, without addition or subtraction, it is the same water.

We are not claiming "double inspiration" for the King James Bible or that the KJB translators were inspired. It is God's words that are inspired. It is not a case of "once upon a time, long, long ago and far away the Scriptures WERE inspired ONLY in the originals". God did inspire certain men to speak and write His words of truth, but the words continue to be the inspired words of God. The inspiration of God's words did not cease when copies were made and the apostles and prophets died off.

Mr. Norris also says: "Because of the differences in languages, a translation cannot possibly reproduce all the exact meanings of the words in the other language. Therefore, all translations must at some points be inferior to the original although they may come very close to its meaning."

Again, Mr. Norris has no "the original" to compare anything to, but this has not stopped him from reaching his conclusions. His philosophy about translations is totally humanistic. God has no problem translating His words into another language. The Scriptures themselves show us that He has done this very thing many times. (Again, see my article, Can a Translation be Inspired?)

I and many other King James Bible believers hold the view that God Providentially guided the translators to give us His inerrant and perfect words in the English language. The translators themselves were imperfect and sinful men as we all are. They just happended to be the tools or vessels God chose to use in fulfilling His promises to preserve His inspired words.

Mr. Norris recognizes this is our view and tries to refute it. He says we King James Bible defenders "end up making an assumption that the KJV translators received infallible divine guidance in their translating which kept them from possibly making any errors in translation." Yes, Rick, I agree with you here. This is our assumption, though I prefer to call it faith in the promises of God based on substantial evidence. But you have nicely summed up what most of us believe.

Mr. Norris reveals his flawed premise when he concludes: "Making a translation the final authority makes it an authority above which there is no other, which means that God's Word in the original Hebrew and Greek would be of lesser authority than the KJV."

Does Mr. Norris need to be reminded again that he can not tell us where to find one single verse from "the original Hebrew and Greek"? He tells us his Final Authority is something that he has never seen and which no longer exists, and then accuses us of following a man-made doctrine. Rick, you are following a "made-up doctrine". THERE ARE NRIGINALS. Rick, will you please tell us all where we can get a copy of this original Greek and Hebrew you keep telling us about?

Mr. Norris further states: "To claim the action of the KJV translators was free from all the effects of sin and any possibility of error without any act of divine inspiration would be in effect to contradict the Scriptural doctrine of the depravity of man."

I don't know of any KJB defender who claims what Mr. Norris just said. We claim the Providential guidance of God Almighty, not an "act of divine inspiration". As for the depravity of man, no one denies this. God has always used depraved, fallen men to give us His words, even in the originals. Don't the modern version translators assume they can receive divine guidance and providential direction when they pray to God and ask Him for wisdom in their translational work? Cannot God work in this way? Why deny the possibility that God providentially guided the KJB translators and then assume it can happen for others?

In this chapter, Mr. Norris mentions one specific example of what he thinks is a typographical error still found in the KJB. He says the King James reading in Matthew 23:24 is a misprint. He says "strain AT a gnat" should be "strain OUT a gnat."

Let's take a moment to look at and discuss Matthew 23:24

"Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There are many who criticize the King James reading of "strain at a gnat". Some tell us this is a printing error, yet I would ask how do they know this? It is a mere assumption on their part.

The word "to strain" (diulizo) is found only once in the New Testament. How to translate this word is a matter of perspective. There are at least two different ways I know of to look at the verse as it stands in the King James Bible, and both make sense.

#1. The rendering of "strain at" a gnat, implies only the effort to try to strain out the gnats that might ceremoniously defile their drink and food; it does not necessarily mean they succeeded in always getting them out. The modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and even the older English versions of Tyndale and Geneva say "strain OUT a gnat", as though they accomplished what they intended.

In 1729 Daniel Mace made a translation of the New Testament, and in Matthew 23:24 he translated as: "strain..FOR a gnat", which carries the same meaning as that found in the Authorized Version.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat." Other commentators in the past have had no problem with the way the phrase stands in the King James Bible.

John Gill - "To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain AT (caps mine) a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater."

Matthew Henry - "they strained AT a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained AT gnats, warned people against every the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice they strained AT gnats, heaved AT them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were afraid of it in the least instance"

These two commentators do not try to change the King James reading here, though they both do so in other parts of the Scriptures. They affirm that the Pharisees had a great outward revulsion for minor sins, yet they swallowed a camel.

How many gnats do you suppose were on that camel they swallowed?

#2 Another way to look at this verse was suggested at a Bible club I belong to. It makes a lot of sense. This brother said that since the word gnat is in the singular and not the plural, the idea is that the Pharisees would strain AT a gnat, which is among the smallest of creatures, in the sense of "at discovering a gnat" or "at finding a gnat in their drink", they would begin the process of straining.

He pointed out the following: "The KJV is speaking of the Pharisitical practice of straining wine after a gnat is found in it - hence, straining at the discovered presence of a gnat. When a gnat was found in wine, of course it was removed by hand. Insects aren't kosher, though some locusts are. What, according to Jewish law, allowed the remaining wine to be kosher was straining it, just in case any more impurities might be found in it. If you couldn't strain it, all the wine was to be thrown away. So - they strained AT the discovery of a gnat, which may or may not strain additional gnats.

I understand many KJV opponents love this "error", but in my opinion, the only error here is with their understanding of English and Jewish law.

This construction in English is very clear to me and to the editors of what is arguably the utmost authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. Jews strained when an insect was found - that is, at (the discovery of) a gnat.

Again, far from being an error in the KJV, the KJV has the best translation which fits all the facts. The King James Bible has the better translation."


Will Kinney