The Unbound Scriptures, by Rick Norris - A Response

Part 10 - Mules or Hot Springs?

Everyone is biased one way or another regarding the Bible version controversy. I am biased and I freely admit it. I believe God has kept His promises to presere His inerrant words, and after having prayed a lot and examined much of the evidence, I came to the conclusion they are found in all their purity only in the King James Holy Bible. I don't know all the answers to every objection that is raised against my beliefs, but I believe I have seen enough confirmed to me by God over and over again to give me this conviction. So now I start from the position that the King James Bible is correct - always.

Mr. Norris says in his book that we should examine the evidence on both sides and then make our decision. Yet he obviously is out to "prove" the King James Bible is not the inerrant, complete and inspired words of God. He does this not only by what he says, but by what he doesn't say. A clear example of this is found in his opening salvo of verses he thinks are incorrect as found in the King James Bible.

The first example on page 322 in large, highlighted and underlined letters is Genesis 36:24.

The King James Bible says: "...this was that Anah that found THE MULES in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father."

Mr. Norris says: "In Genesis 36:24, ALL HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS have a word THAT MEANS "water or hot springs" according to MOST Bible scholars, but the KJV translators followed the rendering of the Talmud and Luther (mules). The old Syriac Peshitta an the Latin Vulgate also have a word meaning "waters" or "springs".

Mr. Norris then quotes a whole bunch of scholars that agree with him who tell us there is no way the Hebrew word can be rendered as "mules", but only as "hot springs". He tells us nothing about the other side of the story in defense of the KJB reading.

Among the bible versions that read "hot springs" are the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, and the Catholic versions. What Mr. Norris fails to mention is how many equally qualified scholars and Bible translators have sided with the King James reading of "mules".

"Mules" is the reading not only of the King James Bible but also of the 1936 Jewish translation by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York, Coverdale's Bible 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1998 (los mulos en el desierto), the Italian Diodati (de' muli nel deserto), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, the Third Millenium Bible, and even the New English Bible of 1970.


Several modern versions are at least a bit more honest as to the uncertainty of what this Hebrew word really means, and they tell us so in their footnotes. The NRSV footnote says the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain or obscure. The NIV gives this informative footnote: "the Vulgate and Syriac say he discovered water, but the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain."

Mr. Norris makes it sound as though it is a slam dunk certainty that the King James Bible is wrong, when a more thorough examination of the evidence reveals that there are real differences of opinion even among those who have gone to "the original languages".

John Calvin gives us his translation and exposition of this verse in Latin. He translates the specific word as "mules" and not as "hot springs" - MULOS in deserto, quum passceret asinos Sibhon patris sui.

Calvin then remarks in his commentary : "This was that Anah that found the mules. Mules are the adulterous offspring of the horse and the ass..."

Adam Clarke remarks in his commentary on this verse: "St Jerome, who renders it aquas calidas, (warm springs) says THERE ARE AS MANY OPINIONS CONCERNING IT AS THERE ARE COMMENTATORS."

Mr. Clarke further states of the Syriac: "The Syriac renders it "many waters"; the author of this version having read in the Hebrew copy from which he translated µym mayim, waters, for µmy yemim, the first letters being transposed. The Targum of Johnathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the place thus: "This is the Anah who united the onager with the tame ass, and in process of time he found mules produced by them." R.D. Kimchi says: "This Anah...caused asses and horses to copulate, and so produced mules. R.S. Jarchi is of the same opinion.

Gusset, in Comment. Heb. Ling., supposes that mules, not the Emin, were found by Anah. Wagenseil thought stronger reasons led him to believe that the word means a sort of PLANT.

Mr. Clarke concludes: "From the above opinions and versions the reader may choose which he likes best or invent one for himself." He then states that he personally favors the reading of mules.

John Gill comments: "The Vulgate Latin version renders it, "hot waters"; but then to the fixing of either of these versions, the word must be altered either in its points or letters, for which there is no authority. The Targum of Onkelos renders it mighty ones or GIANTS...and with this AGREES THE SAMARITAN VERSION, "he found giants, in the wilderness"; Aben Ezra observes that many interpret the word of PLANTS OR HERBS ; and Wagenseil is of opinion that the word used is the name of an useful herb or plant, first discovered by Anah."

So, do you see how the game is played? I like to call this process Scholar Poker. "Well, my scholar can beat your scholar." "No, he can't. I'll see your scholar and raise you two more." "Ok, you're on. I call." - and they're both bluffing.

Mr. Norris and "his hand" of scholars can assert all they want about the meaning of the word, but they have merely chosen the one they like. There are many others who just as vehemently would disagree with them.

Again, "Mules" is the reading not only of the King James Bible but also of the 1936 Jewish translation by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York, Coverdale's Bible 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1998 (los mulos en el desierto), the Italian Diodati (de' muli nel deserto), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, the Third Millenium Bible, and even the New English Bible of 1970.

Will Kinney

 

Part 11

Genesis 49:6 - "Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?

In Mr. Norris's second salvo he plays the same game of Scholar Poker. He amasses his various scholars who all tell us the King James reading of "in their selfwill, they digged down a wall" is totally incorrect and the true reading should be "in their self-will they hamstrung an ox" as the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and most Catholic versions have it.

In Genesis chapter 49 Jacob is telling each of his sons something about what will befall them in the last days, and of their blessings or penalties. There we read what Jacob said concerning his two sons Simeon and Levi. "Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."

"They digged down a wall" is the reading of the King James Bible, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 and 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1998, the Italian Diodati, the Modern Greek Old Testament (not the Septuagint), the Jewish Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Douay Rheims of 1950, (though more recent Catholic versions like Jerusalem Bible and St. Joseph New American Bible read "hamstrung oxen") Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

In Mr. Norris' previous example of "hot springs" versus "mules" he summoned the Syriac Peshitta version to his side; however this time, the Syriac translation agrees with the King James reading and says: "in their rage they destroyed a town wall."

Again John Calvin sides with the King James reading. He translates into Latin " et voluntate sua eradicaverunt murum". Then he comments: "Interpreters also differ respecting the meaning of the word (shor.) Some translate it “bullock,”...But a different exposition is far preferable, namely, that they “overturned a wall.” For Jacob magnifies the atrociousness of their crime, from the fact, that they did not even spare buildings in their rage."

The NKJV says "THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX", the NIV "they hamstrung OXEN" and the NASB says "they LAMED AN OX." Young's has "they ERADICATED A PRINCE"!!! So what is going on here?

It all has to do with the pointed consonants introduced in the 6th century after Christ, and the points are not considered inspired. It is well know that an individual Hebrew word can multiple meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word. We believe He has done this in the King James Bible.

The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen", as found in the NKJV, is also contrary to the context. We are told in Genesis 34:27-29 that Simeon and Levi came upon the city of Hamor and Shechem his son and slew all the males; they spoiled the city and took their sheep, oxen and their asses and carried away all their wealth, their wives and children. They did in fact destroy the city but they did not kill or hamstring the oxen, but rather took them alive for themselves. Why would they damage what was now their own property? I believe the King James Bible is right - as always.

Will Kinney

 

Part 12 - The Unbound Scriptures

Steel, brass, copper, bronze - Paper or Plastic?

In his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Rick Norris criticizes the King James Bible for using the word "steel". He quotes several Bible dictionaries and scholars who say emphatically that the Hebrew word should never be translated as "steel". It is claimed, he says, that steel was not known during Bible times until the first century A.D.

Mr. Norris then asks: "Can KJV-only advocates offer any consistent evidence that shows that these two Hebrew words should be translated as "steel" in some verses?" Yes, brother Rick, we can, and will do so presently.

As for the claim he makes about the date of the invention and use of steel, there are many who would disagree about his supposition. A friend and fellow King James Bible believer, brother Jim, is an excellent researcher. He located a site for me by a Professor David K. Jordan, professor or Anthropology and Provost at Earl Warren College, University of California, San Diego. This professor has written an article about metalurgy and he discusses brass, iron and steel production.

Here are some of his findings. http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/arch/metallurgy.html

An important technique in modern and late historic steel production is
"quenching," that is, heating the metal and then rapidly lowering its
temperature again by plunging it into water. The result is a dramatic increase in the strength of the metal, which can be increased yet
further by repeating the process. THE EARLIEST QUENCH-HARDENED STEEL THAT WE KNOW ABOUT DATES FROM ABOUT 1200 BC or so. (Homer refers to the process.) Obviously there is a fine line between iron and steel, and some metallic products are difficult to classify as quite one or quite the other.


At another site we find a discussion of ancient Indian steel production dating from the 8th century B.C.

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_agraw_wootz.htm

The Ancient Indian Steel by D.P. Agrawal
J. Le Coze, of the Centre for Materials Science, France, has come out with an interesting essay about the different names of steel in different parts of the world that the ancient Indian steel known as wootz inspired. This steel making process was practiced in peninsular India since great antiquity. The ancient Indian steel was known as Damascene steel in Persia and was in great demand in the Persian courts of the First Millennium BC. Even Alexander was presented a sword made of such steel.

Coze informs that in ancient Greek, three names were attributed to steel:
stomoma, adamas and chalybs. Since Hesiode (8th BC), adamas signifies inflexible or hard. It was systematically translated into "hard as steel".

I'm not going to base my defense of the King James reading of "steel" solely on the debateable timeline of the use of this material in making weaponry. It may be literal steel or a composite of various hard metals that are referred to by "a bow of steel"; but it may also be figurative.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary lists the second definition of "steel" as: Figuratively, weapons; particularly, offensive weapons, swords, spears and the like.

The word steel is found four times in the King James Bible. Three times the KJB refers to "a bow of steel" - 2 Samuel 22:35 "He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by my arms." Job 20:24 "He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through." Psalm 18:34 "He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by my arms." In Jeremiah 15:12 we read: "Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?"

The first three times the Hebrew word is # 5154 nekh-oo-shaw. This word has a variety of meanings as translated in many different Bibles, both old and new. Among the meanings found in the King James Bible for this word are: "brass" (7 times) and "steel" (3 times)

The second word for steel found in Jeremiah 15:12 is #5178 and this word likewise has several meanings including: "brass, steel, copper, fetters, and chains."

Mr. Norris says: "M'Clintock wrote: In all cases where the word 'steel' is used in the A.V. the true rendering of the Hebrew is copper." Unfortunately for Mr. Norris and Mr. M'Clintock (whoever he is), not even the NASB, NIV, or NKJV have translated it as "copper" but as "bronze".

Examples of multiple meanings for a single word abound even in the modern versions. For instance, the NASB translates the Hebrew word #5178 as brass -2 times, bronze - 130 times, and copper - one time. The NASB also translates #1270 as "axe, iron, axe head, and chains."

The NIV translates the same word as "bronze" 128 times and as "copper" 4 times.

When it suits the purposes of Mr. Norris, he refers to various older Bible versions that differ from the King James Bible to show, in his opinion, how they differ from the KJB. However these same older Bible versions often agree with the KJB against the other modern versions.

The word "steel" as in the expression "a bow of steel" can be used figuratively to express something that is very strong, and not necessarily made of literal steel. We sometimes speak of someone having nerves of steel, but we mean that he is of a strong constitution and not literally made of steel. We also use the expression of having to "steel ourselves" for the coming difficulties.

One possible explanation of the expression "a bow of steel" as found in the King James Bible is that they are figurative rather than literal. In Psalms 18 David says of God that He is a BUCKLER (a shield), and A ROCK, and that God "maketh my feet like HINDS' FEET, and setteth me upon my HIGH PLACES. He teacheth my hands to war, so that a BOW OF STEEL is broken by mine arms. Thou hast also given me the SHIELD of thy salvation, and THY RIGHT HAND hath holden me up...Then did I BEAT THEM SMALL AS THE DUST."

None of these things mentioned are literal. God is not a buckler nor a Rock, and neither did God literally hold David up with His right hand. The "high places" were not literal but figurative of exaltation and victory, and David did not literally beat anyone "small as the dust". These are all figurative expressions.

Some people like to criticize the King James Bible when it is too literal, as in expression "to cut off him that pisseth against the wall" (1 Kings 14:10), which is literally what the Hebrew texts and older Bible versions read. Then they criticize it for being too loose in expressing figurative concepts "in the receptor language".

The King James Bible is not the only one to use the word "steel" in its translation.

Webster's 1833 translation follows all four verses exactly the same as the King James Bible, as do the KJV 21st Century Version and the Third Millenium Bible.

The 1936 Jewish translation, put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, has "steel" in Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34, and in Jeremiah 15:12.

The Geneva Bible renders this same word as "steel" in Job 20:24

The Bishop's Bible 1568 has "steel" in 2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24, and Psalms 18:34

The Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 version has "steel" (acero) in 2 Samuel 22:35, Job 20:24, and Psalms 18:34. Likewise Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition reads "steel" (acero) in these verses.

Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible has steel in Ezekiel 27:19 "Wedan and Javan, from Uzal, Brought into thy traffic, - Steel, cassia and calamus, Were, in thy merchandise:"

The Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha 1952 has "steel" in Sirach 31:26 - Fire and water prove the temper of steel, so wine tests hearts in the strife of the proud.

Even the New English Bible 1970 reads in Jeremiah 15:12 "Can iron break STEEL from the north?"

The 2002 version called The Message actually has the word "steel" 10 times in the Old Testament. Here are a few examples:

Job 40:18 -
His skeleton is made of steel, every bone in his body hard as steel.
 
Proverbs 27:17 -
You use steel to sharpen steel, and one friend sharpens another.

Jeremiah 15:20 -
I'll turn you into a steel wall, a thick steel wall, impregnable.
 
Jeremiah 17:1
"Judah's sin is engraved with a steel chisel, A steel chisel with a diamond point-- engraved on their granite hearts, engraved on the stone corners of their altars.
 
Some other modern versions also have the word "steel" in them, but these do not agree even among themselves. In Nahum 2:3 the ASV 1901, the 1917 Jewish translation (JPS), Darby, Amplified 1987, and the NASB 1995 say: "the chariots are enveloped in flashing STEEL".

The brand new 1998 Complete Jewish Bible says: "The STEEL of the chariots flashes like fire as they prepare for battle", but the NIV, ESV say: "the METAL on the chariots flashes", the RSV has: "the chariots flash like FLAME", while the NKJV has: "the chariots come with flaming TORCHES." Isn't it nice that all these Bible scholars are in such total agreement with each other?

Will Kinney

 

Phillip, I see you dodged the question I put to you about "today I have become your Father".

As for the questions you asked, I address them in the remainder of my Response to Rick Norris.

Will K

 

Part 13 - The Usual Suspects

Among the various scriptural readings found in the King James Bible that Mr. Rick Norris criticizes in his book, The Unbound Scriptures, are "the usual suspects" that every anti-KJV critic brings up. These include 1. the Unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17), 2. Lucifer versus Morning Star Isaiah 14:12, 3. Three verses dealing with the deity of Christ (Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1), and 4. "the profession of our FAITH" Hebrews 10:23, instead of "the profession of our HOPE".

I have written separate articles concerning these four common objections which can be found at my website. Every King James Bible defender has to face these at one time or another, and they are not that hard to deal with once the facts are known.

1. The subject of Unicorns is addressed at this site:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html

2. Lucifer versus Morning Star can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Lucif.html

3. Three verses of the deity of Christ is here:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/chrdei.html


4. Hebrews 10:23 "the profession of our faith" is dealt with here:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/profaHeb10.html

Another verse in the King James Bible that is often criticized is Isaiah 19:10.

Isaiah 19:10 "ponds for fish" versus "Anybody's guess"

On page 337 Mr. Norris asks: "Is Isaiah 19:10 a possible example of the influence of the Latin Vulgate on the KJV?" He also quotes a series of scholarly experts including James D. Price who claimed that in Isaiah 19:10 "all Hebrew manuscripts have a word which means "soul" while the KJV reads "fish" following the Latin Vulgate."

Mr. Norris says: "While the Catholic Douay-Rheims version from the Latin Vulgate has "fishes" in this verse, The English translation of the Masoretic Text BY JEWS has "soul".

Neither statement is completely true. The word "fish" does not come from the Latin INSTEAD OF the Hebrew, as we shall shortly see, and not all Jewish translations have "soul". The two Jewish translations found on the internet are completely different from each other and don't even come close in meaning. The Jewish Publication Society 1917 version says: "And HER FOUNDATIONS shall be crushed, all THEY THAT MAKE DAMS shall be GRIEVED IN SOUL", BUT the brand new 1998 Complete Jewish Bible does not translate this word as "soul" but omits the word entirely and gives a completey different meaning to the verse saying: "THE SPINNERS will be crushed, the HIRED WORKERS DEJECTED."

Here we begin to see the problems associated with this verse. "her foundations" = " the spinners", and "they that make dams" = "the hired workers". Say What?! And remember, both of these groups of Jewish translators went to "the original Hebrew texts" to come up with these entirely different meanings.

Mr. Norris continues with his list of scholars by telling us that Arthur Farstad, of the NKJV translation, also maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate with its rendering "fish" at Isaiah 19:10 in his book "NKJV: In the Great Tradition", page 50.

James White, who wrote The KJV Controversy, also says the KJV has "fish" following the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew text.

So, after this impressive introductory attack on the King James reading of "fish" instead of "soul", let's take a closer look at what the various bible translators have done with this verse and why the KJB translated the word as "fish" instead of "soul".

Let's compare several versions and see if we can determine whether the KJB reading comes from the Latin Vulage, as Mr. White and Mr. Farstad assert or if it comes from a legitimate interpretation of the Hebrew text.

KJB - "And THEY SHALL BE BROKEN IN THE PURPOSES THEREOF, ALL THAT MAKE SLUICES AND PONDS FOR FISH."

This is also the reading of the Wycliffe Bible 1395, the Bishop's Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 1950 Douay Version. Not only do these English translations render the Hebrew phrase found here as "fish" but so also do the Spanish Reina Valera versions of 1909 and 1960. The 1999 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras (Holy Scriptures) also reads as does the King James Bible. They all say: "todos los que hacen viveros para PECES." - FISH. If you don't know Spanish, you might recognize the similarity to Pices, or the sign of the fish.

Now, let's take a look at the various modern versions to see what they have come up with by going to "the original Hebrew texts".

NKJV - " And ITS FOUNDATIONS will be broken. ALL WHO MAKE WAGES WILL BE TROUBLED OF SOUL.

NASB - "And THE PILLARS OF EGYPT will be crushed. All the HIRED LABORERS will be grieved in soul.

NIV - "The WORKERS OF CLOTH WILL BE DEJECTED, and all WAGE EARNERS WILL BE SICK AT HEART.

The 2001 ESV - "THOSE WHO ARE THE PILLARS of the land will be crushed, and all who work for pay will be grieved."

NRSV 1989 - "Its WEAVERS will be dismayed, and all who work for wages will be grieved.

The 2001 Easy to Read Version - "The PEOPLE THAT MAKE DAMS TO SAVE WATER will have no work, so they will be sad."

The 1998 Complete Jewish Bible - " The SPINNERS will be crushed, the hired workers dejected."

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac - "And all those who make STRONG DRINK FOR THE DRINKING OF THE PEOPLE shall be humiliated."

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "And ALL THAT MAKE BEER shall be grieved, and be pained in their souls."

Coverdale 1535 - "All the PONDS of Egypt, all the POLICY of their MOATS & DITCHES shall come to naught."

Geneva Bible 1599 - "For their NETS shall be broken, and all THEY THAT MAKE PONDS shall be heavy in heart."

Bible in Basic English 1961 actually omits words reading: "And the makers of twisted thread will be crushed, and those who ... will be sad in heart."

The 1970 New English Bible - "Egypt's spinners shall be downcast, and ALL HER ARTISANS sick at heart."

See how reading a variety of translations can clear things up for us?


Now let's see what some other Bible commentators, who are not KJB onlies, have to say.

Adam Clarke - All that make sluices and ponds for fish-"All that make a gain of pools for FISH." This obscure line is rendered by different interpreters in very different manners. I translate gain, and which some take for nets or inclosures, the Septuagint is 'And all they that make barley wine shall mourn, and be grieved in soul.' I submit these very different interpretations to the reader's judgment."

John Calvin comments on this verse: " And all that make ponds. As to the word (secher) there is no absolute necessity, in my opinion, for translating it a net; for the derivation shews it, on the contrary, to denote a lucrative occupation.
Where fishes are very abundant, they are also preserved in pools and ponds; because the fishers would otherwise be constrained to sell them at a very low price. Besides, when they throw a net, they are not always successful. He therefore follows out the same subject, “It will not be possible either to take or to preserve fishes. Pools will be of no use.”

John Gill - "All that make sluices and ponds for fish; or, "all that make an enclosure of ponds of soul" ; or for delight and pleasure; that is, not only such shall be broken in their purposes, ashamed and confounded, and be dispirited, mourn and lament, whose business and employment it is to catch FISH, or make nets for that end, and get their livelihood thereby; but even such who enclose a confluence of water, and MAKE FISHPONDS in their fields and gardens for their pleasure, will be disappointed; for their waters there will be dried up, and the FISH die, as well as in the common rivers.

Robert Young gives the definition of "breathing creature" for Isa. 19:10.

Jamieson, Faussett & Brown - "all that make sluices, —"makers of dams," made to confine the waters which overflow from the Nile in artificial FISH-ponds."

They accurately portray what the verse and the first part of the chapter is talking about. Isaiah is speaking about those that made sluices or an artificial channel of water. These sluices were designed in such a way as to lure fish into them. Then once in the man-made pond the fish were captured and sold by those that made their livelihood thereby. We find that all such people that depend on these sluices will mourn and lament along with the fishers because their ponds will be dried up and their livelihood taken from them.


The word renderd "fish" in the King James Bible and other versions is the Hebrew word nephesh. This particular Hebrew word has a great variety of meanings even in the NASB, NIV and other modern versions.

For example, some of the meanings given in the NASB for this same Hebrew word include "a living being, a life, appetite, body, breath, corpse, CREATURE, craving, desire, discontented, heart, feelings, greed, human, hunger, livelihood, longing, men, mind, mortal, murders, number, passion, people, soul, person, slave, strength, thirst, throat, will and wish".

Likewise the NIV renders this same word as "life, soul, heart, people, appetite, CREATURES, spirit, body, corpse, needs, desires, dead body, hunger, members, being, feel, greed, perfume, slave, throats, wishes and zeal." The NIV concordance likewise shows that 46 times they did not translate the word at all. The Hebrew word can have a great variety of meanings depending on the context.

Isaiah 19:8 reads: "The FISHERS also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish." Then we have verse 10 "And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for FISH." Once the context is determined to refer to "sluices and ponds", we can reasonably conclude that type of the creatures that live in the ponds are FISH, not "souls".

As has been shown, other Bible commentators have agreed with the meaning of the reading found in the King James Bible and others versions. The meaning of "fish" in this context is derived from the Hebrew text itself, and not from the Latin.

The Latin Vulgate has nothing to do with the King James rendering here, but rather the KJB translators referred to the Hebrew text. So what if the KJB happens to agree with the Latin? All bible versions are going to agreee in many places. If the Latin has "Christ died for sinners" and the KJB says "Christ died for sinners", do we then conclude that the KJB borrowed this from the Latin? The translations found in Isaiah 19:10 are a matter of different interpretations and perspective; not a difference of Hebrew versus the Latin Vulgate.

A similar example of the literal word "soul" is found in the New Testament Greek in Revelation 16:3. The King James Bible says: "And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living SOUL (psukee) died in the sea."

However in the NIV, NASB, ESV we read every living "soul" translated as "every living THING", while the NKJV says: "every living CREATURE died in the sea." Obviously the word "soul" here refers to the fish and other sea creatures that lived in the sea. Are we then to criticize these versions as well for doing the same thing?


To repeat - not only does the King James Bible render this word as "fish" in Isaiah 19:10 but so also do the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1999, the Douay version 1950, Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Will Kinney

 

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.

Most King James Bible believers I know do not name any specific Hebrew or Greek text as being the inspired, inerrant, and complete words of God because we do not believe this is where they are preserved. We have no problem with the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible, but there is no ONE single Hebrew text or ONE single Greek text that is like any other.

We believe God has promised to preserve His pure words on this earth till heaven and earth pass away, and that He has done so, both in the past and in the present. Today, and for the last almost 400 years they are found in the King James Holy Bible.

Mr. Norris asks: "If the KJV translators could use their reason, scholarship, or other fallible means to pick out any errors in the differing manuscripts they used, then translators today must also be permitted to use these means to do the same. Since the manuscripts and the various old translations they consulted had some differences, how did the KJV translators determine which reading was the providentially preserved one?"

What Mr. Norris fails to see here is the Providential guidance of Almighty God. He sees only the natural, limited talents of sinful man and assumes that the preservation of God's words depends on man's fallible reason and scholarship to determine the true readings. It is a totally humanistic and naturalistic point of view.

If God is providentially behind the multitude of conflicting and contradictory bible versions that keep rolling off the presses, then this God is very confused about what He said or didn't say, and what He meant when He said it.

I do agree with Mr. Norris when he says on page 239: "By acknowledging the positive degree and admitting that other imperfect translations such as the earlier English Bibles and Luther's German Bible are good, KJV-only advocates are also admitting that some other present day translations in various languages including English may also be good while imperfect."

Yes, we do not deny that God can and does use imperfect Bibles in both English and other languages. Where we differ from the Bible of the Month Club promoters is that we believe there is one perfect, complete, inerrant, pure Holy Bible on this earth right now.

God never promised to give every nation or every individual a perfect Bible in their language. The Scriptures tell us that the gospel would be preached to every nation and that God will have a great company of the redeemed out of "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" - Revelation 7:9. Every imperfect bible I am aware of has enough of God's true words in them to bring people to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. They all contain the gospel of salvation through faith in our crucified and risen Lord. We do not dispute this but affirm it.

We repudiate the idea that ONLY those who read the King James Bible can get saved or serve God in any way.

However we do believe the promises of God regarding the preservation of His words have been literally fulfilled. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation.

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1 Peter 1:23-25: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

Mr. Norris brings up the common argument about why should we think that only the English translation of the King James Bible is the pure words of God and not the Spanish Reina Valera or Luther's German. Isn't it a form of sinful pride to think that WE have the pure word of God and others do not?

First, let me say that I firmly believe in the sovereignty of God. "He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" - Ephesians 1:11. God could have placed His pure words in Spanish, or German, or Swahili if He had wanted to do so. As Rick says on page 273: "The issue of Bible translation is not about what God COULD DO but about what God HAS ACTUALLY DONE."

I am an American, but I do not consider any American bible (ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.) to be the pure words of God. The pure word of God is an ENGLISH Bible from England. Before 1800 the Bible had been translated into only about 40 languages world-wide. God alone sees the end from the beginning and He knew what He would do with the English speaking people and the English language, which in 1611 was spoken by only about 2% of the world population.

Previous English bibles were good but not perfect. They contained minor theological errors and were not textually complete, but they were far better than the modern ones being used today. We believe God providentially preserved His perfect words and placed them in the Holy Bible, which later became known as the King James Version. Once it became firmly established as THE Bible of the English speaking people, who by the late 1700's had spread the influence of the British empire to the far ends of the globe, God raised up primarily English and American Christians to carry out the great modern day missionary movement. T
From the late 1700's to the mid 1950's the Bible was translated into hundreds of foreign languages and they were all based on either the King James Bible itself or the general Hebrew and Greek texts behind it. This is the sovereignty of God in action and what He ACTUALLY DID.

Mr. Norris speaks of "the original Hebrew and Greek texts" and yet he cannot produce them for us nor tell us where to get a copy of this mystical Final Authority. What God did NOT DO, was preserve His complete and inerrant words in any single Hebrew and Greek manuscript Rick demands we name, nor which Mr. Norris himself can point us to.

There are two fundamental reasons I believe the true and pure words of God are found today only in the King James Bible - 1. the Sovereignty of God Almighty, and 2. something so simple and yet extremely profound - The Truth and nothing but the truth.

Only the King James Bible always gives us the Truth unmixed with theological, historical or factual error. Again, I suggest you read the article I put together called No Doctrines are Changed? and compare the examples of doctrinal error with the older English bible versions and especially with today's modern versions. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

Some modern version promoters will admit that there are untrue or misleading statements found in their versions, but they insist we must compare all the verses together to get the correct doctrine. I believe God always tells us the truth in every verse of Scripture, and only the King James Bible meets this standard. "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5. "Therefore I esteem ALL thy precepts concerning ALL things to be right; and I hate every false way." Psalm 119:128.

I have noticed at various Bible clubs on the internet and from books like those of James White and Bob Ross, that many modern version promoters are Calvinistic in their theology. For those who are Calvinistic Baptists like C.H. Spurgeon, or the Baptist street preacher John Bunyan who also wrote Pilgrim's Progress, or believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace, as did John Newton who wrote Amazing Grace, or Agustus Toplady who wrote Rock of Ages, and as were most of the King James translators themselves, I suggest you read the article titled Calvinism and the KJB.

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

If you are a Calvinist and are concerned about the truths of what you think the Bible teaches concerning these doctrines, then compare the King James Bible to your NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV or whatever you presently use. All the modern versions water down or change the truth and even create contradictions with the rest of Scripture.

I personally am not much concerned if a Christian is a Calvinist or an Arminian, or what some like to call a Calminian. This is not my personal battle or main area of interest. I believe everyone who has repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as his only Lord and Saviour is forgiven their sins and will be in glory. When He appears, then shall we know even as we are known. In the meantime, we all "see through a glass darkly" and none of us has a complete understanding of all revealed truth.

Regarding the doctrine of the Preservation of God's words, Mr. Norris makes some statements that I find to be irrational and contradictory. He says on page 312: "Many KJV-only advocates seem to overemphasize the variations between existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. By exaggerating variations between manuscripts and the variations between translations, KJV-only advocates may unintentionally promote a feeling of uncertainty about the accuracy and preservation of God's Word. The accuracy of our present-day New Testament text depends on the multiplicity of the manuscripts."

That Mr. Norris could draw these conclusions is mind-boggling to me. We are not overemphasizing anything; we are merely pointing out to people what is blatantly obvious to anyone who would take the time to actually read and compare the different Bible versions. Rather it is the fact that there are literally thousands of words missing from most versions today and hundreds of verses have totally different meanings, that there is doubt arising about the certainty of preservation and accuracy of the New Testament as well as the Old. How in the world he can say "the accuracy of our New Testament text depends on the multiplicity of manuscripts" is a mystery to me. I confess I do not understand this way of thinking at all.

Mr. Norris tries to downplay the textual differences that exist by quoting Edward Goodrick who says: "If all the uncertain words were assembled in a 500 page Greek Testament, they would occupy only four-tenths of a single page." (Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God, page 57)

Now I ask any of you who are aware of the textual differences that exist between the King James Bible, NKJV, TMB, and Green's MKJV, which are generally based on the Traditional Greek Text, and those like the NASB, NIV, ESV which are generally based on the Westcott-Hort texts, if all the variants between these two types of bibles and the Greek texts behind them could fit on 20 or even 30 pages of a 500 page Greek N.T. The present UBS Greek text is 886 pages long, and only some of the thousands of textual variants are listed on its pages, yet numerous pages are a third or even half full of these partial variants right now. And this is not ALL of them!

Again, I would suggest that you look at this PARTIAL list of the missing verses, words and phrases that exist between the King James Bible and versions like the NASB, NIV, and ESV. Then try to put all that on four-tenths of a single page if you can.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html Be sure to see both sections.

Will Kinney

 

Part 15 - KJV onlyism and Latin Vulgate onlyism


One common criticism I hear all the time and mentioned by Mr. Norris in his book is that we who believe there is only one Bible that is the pure, complete, and infallible word of God is that this is similar to the Catholic view concerning the Latin Vulgate.

Allow me to briefly address this accusation. The Council of Trent met from 1545 to 1563 in an effort to rally the forces of the Catholic church to combat what they considered the heresies of the Reformation and their Bibles.

The Catholic church decided that the Latin Vulgate should be their official bible and none other allowed. Problem was, even when they made this decree, there was no settled text or single Latin Vulgate considered authoritative. Their own language reveals this. Here is a quote taken from the Council of Trent's own decree issued in 1556 "Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, IF IT BE MADE KNOWN WHICH OUT OF ALL THE LATIN EDITIONS, NOW IN CIRCULATION, of the sacred books, IS TO BE HELD AS AUTHENTIC,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold." (end of quote)

A papal commission worked for many years after the Council of Trent, but was not able to produce an authentic edition. Pope Sixtus took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible. Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, p. 120).

There are several fundamental differences and similarities to what the Catholic church tried to do with the Latin Vulgate, and the Bible version issue as it stands today.

The Differences:

First - the Catholic church wanted to confine the words of God to a DEAD LANGUAGE which most people could not read and they forbad translations to be made into other languages. Thus they were keeping the words of God out of the hands of the common people and making them dependent on a special class of priests to interpret it for them.

Second - This official bible had no settlted text at the time the decrees were made. There were several competing Latin Vulgate bibles circulating at the time and one was not settled upon till 36 years later.

Third - This official bible was produced by an apostate church which denied salvation by faith alone in the finished work of Christ; denied salvation outside of this Catholic church system, and established a special group of priests who alone could interpret the Scriptures for us.

The King James Bible believer does not deny salvation to anyone who happens to read any Bible version other than the KJB. We approve of the translation of Scripture into other languages, desiring only that they attempt to follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and the meaning as it is found in the King James Bible, as best as possible and not omit some 3000 to 4000 words, including 17 to 24 whole verses, from the New Testament as do versions such as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV. All these modern versions just mentioned also depart frequently from the Hebrew texts that underlie our King James Bible.

The Similarities:

First - the modern versionist has no settled text, just as the Council of Trent did not when they made their decree. The Greek text that underlies the modern versions such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, etc. is in a continual state of flux and constant change. Every new version changes the actual TEXT, as well as the meanings of other verses, from the previous versions.

Second - The modern versionist would likewise place the Final Authority in the hands of a special group of religious leaders - the scholars. They affirm that no translation is the inspired words of God and that we must "go to the original Hebrew and Greek texts" (which don't even exist). Thus they remove the common people from the inspired words of God by appealing to DEAD LANGUAGES as their final authority.

However, it is painfully obvious that these same scholars cannot agree among themselves WHICH Hebrew and WHICH Greek texts are authentic. This is similar to the case of the conflicting Latin Vulgate versions that were circulating at the time of the decree of the Council of Trent in 1556.

Third - The everchanging Greek text now used to translate most modern versions is compiled by men who themselves are apostates who believe no Bible is inspired and much of what we do have is "ancient folktale, popular legend, and traditions penned by unknown authors". (See Bruce Metzger, Cardinal Carlo Martini, and the other liberal editors of the UBS Greek text.)

Satan counterfeits every spiritual truth. If there really is One true Holy Bible, then the devil will say there is only one true bible and it is the Catholic bible. Guess which bibles today generally OMIT ALL THE SAME VERSES from the New Testament as do the modern Catholic bible versions. You got it.

Will Kinney