AV1611 Bible Forum Archive - Rick Norris' new anti-KJBO booklet

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)

- Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - Rick Norris' new anti-KJBO booklet (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1353)

Rick Norris' new anti-KJBO booklet

Quote:

Based on their professed love for the Bible and their KJV-only view’s claim that the KJV is the only valid Bible in English, KJV-only advocates seek to answer and refute any evidence that they think would conflict with their reasoning.

First, you will note that Norris writes in the passive voice. This is a wonderful tactic for sounding “fair” and “balanced”.

If he said, “KJV-only advocates seek to answer and refute any evidence that they think would conflict with their reasoning Based on their professed love for the Bible and their KJV-only view’s claim that the KJV is the only valid Bible in English”, (putting the second half of the sentence first), it would be clear that he is not reporting factually, but in fact slurring KJV-only advocates for not being able to answer and refute “any evidence” (which begs the fact that such evidence exists), and that the KJV-only advocate’s final line of defence is merely a “professed love”, that is implying that it is merely a form of tradition, and actually only in words, not practice.

Welcome to the world of Rick Norris, where everything is innuendo, implied, seemed, likely and probable... for example, he goes on to explain concerning KJB-onlyists:

Quote:

they seem

Quote:

that may

Quote:

Some may

Quote:

Other important factors may be

All these maybes lead him to a conclusion that

Quote:

Such factors and others may lead them to feel

Now, the main thesis:

Quote:

For whatever actual reasons or factors, holders of a KJV-only view seem willing to accept and even to advocate several false claims or myths about archaic words in the KJV.

Clearly, to say that someone seems willing cannot be substantiated without facts. Of course, when it comes to facts, Rick Norris goes into quotefest mode. He cites everything he can lay his hands on, filling whole paragraphs with quotations. But quotations are a double-edged thing. Sure, they make you look balanced and scholarly, and garnish paragraphs of a treatise very nicely, but it is possible there are other quotes from the same authors which do not match to your view.

Norris quotes numerous King James Only advocates without ever dividing them into different camps or parties. A TRO is not the same as a Ruckmanite, yet Norris does not see it in his interest to make such distinctions. He quotes a whole raft of authors, who give various numbers on how many archaic words they think might be in the King James Bible. My own opinion is that there are in practice no archaic words, but according to Norris’ definitions, that would be a “myth”, which he enthusiastically gives a whole paragraph of dictionary citations to better define that word for us.

Of course, Norris favours the highest numbers possible for his real amount of archaic words in the KJB, giving citations of non-KJBO sources.

Quote:

These counts of 618, over 800, or 1000 did not even include the fact that a good number of these words are used more than once in the KJV. While a few of these words may be used only one time, others are used several times. Some may be used as many as one hundred times or more.

Norris goes on to include “thee”, “thou”, “ye”, etc. to reach

Quote:

possible totals of 6,000 to 20,000.

This fast becomes ludicrous when there might or might not be 14,000 archaic words. Of course, there are actually nought, but if we accept the most conservative claim of 6000, that is still way more than what non-KJBO word experts claim,

Quote:

Luther Weigle claimed: "There are more than one thousand such English
words which are used in the King James Version in a sense substantially different from that which they now convey"

If Weigle claimed over a thousand, Norris has multiplied to get to 20,000. But it should be obvious that Norris is not interested in those 20,000 words which normal readers cannot comprehend in the Bible. Norris’ agenda must be exposed: He is merely taking the route of the widest as possible departure from the KJB. In other words, there is an agenda, whether unspoken or admitted, to make the King James Bible advocates appear as wrong as possible.

Quote:

Some KJV-only advocates seem to avoid dealing with objective descriptions of certain words as “archaic” and may oppose using a standard reference work or dictionary to identify which words can be considered “archaic” or used with an archaic meaning.

Dictionaries are not objective. Webster was a Bible reviser. The Oxford English Dictionary is not final authority. Therefore, if a word is said to be “archaic” in the dictionary, and yet that word is used in the King James Bible, which is current, then all such words cannot be really said to be archaic, especially if they have a special use. For example, words like “propitiation” are not normally used, but that does not make this term “archaic”. If it be said that this is a theological term, then we at least can defend that all the words in the Bible are theological, for they are the words of God.

Quote:

Some may imply that this type words are some kind of more accurate, “higher,” or “Biblical” English.

I plainly state this is the case, and shewed numerous examples in “Glistering Truths” to this effect. All Norris did was question whether or not the forms as printed in 1611 (and since altered) were more accurate, because they might have been the translators’ intended wordings. In reality, we know that the presentation printed in 1611 does not match what the translators intended in final presentation, because we know that they would not approve of typesetting errors as the actual representation of their work. Also, we know that editors have diligently and particularly worked to ensure that the presentation is correct as we now have it. And when we look, we find that each word is accurate.

Norris goes on to rubbish the idea of the “internal dictionary”. He goes on to say

Quote:

This fact that KJV-only advocates disagree about the meaning of a number of words used in the KJV conflicts with Riplinger’s claim that the KJV defines all its own words.

Let’s consider that not all KJB people are always right all of the time. Let’s hypothesise that the idea of an internal dictionary does not have to apply to every last detail. If I take Norris’ case study of “coney”, I would have to conclude that the “coney”, based on common use, the OED, the writings of learned ministers, and on Scripture context is the rabbit. I suspect that Norris has the agenda of rejecting the King James Bible (and the Geneva and Bishops’), and a commitment to some ethereal “true” meaning in the Hebrew. Pointing out that some KJB people disagree is no different than saying how many different views there are among modernist scholars. Clearly, when there are diverse opinions (as there are on any subject), only particular ones are right. Scripturally and spiritually we should retain the word "coney" for that it doubtless has a particular application, e.g. to a young rabbit.

Quote:

Some of the KJV’s archaic words and phrases are not listed or defined in many present-day one-volume English dictionaries.

Notice that we have accelerated from “archaic” words to “archaic” phrases also. Doubtless, “archaic” verses of meaningless (or, unmeaning) nonsense or “unfortunate” phrases (according to one “expert”) are to follow. Maybe even a chapter of Scripture, like Isaiah 18?

Norris excels himself by saying,

Quote:

It does dishonor to God's Word to leave it in the condition where there is a necessity for preachers and teachers to update its archaic words, clarify some renderings, or correct its errors (whether errors of printing or translation).

What printing errors remain?

Quote:

Many of the archaic words were very good translations in 1611, and the KJV translators cannot be blamed for the fact that our English language has changed so much over the years.

His real issue is with us for retaining something which is now “changed”. Since when did man’s theories necessitate change to the Word of God?

Quote:

If a hearer or reader does not know the meaning of the words and cannot find them in a regular one-volume English dictionary, the effect may be the same as though the words were said or written in a foreign language

Or, if the Holy Ghost is not present, the effect may be as though some words were as foreign.

Isa 29:11 "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed"

Quote:

Words used with quite different meaning from what they once possessed can be like hidden rocks which give no notice of their presence but on which a boat is more likely to be shipwrecked than on rocks that can be seen above the water.

Instead of glistering truths, instead of beacons and lighthouses, suddenly the King James Bible words are treacherous, destructive, and even deceptive.

Norris then launches into dreary lists of comparison to the former Protestant English Bibles. He tries to argue that they have better wording than the King James Bible, an object impossible to prove. Of course, Rick Norris does not have to prove it, if he just asks the questions over and again, like,

Quote:

Would Vance claim that the Bishops’ rendering “outlandish” at three verses would be more accurate than the rendering “strange“ or “foreign” (Archaic Words, p. 254)?

It is the questioning of the KJB which itself is the doubt. He does not have to say, “The KJB is wrong”, just keep asking in a way to cast aspersions about it.

It goes on for pages and pages.

Quote:

Does Ruckman’s profession or recommendation of the genuine work of updating in the pre-1611 English Bibles match his practice in his comments about similar updating in later English translations? If some of the helpful updating in the 1833 Webster’s and 1842 revision had been adopted by publishers of KJV editions in the mid-1800‘s, perhaps there would have been less interest in new translations. One purpose of this booklet is to show what the genuine work of updating and revision looked like in the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV. As the many pages of examples show, that genuine work often looked a great deal like the updating and revision in later English translations.

We should see that the KJB was a genuine revision of former Bibles, whereas works like Webster’s revised edition, or the American Baptist Revision (reported on in) 1852, were of an entirely different nature. They were not refining things like the KJB did to the Bishops’ etc. Those unauthorised revisions went against the whole line of King James Bible editorial work, changing words, and often needlessly making all kinds of alterations.

Quote:

While the mark, endeavor, or goal of the KJV translators according to their 1611 preface was to make a good translation better, the overall evidence does not prove that they accomplished this mark for every word of every verse.

Actually, the overall evidence is that they did accomplish this. The slanted and misintepreted “evidence” given by Rick Norris, again in long lists, is that he obviously thinks that numerous Geneva words are better.

In this list, he points out “mart” at Isaiah 23:4. Everyone knows that a “mart” is a department or variety store, therefore another term could not be superior on any grounds. Again, he points out “church” in Acts 7:38, but this seems to be a doctrinal issue, nothing to do with so-called “archaic” language. Again, he points out “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, but surely this is one of many examples of objections based on the author’s opinions.

Quote:

Other KJV-only myths about archaic words include the claim that they should be left in the text and the claim that accuracy will be sacrificed if they are changed.

This is no myth. Any revising of the actual words and language of the King James Bible as it now stands is going to be detrimental.

Quote:

If it was wrong to update archaic words, by the same reasoning it would have been wrong for the KJV translators to update the earlier English Bibles.

Here Norris does not acknowledge the teaching that being purified seven times is limited to seven times (see Psalm 12). After that, it is final. There were seven main early modern English Protestant Bibles of the Reformation. Once finalised, there was no need to change the version or the translation.

The version and translation have not been changed in the King James Bible since 1611. The editions, with all their corrections or standardising of the spelling, etc., cannot be considered in the same light. Moreover, even such editorial work is now complete.

Quote:

When some KJV-only advocates in effect condemn the updating of archaic words in the KJV,

Since there are no “archaic” words in the Bible, and since no words can be truly altered to be any more accurate, this is not a logical sequence.

Quote:

by a consistent application of that same reasoning they would also in effect be condemning the KJV and its updating of many archaic words.

Norris claims that the revising of former versions was an updating of archaic words. In reality, it was actually an improvement of the text and the translation. The KJB translators did not have an agenda or mandate to “update ‘archaic’ words” as such, but obviously cared for communicating the exact sense with the best English word possible at every place.

Quote:

If KJV-only advocates know how to translate some places more clearly and how to update the archaic words, why don't they do it?

This is untrue, in that KJB-onlyists do NOT know how to translate some places more clearly, and do not see the need to “update” any word, since none is out of date. I am sure that any true KJBO would rejected ANY changes in the translation as it has stood since 1611.

Quote:

Will these KJV-only advocates ever accept and use any edition or revision of the KJV that uses updated spelling and vocabulary?

Of course, any newly modernised edition should be rejected. However, there was the traditional work of standardising the language, such as bringing in a uniformity of spelling, which is entirely acceptable. This was a finite process, and has come to its conclusion.

Finally, Norris’ convolutes the case,

Quote:

The letters that make up a word are not more important than the intended meaning of the words. If all the individual letters are considered more important, it would imply that it was wrong for the spelling in the 1611 edition to have been updated. It seems that some KJV-only advocates even oppose the updating of the spelling of some words in the KJV even though they accept a great deal of updated spelling and other changes from the 1762 and 1769 KJV editions and even later editions. Some accepted changes were made as late as the 1880’s in Oxford editions of the KJV and as late as 1900 in Cambridge editions of the KJV.

In reality, words are important, not merely letters. But the Scripture states that even the jots and tittles cannot fail, meaning the letters.

The emphasis on words and letters is not an emphasis on typographical errors in the 1611 Edition. Clearly, there needed to be, and has been, purification of the presentation in various editions. Updated spelling and various editing of words is quite right. But that has been finalised.

Norris admits that “Some accepted changes were made as late as the 1880’s in Oxford editions of the KJV and as late as 1900 in Cambridge editions of the KJV.”

Quote:

In effect, some KJV-only advocates seem to be promoting current KJV's with many more than one hundred thirty alterations from the original 1611 edition of the KJV as being the same text as the 1611.

There is a vast difference between alterations of typographical errors, spelling and other editorial work when compared to actual changes in the version and translation. There are simply no real changes to the version and translation from 1611 to now. Therefore, Norris’ words on this topic are but empty slurs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 22115)

Around the time I was completing the “Glistering Truths” monograph (www.bibleprotector.com/glistering_truths.pdf), I came across a booklet by Rick Norris called “KJV-only Myths about Archaic Words in the KJV”. (Norris has made some comments on “Glistering Truths”, or rather, asked some rhetorical questions. Of course, his questions are easy to disarm, but would throw the unwary off balance. I thought I would address some of his ideas and statements, and his accusations disguised as questions.)

Rick Norris’ booklet:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperbac...-words/2175450

For further reading of my view:
www.bibleprotector.com/trumpet.pdf

I want to take the opportunity to dissect Norris’ work, as a kind of review, and warning to the unwary.

Here is Norris’ opening line:

First, you will note that Norris writes in the passive voice. This is a wonderful tactic for sounding “fair” and “balanced”.

If he said, “KJV-only advocates seek to answer and refute any evidence that they think would conflict with their reasoning Based on their professed love for the Bible and their KJV-only view’s claim that the KJV is the only valid Bible in English”, (putting the second half of the sentence first), it would be clear that he is not reporting factually, but in fact slurring KJV-only advocates for not being able to answer and refute “any evidence” (which begs the fact that such evidence exists), and that the KJV-only advocate’s final line of defence is merely a “professed love”, that is implying that it is merely a form of tradition, and actually only in words, not practice.

Welcome to the world of Rick Norris, where everything is innuendo, implied, seemed, likely and probable... for example, he goes on to explain concerning KJB-onlyists:

All these maybes lead him to a conclusion that

Now, the main thesis:

Clearly, to say that someone seems willing cannot be substantiated without facts. Of course, when it comes to facts, Rick Norris goes into quotefest mode. He cites everything he can lay his hands on, filling whole paragraphs with quotations. But quotations are a double-edged thing. Sure, they make you look balanced and scholarly, and garnish paragraphs of a treatise very nicely, but it is possible there are other quotes from the same authors which do not match to your view.

Norris quotes numerous King James Only advocates without ever dividing them into different camps or parties. A TRO is not the same as a Ruckmanite, yet Norris does not see it in his interest to make such distinctions. He quotes a whole raft of authors, who give various numbers on how many archaic words they think might be in the King James Bible. My own opinion is that there are in practice no archaic words, but according to Norris’ definitions, that would be a “myth”, which he enthusiastically gives a whole paragraph of dictionary citations to better define that word for us.

Of course, Norris favours the highest numbers possible for his real amount of archaic words in the KJB, giving citations of non-KJBO sources.

Norris goes on to include “thee”, “thou”, “ye”, etc. to reach

This fast becomes ludicrous when there might or might not be 14,000 archaic words. Of course, there are actually nought, but if we accept the most conservative claim of 6000, that is still way more than what non-KJBO word experts claim,

If Weigle claimed over a thousand, Norris has multiplied to get to 20,000. But it should be obvious that Norris is not interested in those 20,000 words which normal readers cannot comprehend in the Bible. Norris’ agenda must be exposed: He is merely taking the route of the widest as possible departure from the KJB. In other words, there is an agenda, whether unspoken or admitted, to make the King James Bible advocates appear as wrong as possible.

Dictionaries are not objective. Webster was a Bible reviser. The Oxford English Dictionary is not final authority. Therefore, if a word is said to be “archaic” in the dictionary, and yet that word is used in the King James Bible, which is current, then all such words cannot be really said to be archaic, especially if they have a special use. For example, words like “propitiation” are not normally used, but that does not make this term “archaic”. If it be said that this is a theological term, then we at least can defend that all the words in the Bible are theological, for they are the words of God.

I plainly state this is the case, and shewed numerous examples in “Glistering Truths” to this effect. All Norris did was question whether or not the forms as printed in 1611 (and since altered) were more accurate, because they might have been the translators’ intended wordings. In reality, we know that the presentation printed in 1611 does not match what the translators intended in final presentation, because we know that they would not approve of typesetting errors as the actual representation of their work. Also, we know that editors have diligently and particularly worked to ensure that the presentation is correct as we now have it. And when we look, we find that each word is accurate.

Norris goes on to rubbish the idea of the “internal dictionary”. He goes on to say

Let’s consider that not all KJB people are always right all of the time. Let’s hypothesise that the idea of an internal dictionary does not have to apply to every last detail. If I take Norris’ case study of “coney”, I would have to conclude that the “coney”, based on common use, the OED, the writings of learned ministers, and on Scripture context is the rabbit. I suspect that Norris has the agenda of rejecting the King James Bible (and the Geneva and Bishops’), and a commitment to some ethereal “true” meaning in the Hebrew. Pointing out that some KJB people disagree is no different than saying how many different views there are among modernist scholars. Clearly, when there are diverse opinions (as there are on any subject), only particular ones are right. Scripturally and spiritually we should retain the word "coney" for that it doubtless has a particular application, e.g. to a young rabbit.

Notice that we have accelerated from “archaic” words to “archaic” phrases also. Doubtless, “archaic” verses of meaningless (or, unmeaning) nonsense or “unfortunate” phrases (according to one “expert”) are to follow. Maybe even a chapter of Scripture, like Isaiah 18?

Norris excels himself by saying,

What printing errors remain?

His real issue is with us for retaining something which is now “changed”. Since when did man’s theories necessitate change to the Word of God?

Or, if the Holy Ghost is not present, the effect may be as though some words were as foreign.

Isa 29:11 "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed"

Instead of glistering truths, instead of beacons and lighthouses, suddenly the King James Bible words are treacherous, destructive, and even deceptive.

Norris then launches into dreary lists of comparison to the former Protestant English Bibles. He tries to argue that they have better wording than the King James Bible, an object impossible to prove. Of course, Rick Norris does not have to prove it, if he just asks the questions over and again, like,

It is the questioning of the KJB which itself is the doubt. He does not have to say, “The KJB is wrong”, just keep asking in a way to cast aspersions about it.

It goes on for pages and pages.

We should see that the KJB was a genuine revision of former Bibles, whereas works like Webster’s revised edition, or the American Baptist Revision (reported on in) 1852, were of an entirely different nature. They were not refining things like the KJB did to the Bishops’ etc. Those unauthorised revisions went against the whole line of King James Bible editorial work, changing words, and often needlessly making all kinds of alterations.

Actually, the overall evidence is that they did accomplish this. The slanted and misintepreted “evidence” given by Rick Norris, again in long lists, is that he obviously thinks that numerous Geneva words are better.

In this list, he points out “mart” at Isaiah 23:4. Everyone knows that a “mart” is a department or variety store, therefore another term could not be superior on any grounds. Again, he points out “church” in Acts 7:38, but this seems to be a doctrinal issue, nothing to do with so-called “archaic” language. Again, he points out “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, but surely this is one of many examples of objections based on the author’s opinions.

This is no myth. Any revising of the actual words and language of the King James Bible as it now stands is going to be detrimental.

Here Norris does not acknowledge the teaching that being purified seven times is limited to seven times (see Psalm 12). After that, it is final. There were seven main early modern English Protestant Bibles of the Reformation. Once finalised, there was no need to change the version or the translation.

The version and translation have not been changed in the King James Bible since 1611. The editions, with all their corrections or standardising of the spelling, etc., cannot be considered in the same light. Moreover, even such editorial work is now complete.

Since there are no “archaic” words in the Bible, and since no words can be truly altered to be any more accurate, this is not a logical sequence.

Norris claims that the revising of former versions was an updating of archaic words. In reality, it was actually an improvement of the text and the translation. The KJB translators did not have an agenda or mandate to “update ‘archaic’ words” as such, but obviously cared for communicating the exact sense with the best English word possible at every place.

This is untrue, in that KJB-onlyists do NOT know how to translate some places more clearly, and do not see the need to “update” any word, since none is out of date. I am sure that any true KJBO would rejected ANY changes in the translation as it has stood since 1611.

Of course, any newly modernised edition should be rejected. However, there was the traditional work of standardising the language, such as bringing in a uniformity of spelling, which is entirely acceptable. This was a finite process, and has come to its conclusion.

Finally, Norris’ convolutes the case,

In reality, words are important, not merely letters. But the Scripture states that even the jots and tittles cannot fail, meaning the letters.

The emphasis on words and letters is not an emphasis on typographical errors in the 1611 Edition. Clearly, there needed to be, and has been, purification of the presentation in various editions. Updated spelling and various editing of words is quite right. But that has been finalised.

Norris admits that “Some accepted changes were made as late as the 1880’s in Oxford editions of the KJV and as late as 1900 in Cambridge editions of the KJV.”

There is a vast difference between alterations of typographical errors, spelling and other editorial work when compared to actual changes in the version and translation. There are simply no real changes to the version and translation from 1611 to now. Therefore, Norris’ words on this topic are but empty slurs.

Matthew, my view of Norris is he is a Jesuit, but I'm baffled because first of all Jesuits can count. I don't know where he gets his "20,000" words since the KJV, around 770,000 words distributed over 36,000 verses, only has a total vocabulary of just under 6000 words, only 8 of those declared "obsolete and archaic" by Oxford/Cambridge University.

I've known some Jehovah's Witnesses who were stupid, I don't know if I ever met any who were that stupid.

Grace and peace

Tony

No tell Norris and his clouds of dust

Hi brother Matthew. Thank you for your examination of the endless dronings of Rick Norris. He is presently over at the FFF forum droning on with his constant doubts about everything.

I like your statement here: "Here Norris does not acknowledge the teaching that being purified seven times is limited to seven times (see Psalm 12). After that, it is final. There were seven main early modern English Protestant Bibles of the Reformation. Once finalised, there was no need to change the version or the translation.

The version and translation have not been changed in the King James Bible since 1611. The editions, with all their corrections or standardising of the spelling, etc., cannot be considered in the same light. Moreover, even such editorial work is now complete."

One sure way to make Norris look like the Bible Agnostic that he is, is to simply ask him if any particular whole verse is found in his "original languages" thingies he keeps talking about as his final authority. He will never come right out and tell anybody if a particular whole verse (like Luke 17:36 or 1 John 5:7, etc) is in his "original languages" version or not.

I keep asking him to tell us where we can get a copy of his "original languages" Yada Yadas, or if he can post them or send them via email, and he never has any response to this direct challenge, but instead he just keeps on droning along by raising other questions and doubts about everything else he can possibly think of.

As you probably already know (but some here may not) I have read his book The Unbound Scriptures, and have written a response to them. Some here may find them to be of help in recognizing where this bible agnostic is coming from and how to answer his silly claims.

My response starts here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucke...criptures.html

By His grace believing the Book men like No Tell Norris don't believe and can't find,

Will Kinney

Speaking of the devil

Right after I posted here, I checked on an email notice I had, and sure enough, Rick Norris was at it again. Here is my answer to him. Rick is now calling himself Coverdale. This is actually a code name meaning Coverup.

Coverup's Constant Cavilings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
(a.k.a. Rick Norris) Why do you skip over the fact that if "God forbid" was properly found in the Geneva and Bishops' Bible, why did the KJV translators change it to "far be it" at 2 Samuel 20:20?

Since you claimed that "God forbid" was properly found in Tyndale's and Matthew's Bible, why the KJV translators change it to "Not so" at Acts 10:14?
(end of Rick Norris' post that I copied. I ignored the rest.)

Rick, your constant cavilings only show that you have no idea of the workings of the Sovereign God of the Universe who keeps His promises to give us "the book of the LORD". Your whole focus is on the abilities and failing of fallen man. You yourself are clearly not satisfied with any Bible out there in Biblelon today.

It is blatantly obvious to all of us who actually have a Book that we believe, that your yourself have no such Book. You constantly drone on about how different people rendered various words from one version to the next, but you yourself will never come right out and tell us what your "original languages" actually say about anything. Why? Because you do not know how your "original languages" read nor what they mean.

God Himself is completely out of the picture with you and how you view the preservation of His words into a perfect and 100% true Holy Bible in any language. In your view, God has dropped the ball, or didn't really mean what it appears He said, and the best He has been able to do as far as preserving His words in history is to have them "out there somewhere" among thousands of scraps of musty manuscripts (most of which no longer exist at all) and has left it up to us to squabble about what might be the best way to translate a particular word or phrase IF we can agree that it should even be in our multi-choice "bibles" or not. But you can't agree among yourselves whether the word should be in or out, and people are reading these lifeless rags you guys keep churning out less and less every day.

You're an interesting guy, Rick. Sort of like watching a train wreck or a house burn down.

Will K

brother Matthew,

Thank you for the review of Rick Norris' booklet of fallacies. Obviously, if one doesn't have the Holy Spirit working in them, they're never going to understand the KJV. That's what I believe is the REAL issue. People want to intellectualize it, when that cannot be done! I don't care how many years of schooling a person has, or what their schooling is in - NOTHING can outrank a truly Holy Spirit-inspired believer of God's Word.

Sadly, people are filled with so many doubts and they're being told how impossibly challenging the KJV is to read, study, or understand - that, when they do so, they're expecting to be in fruitless frustration with it. I've experienced no such thing. From the moment I picked up a KJV and began reading, the words just seem to flow, so very beautifully and eloquently! NO OTHER version can beat the depth of understanding that can be gotten from the KJV, when a person BELIEVES.

In addition to God inspiring His written Word and PRESERVING it, God also gave the Holy Spirit to all believers, for understanding. All we need to do is BELIEVE - God opens the eyes and the mind of the true believer!

Jassy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 22172)

instead he just keeps on droning along by raising other questions and doubts about everything else he can possibly think of.

As you probably already know (but some here may not) I have read his book The Unbound Scriptures, and have written a response to them. Some here may find them to be of help in recognizing where this bible agnostic is coming from and how to answer his silly claims.

My response starts here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucke...criptures.html

Thanks Will.

Rick Norris will have a lot to answer for. In case people are unaware (and I post this in condensed form for those who are skimming), he is the author of the new "Cambridge Paragraph KJV," in which Norris somehow determines what the "original intent" of the KJV translators were in order to form a "new and improved" edition of the KJV. In doing so, he reverts to printing and presentation errors that were purified out of the KJV text long ago, and introduces a new level of confusion in the market with regard to KJV Bibles. Last I read, a certain well-known Bible software company (not mine!) decided to make his text "the" KJV text, meaning that anyone using their software couldn't trust the KJV text within.

Update: Woops, I got my Bible correctors confused. I am confusing Rick Norris with David Norton. Mea Culpa!

Quote:

only has a total vocabulary of just under 6000 words, only 8 of those declared "obsolete and archaic" by Oxford/Cambridge University.

I am wondering which words these are.

As I have pointed out, the Oxford English Dictionary is an authoritative record of the historical usage of the English language, but it is not final authority when it comes to the use of Bible English, that is, words as they are used in the Scripture.

Therefore, if the OED said something was archaic, yet it was in the KJB today, we would have to say that the word used in the KJB today is not "archaic", or at least, that its Biblical use is not an archaic word, use or form.

This is because the Bible itself is final authority, not the OED. The OED can report of word usage, including the Bible in its scope. But the OED was not designed to be prescriptive, and man’s work of the dictionary does not trump God’s words. But that does not mean that we deny the dictionary, or cast it out. But we must hold it as subservient to God's Word.

Rick Norris' (almost predictable) response to my above review so far has been:

Quote:

"Perhaps since some definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary have been pointed out that are a problem for KJV-only claims."

I wonder which claims are supposedly problematic.

In “Glistering Truths” I thought I was explicitly clear that “vail” differs from “veil”, or that “neesings” differs from “sneezed”.

I am not operating under the assumption that there are any archaic words in the Bible, but if any word is unusual or difficult, I recommend first using the Bible only to find out the meaning, and secondly, using sources like the dictionary as a help. Too often what is supposed to be a help is really a hindrance because people elevate the words of man higher than God’s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 22204)

Correction: I mixed up Rick Norris with David Norton. My apologies for the confusion and error.

It is laughable that anti-KJBO people build their case on the basis of their false assumptions.

Rick Norris and friends teach that if a person does not understand a word, or misunderstands it, that they will be lead astray or shipwrecked. In other words, there is no allowance for the Holy Ghost to help people in any way. If the KJB is "hard", it's too bad, and they will get dashed on the rocks.

This is exactly what Rick Norris claims (his usual manner is to grab quotes from his own pre-existing reservoir of articles, booklets and other materials which he has collated, the following is a quote he put on a forum which is a direct quote from page seven of his own booklet) —

Quote:

Words still in use but whose meaning may have completely changed or may have changed a great deal can cause a misunderstanding of the truths of God's Word. Words used with quite different meaning from what they once possessed can be like hidden rocks which give no notice of their presence but on which a boat is more likely to be shipwrecked than on rocks that can be seen above the water. Readers may assume that they know these words and their meaning without realizing that the word had a very different meaning in 1611.

So Norris thinks that the words of Scripture are rocks meant to be avoided if seen and feared if unseen!?!

So much for:
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (Psalms 119:105)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 22250)

I am not operating under the assumption that there are any archaic words in the Bible, but if any word is unusual or difficult, I recommend first using the Bible only to find out the meaning, and secondly, using sources like the dictionary as a help. Too often what is supposed to be a help is really a hindrance because people elevate the words of man higher than God’s.

Good points. Gracias,
Will K

Appearance of Evil

I'm certainly no expert in the Bible versions issue, and while I'm currently a "KJV Best" advocate, I'm not (yet! <grin>) a KJVO person. In any case, I had to come to the defense of the KJV in church last weekend.

The pastor was discussing 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22 "Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil."

He mentioned that we usually think of "abstain from all appearance of evil" as never acting in a way that others may mistake for wickedness, and this is how I always looked at it. However, taken in context with the previous verses, it may be more correct that this verse is referring to rejecting new prophecies that were not true. Since the Scriptures were not completed yet, NT believers had to be very careful about new prophecies. Paul was telling them not to despise them, but to prove them (like the Bereans), and to hold fast to those that are true, but to stay away from those that are not.

My main reason for posting this is that he began by saying that the KJV translation was a "bad translation".

As has been discussed in this thread, we need to learn to understand the KJV Bible, not keep revising it every couple of years to try and mold it to the current "understanding" of English words. I pointed out that the word "appearance" also means something that comes out of mid-air, as when a magician makes a rabbit appear. Thus, "abstain from all appearance of evil" perfectly well fits the understanding of "stay away from all new emerging evil [prophecies]".

When I approached him with this, he said he in no way meant to put down the KJV Bible, though in my mind saying that it was a bad translation was certainly putting it down!

Doug A.

I pointed out that the word "appearance" also means something that comes out of mid-air, as when a magician makes a rabbit appear. Thus, "abstain from all appearance of evil" perfectly well fits the understanding of "stay away from all new emerging evil [prophecies]".

That's a good point. I hadn't quite seen it like that, but I think you are on to something. The KJB communicates both ideas with the same phrasing, and both can be right.

Thanks,
Will K

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 22249)

I am wondering which words these are.

Matthew, back in the late 80s in America we have what is called Public TV, supported by private donations, and at that time had a series called The History Of English. There was a book that was published concurrent to the show. In the show they pointed out in 1601 there were 5 dialects of English with 3 "foreign" indigenous tongues. The dialects were North, South, East Midlands, West Miidlands, and Kent. The 3 languages were Welsh, Celt, and Gaelic. By 1631, 20 years after the publication of the KJV, there was one dialect and the indigenous languages had fallen into disuse.

This show pointed out the vocabulary of the KJV as being under 6000 words, with the 8 that were declared "archaic and obsolete." I suppose the book is around and probably copies of the show. My Cambridge ring binder notebook KJV had those 8 words on a page in the back, my copy is rotting in some dump someplace after my mother and I were dispossessed of our home and all our possessions in a bank foreclosure scam. God bless America. Right

I can't get over Norris claiming "6000-20,000 obsolete words" The total vocabulary of the KJV is only 6000. Has he been sniffing paint? He is saying every word in the KJV is obsolete. He's saying words that are not in the vocabulary are obsolete. a 20,000 word vocabulary is 4000 under the total used by Shakespeare, which was written in Elizabethan English, not Jacobean, as the KJV was.

I think Jack chick here in America has it dead on: The Jesuits as just as active today as they were in the 1500s. I read these people and think, Kutilek? Jesuit. James White? Jesuit. But to step into the intellectual manhole Norris has, claiming that the number of "obsolete" words a book has exceeds it's vocabulary by over 3 times is too much for even the Jesuits to accept.

Grace and peace brother.

Tony

Those "archaic" words

Hi Tony. I have just a bit more info on that PBS program.

I do not believe the Bible is supposed to be translated into contemporary street language. The English of the KJB 1611 was not written in "street language" even at that time.

According to Oxford University, and the PBS series 'The History of English':

William Shakespeare used a total vocabulary of just over 24,000 words. In 2003 16,000 of those words are "obsolete".

Edgar Allen Poe used a total vocabulary of under 18,000 words. In 2003 9,550 of those words are "obsolete".

The King James Bible contains a total vocabulary of just over 6,000 words. In 2003 approximately 8 of those words are "obsolete".

Look at the divine pattern through history. We believe the Hebrew Old Testament was inspired by God. Yet the Jewish people in Israel today do not speak in the same Hebrew as is found in their scriptures, but they understand it. Not one of them would even consider "updating" the Hebrew text.

Most Bible critics I meet tell us we need to "go to the Hebrew and the Greek" to find out what God really said. This is so ironic. If we find a few old "archaic words" in the King James Bible that are hard to understand, they recommend instead that we learn Hebrew and Greek! Now, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Besides this, all of the translators behind such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted or even lost in numerous places, so they reject these readings. Yet, even if we followed the Hebrew and Greek texts, we would then be learning hundreds and hundreds of "archaic words", because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not read as do modern Greek and Hebrew!

The same is true of the Greek Orthodox church. The Greek New Testament is not written in the same Greek that is spoken today in Greece, yet they understand it. None of those who believe it to be God's words are clamoring for a modern, up to date, "comic book" version.

God knew beforehand that languages would change and I believe He intended that His word would be placed in a form of language that would be different from that spoken on the street. God's Book is not supposed to read like people on the street talk. It never did.

The King James Bible reads differently from any other book. It is not like a newspaper, nor is it meant to sound like one. The Bible is an ancient book filled with timeless wisdom. I am impressed by the fact that this King James Bible has been around for a long time; it reads differently than any other book; it speaks like no man does in the pulpit, on radio or television, and I have to think about what it is saying. I don't just breeze through it like a tabloid magazine. When I slow down to think about what it says, I find that God speaks to me.

Will K

More about "archaic words". What about the mvs?

There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.

He also shows many examples of words in the modern versions which most people would have to look up in a dictionary.

Here are some of those words found in the "easy to read" NIV.

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."

Well, how about the New KJV? Can you pass this vocabulary test even with a few of my "helpful hints"? Let's see.

The vocabulary of the New King James Version, along with some "helpful hints".

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling, buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede), burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city), carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion (not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money), commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede , compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed, contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers (not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill), cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses (not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up), dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower), docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut), envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal, fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head), filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller (not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool), immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?), jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden, lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug), moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff), omnipotent, onager (Job 39:5 - you won't believe this one!) oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet(not a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot), pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray), prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck), ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled (does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute ( does not have to do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks, sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer, spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield, winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.

So you see, besides the very serious textual matter, the modern versions also have words hard to be understood. Try giving this list of words as a vocabulary test and see if your son or daughter, or even yourself gets a passing score.

Will K

Just want to let you all know how much I have enjoyed reading this thread. I have learned a lot.

What is funny is that Rick Norris' method of producing long lists is now adopted by other anti-KJBOs, because they want to look smart. They are, of course, pale imitations of the master of scholastolatry.

The thing is that Norris has actually done some research, so his lists hold up to some kind of investigation (though his conclusions are wrong, of course).

If someone comes along and asks, "which edition?" and produces a random list of dates, it is clear that they do not really know anything of what they are talking about when they produce a list like this:

Quote:

Which one?

1611 edition of the KJV [facsimile digital reproduction in Gothic type]
1611 edition of the KJV [reprint in Roman type]
1612
1613
1631 "Wicked Bible"
1672 edition of the KJV with Geneva Bible notes [two volume photocopy]
1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1777 Oxford edition of the KJV
1782 first American edition of the KJV [reprint]
1790 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1795 Oxford edition of the KJV
1804 Oxford edition of the KJV
1810 Oxford edition of the KJV
1812 Oxford edition of the KJV
1817 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1824 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1824 London edition of the KJV [Eyre and Strahan]
1828 Oxford edition of the KJV
1829 Oxford edition of the KJV
1833 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1835 Oxford edition of the KJV
1837 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1838 Oxford edition of the KJV
1840 Oxford edition of the KJV
1842 Cambridge edition of the KJV [two small volumes]
1842 Edinburgh edition of the KJV
1843 American Bible Society edition of the KJV
1844 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1847 Oxford edition of the KJV
1850 Oxford edition of the KJV
1851 Edinburgh edition of the KJV
1853 American Bible Society edition of the KJV [special unique edition]
1857 Oxford edition of the KJV
1859 Oxford edition of the KJV
1860 London edition of the KJV [Eyre and Spottiswoode]
1865 Oxford edition of the KJV
1865 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1868 Oxford edition of the KJV
1869 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1870 Oxford edition of the KJV
1872 Cambridge edition of the KJV
1873 Cambridge edition of the KJV edited by Scrivener
1876 Oxford edition of the KJV
1880 Oxford edition of the KJV
1885 Oxford edition of the KJV
1887 Cambridge edition of the KJV
2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV edited by David Norton
2007 Pure Cambridge Edition by Bibleprotector

At least Rick Norris that was credible. I am sure he would start like this:

Quote:

1611 "He"
1611 "She"
1612 8vo
1612 8vo
1612 Q. Roman
1612 Q. Roman
1613 F.
1613 Q.
1613 Q.
1616 F.
1617 F.

For someone to say the following is a sure sign of an amateur who knows nothing of what he speaks, nor whereof he affirms:
"1611 edition of the KJV [facsimile digital reproduction in Gothic type]
1611 edition of the KJV [reprint in Roman type]"

The reprint dated from 1833 (and subsequent years) is based on that one in blackletter typeface.

And the list is woefully short of important editions. What about really obvious dates, like the 1629 and the 1638. Anyone who really knows anything about King James Bible editions would surely know those two.

And what about the 1769 Oxford Edition. Omitting that one is just... words fail ...

And what about the 1762 Cambridge Edition.

I would like to know what exactly the differences are between the following two:
“1869 Cambridge edition of the KJV
...
1872 Cambridge edition of the KJV”.

The edition said to be mine is actually from Cambridge some hundred years beforehand.

Anyway, Will Kinney's answer to such accusations is here:

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/1429474-post184.html

Will Kinney

Quote:

Most Bible critics I meet tell us we need to "go to the Hebrew and the Greek" to find out what God really said. This is so ironic. If we find a few old "archaic words" in the King James Bible that are hard to understand, they recommend instead that we learn Hebrew and Greek! Now, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Besides this, all of the translators behind such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted or even lost in numerous places, so they reject these readings. Yet, even if we followed the Hebrew and Greek texts, we would then be learning hundreds and hundreds of "archaic words", because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not read as do modern Greek and Hebrew!

Theirs is a deceptive argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You almost have to think it is feigned ignorance, though I'm sure in many cases it is just brain-washing and peer pressure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 22586)

I agree Will, the show was useful for information, like any secular endeavor you have to sift it for what is useful and what is not.

Grace and peace brother

Tony