Featured Refutation of Rick Norris "Unbound Scriptures"

Posts like this make you look like an arrogent fool. If someone feels they should use a particular bible, it really isn't any of your business to interfere. Why don't you just mind your own business and butt out!

I can't imagine someone like you coming into a church and talking like this, you might find yourself out in the parking lot in one big hurry.

Oh, and this goes for Rippon too. Are you guys Siamese twins, or what?

 

Rick, can you provide a link, anywhere on the web, where you have countered Will's review of your book on a point by point (chapter by chapter) basis?

Have you shown in detail his "misrepresentation and distortion" anywhere on the web?

If you haven't done so, why not? If you have, I'd like to read your documentation that supports your charges against him.

 

Only to those who disagree, and who cannot prove me wrong.

If you wish to use the King George Version, that's between you and GOD. But if you tell another that YOUR pet version is the ONLY valid one there is, then you're telling a LIE, and should be called down.

Because I WON'T, and you can't make me. Why don't YOU?

I doubt it, if it's a REAL church.

So, what are YOU? A self-appointed bible cop? Or, just another clueless ratchet jaw?

 

This thread aint about me...it's about Mr. Norris.

 

No, I HAVEN'T. Unlike some people I DO have a life; I don't live in fronta a keyboard.

You're just upset that we exposed you as a CLOSET KJVO on another board, so you brought your rancor over here.

I'll answer you WHEN YOU'RE ON-TOPIC. Otherwise, I WILL NOT play your childish little games.

 

Tell the people what you believe roby! I'm not a "closet KJVO". I've stated very clearly what I believe. I've used the KJV for my entire life, and I believe it to be the best version. I'm not ashamed of it. You may use whatever version you like.

Now, why not come clean with the people about what you believe?? Your getting on internet forums and berating people when YOU have some of the most heretical beliefs I've ever come across, is not a "childish game". People who are interacting with you, those who agree with you, along with those who oppose you, should know exactly who you are. That only seems fair, doesn't it? Your avoidance speaks volumes.

Do you deny any of the above about what you believe? I can document that you do believe the above, by posts on other forums where you've stated those things!! You were shown Scripture after Scripture debunking your weird belief, yet you ignore Scripture and continue to believe God created other separate races. You have ZERO Scripture to support YOUR belief, yet you come on forums attacking others because they have no Scripture for theirs! You are the very definition of a hypocrite! You ashamed to let those on here know that? That is very much relevant if you're going to attack someone for what you consider an un-Biblical belief, shouldn't everyone know about YOUR un-Biblical beliefs also? Quit running away.

 

If we're going to do this then we need to speak about the unscriptural beliefs and practices of KJVO champions Ruckman, Riplinger and Kinney also.

But that's not the point here. The point is that there is no Scriptural support for KJVO whatsoever, not even if you stretch scripture to do it.

 

My point is that you have someone on here making demands (roby) for Scriptural support, when he has NO Scriptural support for his weird belief! I believe that's VERY relevant. Also very hypocritical! Mexdeaf, I'm saddened that apparently others on here think heretical beliefs should just be "overlooked" because that person is on the same side as them!!!! If you really knew what roby believes, I think you'd change your mind about my posts.

 

Well, what did your post here:

..... have to do with Mr. Norris?


You're avoiding exposing yourself, and you know it.

 

robycop3 & B4L,

You all may wish to be aware that using other forum discussions here is forbidden by BB rules.

Just making you aware.

At the same time a little shocked about the 'arrogent [sic] fool' comment in this thread (not from you two I am aware). I would rather see more of an example set by one who has spoken of his being older.

- Blessings

 

Any objective reader that has actually read my 500+ page book can see that Will Kinney's so-called refutation of it does not answer nor deal with my actual arguments and the important documented evidence in it. My book provides the clear evidence of the fact of his misrepresentations and distortion since his strawman picture does not accurately present the actual points made in it.

The view of Bible translation presented in my book is the same one held by the early English translators including the KJV translators. I examined KJV-only claims from the standpoint of the traditional original language texts from which the KJV was translated, from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, and from the facts from varying editions of the KJV.

When Will Kinney's strawman arguments, misrepresentations, and distortion does not actually deal with what the proper points made and supported by sound evidence, there was no need to respond to them.
If some of his arguments or accusations were supposedly valid, he would undermining or refuting the actual foundation on which the KJV was made.

______________________________

One person ["Unbound68"] at another forum [BVDB] did write a four part response to Will Kinney's review entitled "a Vindication of The Unbound Scriptures." Parts one and four were found on page 18 of the threads there and part 3 was on page 20 although they may move to other pages when more topics are added.

I do not know if it is found elsewhere on the web since I have not looked for it. Perhaps a search for that title "A Vindication of The Unbound Scriptures" would show whether or not it is posted elsewhere.

Here is a brief section from Part Two of that person's comments:

 

Thank you. I am now aware.


All I'm trying to do is let you all know the truth behind the guy you seem to be supporting. I think that's fair, and relevant.
I see Ruckman, Riplinger, (no, I'm NOT in agreement with them, actually, I've never read or listened to them), and many others have their character brought up as to what they believe, whether or not they are "trustworthy" because of it. Why not roby? Seems fair to me, especially when you can see he refuses to answer my questions. What's he hiding? I know, but the rest of you need to know. I submit he doesn't want anyone here to know about what I've posted because your "backing" of him would soon disappear.

 

My view and stand concerning the preservation of the Scriptures is in agreement with what the Scriptures actually state and teach and is in agreement with the views of the Reformers, the early English translators including the KJV translators, and with doctrinally sound Baptists.

Your claims and reasoning about my statements are incorrect.

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). 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.“ 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).

The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith by Presbyterians, the 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order by Congregationalists, the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists, and the 1680 Confession of Faith by Congregationalists in New England stated: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Walker, Creeds, p. 369; Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 251; Woods, Report, p. 95). John Lee also asserted concerning the Church of Scotland: “The doctrine of this National Church is well known to be, ‘That the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, are authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (Memorial for the Bible Societies in Scotland, p. 186).

Reformer Francis Turretin (1623-1687) pointed out: "Our teaching is that only the Hebrew of the Old Testament 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" (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 126). John Diodati (1576-1649), translator of the 1607 Italian Bible, is translated as writing: “The authentic text of Scripture, and that which is truly God-breathed, consists only of the Hebrew originals in the Old Testament and Greek originals in the New Testament” (Ferrari, Diodati’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture, p. 47).

Baptist scholar John Gill (1697-1771) presented the Baptist view of Bible translation of that period that was also in agreement with the view of the early translators and the view in the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists. John Gill wrote: “The apostle Paul speaks of himself, and other inspired apostles of the New Testament, Which things, says he, we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches [1Cor 2:13], and it is the writing, or the word of God as written, that is, by inspiration of God [2Tit 3:16]. Fourth, This is to be understood of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they were written and not of translations. Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose.” Gill added:


To the Bible, in its original languages, is every
translation to be brought, and by it to be examined,
tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended;
and if this was not the case, we should have no certain
and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all
the translations together, or some one of them; not
all of them, because they agree not in all things: not
one; for then the contest would be between one nation
and another which it should be, whether English,
Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agreed upon, it
could not be read and understood by all: so the papists,
they plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has
been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though
it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes;
nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even
assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to
submit to, and be corrected by their version; which
is absurd and ridiculous (Body of Divinity, p. 18)

The Reformers, the early translators including the KJV translators and translators into other languages, Baptists, Presbyterians, and other believers clearly regarded the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the greater authority or standard for making and evaluating translations.

 

I believe every one who's been here awhile knows my beliefs. I've been on this board for 13 years now, and have remained active. If you wish to chase the bunny trail you've posed, I'll gladly remind you that you've NEVER been able to refute a word I've posted, and, as your fellow KJVOs do, you've brought only opinion, speculation, and guesswork to the KJVO realm.

And anyone who wishes to know my beliefs can PM me, and I'll answer reasonably quickly.

Now, whaddya hafta say concerning Mr. Norris' material? That IS, after all, the theme of this thread.

 

Dr. Ach, I've corresponded many times with Mr. Kinney, and, where he posts those long lists of supposed mistranslations in MVs, I've found that the alleged booboos he cites are often BETTER translations than are found in the KJV.

An example is where he says the NKJV is wrong in Nehemiah 3:13 for reading "Refuse(trash, waste) Gate" while the KJV reads "Dung Gate". The hebrew word there, ashpoth, actually means garbage, waste, or refuse of any kind. Now, while dung is usually waste, it wasn't always waste, when used as fertilizer, etc. And garbage consists of much more than dung. So, actually, "Refuse Gate" is the BETTER translation. And I'm informed by Jewish historians that the Jews simply called it ashpoth sha'ar.

 

Same thing I posted in #6. But I'll repeat it for you, then I'm done. All I've gotten out of this is a headache.

 

I think Winman has the best idea. He doesn't continue to have the same old argument over and over. Please continue without me. I believe I'd rather listen to Ruckman and company on Youtube.

 

I support him on his KJVO stance. I have no interest in the inside story you two are bringing into this thread. Keep it between you two behind the scenes?

 

Be sure not to miss his 'take' on ABORTION.